Will update again for Northwestern -with a longer paradigm

I think the game is best when students are comfortable and presenting arguments at a high level. I will try my best to adjudicate the debate in front of me. Here are some things to keep in mind:

1. I'm decently versed in anti-blackness literature. So if that is your thing, awesome. I'm excited to hear your particular work. Just know because of my background I have a high threshold for that argument set. If it's not, that's ok but just know I expect arguments to have a certain level of depth to them and won't just vote on arguments that I don't understand.

2. I haven't judge alot on this topic. So different topic phrasings have to be parsed out for me.

3. I'm all about the link and impact game

4. Not a fan of the overly confrontational approach

5. Slow down on analytics

6. I'm very expressive judging debates so pay attention to the non-verbals

7. FW is cool with me - has to be impacted well.

8. DA/CPs are cool if explained well.

9. Will vote on condo - not a fan of conditional planks

Hope this helps.

Revised: 3/20/14

My first year judging at the NDT I had an important conversation with Dallas Perkins that still impacts my thinking about judging today. I expressed to him a bit of my anxiety about judging and the possibility of ending someone’s career. I’m paraphrasing here, but he said something to the effect of “People should ask two things when determining who the good judges are: 1- Do they try their hardest? 2- Are they willing to vote for the team that won no matter who they are?” Over the years I have found that these characteristics are simple in theory and sometimes difficult in practice. If I have the honor of judging you then I will most assuredly make a mistake somewhere, but I will strive to try my hardest and vote for the team that won no matter who they are.

How do I determine who won?

Rather than prescribing a set of argument preferences, I think it may be more productive to articulate my decision-making process because I think that we are at a moment where my preferences are not as important to me as helping debaters understand how I evaluate debates. Here is how I generally try to decide a debate: 

1- I start by isolating the central questions of the debate: The second the debate is over I write a list of questions that I need to resolve. Sometimes I can do this without actually looking at my flows, but after I write the questions down I go back and check my flows to make sure I am not missing any major controversies. The key part of this stage is forcing myself to determine the issues that are essential to my decision versus things that *may* become relevant assuming certain teams win certain things.

2- Specific questions I tend to ask myself after almost every debate:

-Assuming both teams won all their arguments, who would win the debate?

-Is there a major execution error?

-Is there a team lacking offense on any given position?

-Has either team won an impact framing argument by virtue of execution or evidence?

-Is there significant argument interaction?

3- I determine which questions require reading evidence. Ross Smith taught me that starting with the evidence first can result in decisions that de-emphasize the important argument interactions that the debaters work hard at establishing during their speeches. There are lots of questions, however, where the quality of the evidence is an essential component of resolving a key question of the debate.

4- Dueling Banjos: After I figure out the issues that need evidence I create little duals on my flow between the relevant arguments in the mini-debate.  It is helpful when I read the evidence or examine the arguments to think of it in terms of a mini-debate so that I don't get caught up thinking about the potential implications of the evidence or argument for issues beyond the part that I am trying to resolve. If I don’t do this then I can get lost down the rabbit hole.

5- Devil’s Advocate: After I answer all the questions I have come up with right after the debate, I play devil's advocate with myself two times. This is something that I learned from David Heidt. Basically, I write a mini-ballot for the team I think has won the debate. Something super short like "I vote AFF because I think the case impacts happen faster than the DA." Then, I pretend I am the other team and cross ex myself on the "what abouts?" I often end up determining that the "What abouts?" are good arguments that are just not in the debate. Sometimes, however, the "What abouts" force me to look at something I may have overlooked. I would say that 85-90 percent of the time I vote the way I wrote the RFD but sometimes I realize I was overlooking something important.

6- I isolate issues in the debate that "test my judge philosophy" so that I can tell the debaters after the debate that other judges may vote on X but my personal philosophy is Y because _____. Here is an example: at our district tournament a couple of years back I was on the bottom of a 2-1 when the 2ar forgot to go to a sheet of paper where the Neg had extended an argument that the status quo solved all the aff so vote neg on presumption. The other two judges thought it was bad and didn't vote on it. I am still at the stage of my judging career where bad arguments need to be called bad arguments. So, I voted neg and explained that the aff was winning the rest of the debate, but that in my view of the debate was decided on something technical. Inevitably, this happens about once a tournament.

7- Preventing the RFD that never ends: After I make my decision, I sit down and write the first 45-60 seconds of my decision out so that I can read aloud the short synopsis of how I voted. This is something I learned from Will Repko. For panel debates, I tend to write out a good chunk of my RFD just in case someone takes longer to decide and to ensure that I keep my comments concise. I have found that often times the debaters want to focus on the central question(s) of the debate and my ramblings about other things turns out to be less interesting to them.

8- The Triad:  Sometimes it varies on the situation, but I try to give exactly three pieces of advice for both teams. Numbering the advice and limiting it to 3 helps me not wander around my RFD with random pieces of advice. I have found that the thing that really makes debaters angry is when I have voted against them and then flippantly say something like "you could have done X better" and the debaters freak out and say "Dude, this is my overview where I said X exactly like you just did!" The key to avoiding those interactions is for me not to venture into random musings on the fly.

9) Personal judging idiosyncrasies:

I usually decide any theory debate as an "option of last resort" for the team that needs it to win.

I usually decide a link debate first before worrying about uniqueness because of my belief that uniqueness is often a question of the direction of the link.

I usually wear head phones to try to minimize being influenced by other judges.

I usually go up to the debaters to call for cards and hand them a sheet of paper with list of cards I want so as to not influence the other judges. This isn’t as relevant if there is an email chain going.

I usually ask to go last (or later) if I am on the bottom of a big split (4-1) so I can get a sense of where I split with the majority of judges.

I usually go for a walk around the hall once before I come back and look at my whole list of questions and my thought process to make sure I am comfortable with it before I sign my ballot.

Thank you for the opportunity to judge you.

Jarrod

Paradigm: tldr Please don't pref me, I'd rather be doing my grad school work and I absolutely hate judging debates.
I don't know anything about this topic, and I will probably continue to avoid it. You don't want me in your framework debates. Fairness is not an impact. I also don't care to hear your space scenarios in general. On the flip side don't read an aff that is like "vote for me cuz I'm X identity and X identity can do no wrong". What I mean by this is I prefer arguments grounded in a structural theory of power that recognizes that power operates through even the most oppressed people instead of simply saying things like "you have a white partner, you lose" or something like that. Also please don't read afropessimism just because I'm in the back of the room. Nothing is worse than listening to someone butcher the theory that grounds your scholarly work for the purposes of "judge adaptation".

Paradigm.

Short-pre-round version: Former Director of Debate and Policy/CX debate coach at Calhoun High School (Georgia). Former NDT debater, college assistant coach. After my re-entry into the activity in 2002, I worked to learn the K, and my paradigm is still evolving. So far, I have been willing to listen to anything. I tend to reward debaters with clash and explanation, and teams that are clever and willing to take risks. I am taking another break from debate starting Fall 2019 and will not be as familiar with the topic or trendy arguments, so please slow down and explain.

Longer, working on prefs, version: Lived the debate life in high school (Southern California) and then college (Univ of Redlands). Started at the bottom but thanks to a great college coach (Southworth), some outstanding partners, and a supportive community, I had some success as a senior (won Kentucky RR, Wake, a few others, and a top 5 bid to NDT). Taught summers at Golden West, Wake, Georgetown, and Emory workshops. I researched for several debate handbooks (something we used to do), and assisted at high schools including Calhoun, Damien, GBN and Holt HS (Alabama). After leaving U of R in 1980, I assistant coached some outstanding high school teams, Samford University, and Calhoun. Co-authored the debate theory article with my friend Dr. Walter Ulrich, "Bad Theory as a Voting Issue" in 1982. Went to law school at Bama after that, and put debate away completely until my children were of age to start debating in Georgia's middle school league in 2002. That led to coaching the high school team, and since 2005 I have been the director of debate at Calhoun (small public school in rural Georgia with great debate and speech history - about an hour north of Atlanta). Was fortunate to bring in Ed Williams to head coach for a couple of years, and have also had some outstanding assistants (Jadon Marianetti, Jim Schultz, Kristen Lowe, Natalie Bennie, Judy Butler, and '16-17 Lenny Brahin, also sister Lynn [former NDT debater for Louisville, also now an attorney].)

Clarity: I may throw in the occasional warning of "clear" to debaters, but after two or three "clears", I will put down my pen and look annoyed until I can comprehend the argument. If you think from visual clues that I am not getting the argument, I probably am not.

I coached for many years on the national and regional (Georgia) circuit. I have a team of very dedicated and intense policy debaters. I have historically written a lot of our arguments, but the team and assistants are doing most all of that this year. Just point this out so you understand that just because my team runs an argument doesn't mean that I like it, or that I completely understand it. Coaching is a purely volunteer position, and my two part-time/full-time jobs are as the Judge of the Gordon County Juvenile (child abuse and neglect, deliquency cases) and as a private attorney representing plainitiffs in personal injury and victim's rights cases. I am usually accompanied at tournaments by my spouse, Carol, who is sort of team Mom, travel agent and organizer of all things.

Likes/dislikes: I judge debate because I love debate and the community and the education it provides. I try to be extremely objective, and believe I have the reputation of voting for teams because I think they won, never because of rep or outside (or inside the round) influences. In fact, I tend to react badly if I believe a team or coach is trying to exert undue influence. Post-round I will give my critique, and will answer respectful and honest questions from the debaters. I expect a team I drop (and their coaches) to be unhappy, but no matter what, please be nice to your opponents, your partner, your coaches, and your judge.

My email: Beardenlaw@aol.com.

Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at NSU University School

Last Update: November 2023---Thoughts on "Disclosure" and "Evidence Ethics" in PF added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. I don’t think I have particularly controversial views, but have tried to be thorough where it matters for prefs/pre-round prep.

Policy vs. K---An argument is an argument, assuming it’s complete, warranted, and applicable.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

Associate Director of Debate @ KU

Last Updated: Pre-GSU 2016

Quick pre-round notes:

I would prefer speech docs while I judge. Please email them to bricker312@gmail.com.

The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.

I reward teams that demonstrate a robust knowledge of the topic and literature concerning the topic.

More info:

1. The word "interpretation" matters more to me than some. You must counterdefine words, or you will likely lose. You must meet your theory interpretation, or you will likely lose.
2. The words "voting issue" matter more to me than some. I am not searching for cheap shots, nor do I especially enjoy theory debates. However, I feel that I would be intervening if I applied "reject the argument not the team" to arguments that debaters did not explicitly apply the impact takeout to. That said, proliferation of empty voting issues will not only hurt your speaker points, but can be grouped and pretty easily disposed of by opponents.
3. "Turns the case" matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the aff doesn't solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1ar.

I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points.

Argument issues:

Topicality – It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not yet been persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability; however, the reason for this usually lies with the fact that affirmatives fail to question the conventional wisdom that limits are good.

Kritiks – It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death. As a general rule, I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.

Counterplans – I am up in the air about textual vs. functional competition – they both have their time and place, and are probably not universal rules. The cross-ex answer “for your DAs but not your counterplans” has always made negative sense to me. I understand that there are MANDATES of the plan and EFFECTS of the plan; I find this distinction more understandable than the usual c-x answer.

Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:

Conditionality – it's feeling like a little bit much at the moment
PICs – Good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan
Consult/Condition – Up in the air and context specific. Solvency advocates, aff stances, etc. can change my feelings.
Delay – Aff leaning, but might be more competitive based on the structure of the affirmative, or a cross-ex answer. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage that takes the position the advantage can only be solved if it happens before "X" date, then the counterplan to do it after that date seems competitive.
Word PICs – Aff leaning
Alternate non-USFG actors – Aff leaning


Demeanor issues:

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. Don't misclose.

Finally, our community relies on host tournaments with classroom space - don't steal, defame or destroy it.

Any questions, ask.

History
I debated 3 years at Baltimore City College High School. The first year of my high school career I did mainly Policy Debate. The last two years of my Debate career I delved into the Kritik on both sides of the Debate. The majority of my arguments were mostly race theory and arguments about antiblackness.

I mostly debated the k and I love kritiks. I think that a kritical perspective is important for opening the activity to more marginalized experiences. I believe that it can be productive both for the sport and for the community.  

Paradigm
Despite my love for Kritiks and Race arguments, I will admit that I am less biased than most with my orientation. When I watch and Judge debate, I will do my best to listen carefully to the actual arguments being made and will vote on almost anything if you win the debate. I believe that debate should be about even competition that is based on what is said in round and how it effects the outside world. In terms of argumentation I believe in truth and tech almost equally, with truth just weighing slightly higher on the scale. This means that a conceded argument is true, but within context of reason. I do value the flow; and it still has a major impact on my decision.  

I am fine with spreading; just be clear and slow on tags.

For K teams
For K teams, explain arguments and links. If I do not understand why things are the way they are or even how the Alternative solves for things. then I will have more trouble voting you up. Do yourself a favor and impact and explain each claim you make. For those reading Kritiks I believe a genuine belief and representation of the arguments your talking about is important. Also, if your an all white team that reads a race k against poc I will likely not vote on it unless it has a legit (and I mean hardcore legit) link. That being said in any situation, I will try my best to be open minded.

Policy v Ks/plans with critical advantages
For Policy Teams that are on the Aff and are going against such arguments; do not break out k-ish advantages for a super policy Aff. You should just read what you want and the do the neccessary level of argumentation to win against such arguments. If you naturally read policy affs that have a k twist; then that is fine. 

Topicality
In order for me to vote on Topicality; it really needs to be impacted out. There should probably be more to the Standards part of the Debate other than education and Fairness. (Recently that has been the only extension of T that I have heard in debates that I have judged.) If it is education and Fairness you need to answer the questions of "why is the model of debate that you are advocating for producing important? Other questions such as, "what is the type of education you are producing/why is that good?" What is fairness and why does that matter in this Debate especially against the opponents Impacts. These are the the types of questions that need to be answered in addition to answering the other teams arguments in order to get my ballot. Answering these questions are probably not strictly regulated to folks who run T/FW...., but I have found that the explanations to these questions have been severely lacking in the majority of rounds that I've judged with teams who have brought up this argument. This is why I put this explanation here. I will admit; I am more open than I used to be, but I still do not believe that you were forced to run T. However, I will vote on it if the necessary work is done. In terms of articulation I would be interested in hearing a critical spin on Framework argument that talks about why the State focus may be good politically for (whater K is being talked about.) I am good on theory, so if you run it I'm cool. I'm more geared towards social political justice arguments, but whatever.

Michigan State University ‘15

butle121@msu.edu

-I really value working hard and high quality research. I think creativity and innovation are equally important

-I do politics work for MSU, I don’t know much else about the specifics of the topic

-Speaker points – If a tournament offers a scale that will be my default. Strategy and smart decisions will matter a lot more to me than the way you sound

-I can be persuaded on anything, this is a list of how I think I will judge a debate, not necessarily the rigid burdens for how I will do so

-Cheaters never win. (i.e. clipping cards)

-I think I value how true an argument is quite a bit 

-There isn't always a risk of something

-Reasonability makes a lot more sense to me in most topicality debates

-Reject the argument not the team

-Conditionality is probably good, but three makes it a debate

-The AFF is pretty much always ahead on counterplan competition questions that relate to certainty

-My default is to kick the CP for you

-Another default is to let the AFF define what the words in the plan mean

-Bad arguments can probably be 100% dropped and it wouldn’t matter (the DA is not intrinsic comes to mind)

-On that note, the politics disad is good and has an internal link

-I really don’t think I would be as bad for K debates as some might think. That being said, I’m really not familiar with a lot of the k literature. I think specificity is obviously important, as are questions of what the alternative actually does.

-In terms of debates without plans, I find that both sides have persuasive arguments but generally believe that my default would err towards teams that argue that plans/stable advocacies facilitate the best discussions. This is an abstract preference - assuming both sides debate equally - not an ideological imposition. I am open to hearing debates about this and any issue and will attempt to decide debates based upon their merits without applying my preferences. 

-I can’t imagine that I would procedurally never listen to any argument

-When I thought about the kind of debater I wanted to be it was always to be like Casey. Now that I think about the kind of judge I would like to be, I find that the answer is also like Casey. So, I’ll do my best to judge your debate like he would. https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_account_id=6397

Background:

• I debated for Niles West in high school and West Georgia in college.
• BA in Philosophy.
• Currently coaching at Niles West.

Email:

• gershom000@gmail.com

Top level things:

• If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is.
• If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
• Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
• I’m extremely hesitant to vote on arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.
• Absolutely no ties and the first team that asks for one will lose my ballot.
• Soliciting any outside assistance during a round will lose my ballot.

Pet peeves:

• Lack of clarity. Clarity > speed 100% of the time.
• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.
• Email-sending related failures.
• Dead time.
• Stealing prep.
• Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team.
• Asserting things are dropped when they aren't.
• Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards.
• Marking almost every card in the doc.
• Disappearing after the round.
• Quoting my paradigm in your speeches.
• Sending PDFs instead of Word Docs.

Ethics:

• If you are caught clipping you will receive a loss and the lowest possible points.
• If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points.
• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.

Cross-x:

• Yes, I’m fine with tag-team cx. But dominating your partner’s cx will result in lower points for both of you.
• Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions, and I will run the timer accordingly.
• If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo.
• If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate:

• I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting.

Affirmatives:

• I’m fine with plan or planless affirmatives. However, I believe all affirmatives should advocate for/defend something. What that something entails is up for debate, but I’m hesitant to vote for affirmatives that defend absolutely nothing.

Topicality:

• I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
• The most important thing for me in T debates is an in-depth explanation of the types of affs your interp would include/exclude and the impact that the inclusion/exclusion would have on debate.
• 5 second ASPEC shells/the like have become nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans:

• For me counterplans are more about competition than theory. While I tend to lean more neg on questions of CP theory, I lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps.

Disads:

• If you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn, it should go on its own sheet. Failure to do so is super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders.

Kritiks:

• The more specific the link the better. Even if your cards aren’t that specific, applying your evidence to the specifics of the affirmative through nuanced analysis is always preferable to a generic link extension.
• ‘You link you lose’ strategies are not my favorite. I’m willing to vote on them if the other team fails to respond properly, but I’m very sympathetic to aff arguments about it being a bad model for debate.
• I find many framework debates end up being two ships passing in the night. Line by line answers to the other team's framework standards goes a long way in helping win framework in front of me.

Theory:

• Almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, condo is usually the only exception.
• Conditionality is often good. It can be not. I have found myself to be increasingly aff leaning on extreme conditionality (think many plank cps where all of the planks are conditional + 4-5 more conditional options).
• Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Framework/T-USfg:

• I find impacts about debatability, clash, and iterative testing to be very persuasive.
• I am not really persuaded by fairness impacts, but will vote on it if mishandled.
• I am not really persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.
• I am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.
• I don't think debate is role-playing.

• If the aff drops SSD or the TVA and the 2NR extends it, I will most likely vote neg.

COVID UPDATE:

IF PREP IS NOT RUNNING YOU SHOULD NOT BE MUTED. IF PREP IS NOT RUNNING YOUR CAMERA SHOULD BE ON. IF THE SPEECH HAS NOT STARTED YOU SHOULD NOT BE SCROLLING THROUGH THE DOCUMENT.

YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY MUTE YOURSELF TO PREP, THAT IS A-OKAY! MUTE YOUR CAMERA FOR ALL I CARE, WHAT I CARE ABOUT IS TIMES WHEN THERE IS DOWNTIME AND NO TIMER IS RUNNING.

THIS IS FOR PEOPLE WHO STOP PREP AND THEN TAKE A MINUTE TO SEND THE EMAIL, STOP PREP AND THEN MUTE THEIR CAMERA AND MIC, AND THOSE WHO BLANTANTLY STEAL PREP TIME. IF PREP TIME IS NOT RUNNING AND YOU ARE NOWHERE TO BE FOUND I WILL ASSUME YOU ARE STEALING PREP.

TL;DR: DON'T STEAL PREP, DON'T BE SUS.

YOU HAVE AN EQUAL PREP TIME TO SOLVE TECH ISSUES. IF YOU DO NOT FIX TECH ISSUES IN THE ALLOTTED TIME, I WILL START YOUR ACTUAL PREP TIMER, IF YOU USE UP ALL YOUR PREP TIME I WILL START YOUR SPEECH TIME.

CLARITY IS NOW MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER. SPEAK CLEARLY. SPEAK AT A RATE OF SPEED THAT ALLOWS YOU TO MAINTAIN CLARITY.

Basics:

Give an order, speak clearly, do not exceed the speed at which you can speak, do not whisper, do not interrupt your partner excessively, give warrants, talk about evidence, time yourself, use all your speech time, go in order, only go for one thing in the 2NR, make a tonal distinction between cards and tags, tell me when you go from one sheet of paper to another sheet of paper, go for dropped arguments and extend dropped arguments don't just say "they dropped ______."

Argument preference:

You do you. I'm okay with any style of debate.

I will vote for any argument that is explained, warranted, and impacted.

If you are reading policy arguments explain them a bit more, I did critical debate for 6 years.

Clarity is important.

No ties.

Clipping will result in a loss & lowest possible points.

College:

If policy team vs policy team the one who does more explanation and judge instruction wins.

If clash, do what you do. Don't shy away from Cap K/FW; if it works run it. More than willing to vote on FW if it is won. Same goes for Aff vs K, if you win it I will vote for it.

If K team vs K team the one who does more explanation and judge instruction wins.

EMAIL CHAIN: nickcharles888@gmail.com

Joshua Clark

Montgomery Bell Academy

University of Michigan - Institute Instructor
Email: jreubenclark10@gmail.com

Past Schools:
Juan Diego Catholic
Notre Dame in Sherman Oaks
Damien

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

Website:
HSImpact.com

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

Please put me on the doc chain. bennettproxy7 AT gmail.

I debated for Wake Forest for four years (2012-2016). I currently work for a DC-based think tank, researching terrorism and counterterrorism policy.

Caveat: I don't judge a lot- likely one tournament per year or less. Please:

SLOW DOWN.

Avoid jargon/acronyms/buzzwords.

Respond to verbal/non-verbal cues. I have a terrible poker face.

Be careful with topic-specific minutiae.

Keep in mind that I don't stay up to date with what happened in debate since I left. I don't know what happened in your other debates or in the community, and I very likely don't know who you are. This will make it very difficult for me to decide debates in which these factors are expected to be in play.

Preferences:

I focus pretty heavily on the "policy" side of things in terms of my professional/academic background. I would guess 90% of any given college judging pool is better suited to judge K debates than me: they read more of the literature, are in the weeds coaching for/against the arguments, and may be more ideologically inclined to buy parts of the arguments. If your strategy relies on going for critical arguments (on the aff or neg), you should know that while I can likely spot a beatdown, I'm a huge liability for you in toss-up debates and you should probably pref me very low or strike me.

Places where I lean aff: the politics DA is usually terrible, links are yes/no questions, reasonability>competing interpretations for topicality.

Places where I lean neg: process CPs are theoretically legitimate, no strong aversion to multiple conditional options, lower threshold to vote neg on presumption against affs that don't defend the enactment of policy.

High points for in-depth case debates involving any variety of 1ac and scrappy moves (straight turns, impact turns, well-executed backfile checks).

Really, really low points in "K aff vs. framework neg" and "policy aff vs. K neg" debates where the case is an afterthought (i.e., most of these debates). Also: long overview + no line-by-line= low points.

Zero points and the loss if your opponent proves you cheated or did something else egregious and stakes the debate on it.

elyse.conklin@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

For e-mail chains (both pls):

damiendebate47@gmail.com

mcclurecronin@gmail.com

About me - I debated for 8 years competitively, starting at Douglas High School (Minden, NV) before transferring to Sage Ridge (Reno, NV) where I debated with the incredibly brilliant Kristen Lowe. We were the first team from Northern Nevada to qualify to the TOC and had a pretty consistent record of deep elim appearances. I went on to debate at Wake Forest University (class of '17) with varying amounts of success on a wide range of arguments, finishing my career with Varun Reddy in semis of CEDA. I currently work as a legal assistant and lobbyist in Reno/Carson City when I'm not out and about judging and coaching debate.

I have also been published a couple times. I don't think any of it applies, but please don't read my work in front of me. That's just awkward.

2023-24 Update: I am just getting back into debate after a roughly 2 year hiatus. Please slow down a tad and know that my prior experience with the topic (camps, summer files, etc.) is pretty much nonexistent.

Generally - YOU DO YOU!!! I cannot stress that enough. Be aware of my general thoughts on debate, but I want to judge the debate that you want to have!! I have increasingly found that my role as an educator and adjudicator in debate prioritizes the debaters themselves, whatever argument that they want to make, and providing them with the advice and opportunities to be better that I can. It is extremely unlikely (but not impossible) that you read an argument that is entirely new to me.

Whether the 1AC has a plan, an advocacy text, or neither, truly makes no difference to me. It is up to you to explain to me why I should care. I have become increasingly frustrated with the people so quick to say "no plan, no chance at my ballot". This is a pedagogical question.

I consider myself a hard working judge. I will flow, I will read cards, and I will take the time to make the best decision I can.

That being said, the following are my thoughts on certain arguments and some pointers on how to win my ballot.

The kritik - Really dig K debates. I'm pretty well read in a lot of different theories and genuinely enjoy reading critical theory, but I still prefer clarity in explanation. The less jargon you use, the easier it will be to win a K in front of me. Overall, I find that framework args are increasingly irrelevant to the way that I evaluate these debates. Both teams will (hopefully) always win why their conversation is good, so just do the impact calc. But also answer critical framing args about ethics/reps/ontology/etc. For the aff - I find that permutations are pretty underutilized when it comes to mitigating links and find myself voting aff in policy v K debates on permutations more than I would have anticipated. Alternatives are usually the weakest part of a K IMO so leveraging bits and pieces that may not be mutually exclusive, in addition to winning some offense/defense, will go a long way. I also think impact turning is something that is truly underutilized by affirmatives that are facing off with a kritik. Digging in on certain points of neg offense can work wonders. DO NOT say things like anti-blackness, sexism, ableism, etc. are good though. PLEASE explain why your aff outweighs the K, especially if you have big stick impacts that are basically designed for some of these debates... For the neg - framing is absolutely essential. I like 2NRs on the K that guide me through my decision in a technical fashion. Links should obviously be as contextualized to the aff as possible. I am frequently persuaded by teams that realize the alt is a dumpster fire and shift to framework for the same effect. I am more likely to vote negative when there is case debating happening in line with the K, as well. Whether that is impact defense or some sort of "satellite" K, well, that's up to you.

The flourishing of performance debate has really effected the way that I think about form and content in the debate setting. I think these arguments are extremely valuable to the activity and I thoroughly enjoy debates about debate as well.

The DA - I think these debates are pretty straight forward. Do your impact calc, win your link, answer uniqueness overwhelms, etc. I like power plays where the aff straight turns a DA, especially if the 1NC was a lot of off case positions.

The CP - don't judge as many of these debates as I would like. A good counterplan with a specific solvency advocate will impress me. I think these arguments are relatively straight forward as well. In terms of theory issues like PICs bad, condo bad, etc., I truly don't have much of an opinion on these issues, but that doesn't mean I will let you get away with shenanigans. I would prefer arguments to be contextualized to in round abuse claims and how the role of the affirmative became structurally impossible. Rarely do I judge a theory debate, but I would be interested to hear more of them.

I do not default to kicking the CP for the negative. I think the 2NR needs to make that choice for themselves and stick with it. That doesn't necessarily mean I cannot be persuaded otherwise, however. This question should be raised before the 2NR for it to be persuasive to me.

Topicality - I like T debates. Limits isn't an impact in and of itself, I want to hear more explanation on how limits effects what should be your "vision of the topic" holistically, what affs and ground exist within it, and why those debates are good. Education impacts that are contextualized and specific will go a long way for me, whether it be in the context of the aff or the resolution.

I am increasingly persuaded by teams that give me a case list and explain what sort of ground exists within that limited topic.

Framework - I am an advocate for engaging with the affirmative and whatever it is that they have to say. I don't think framework should be taken off the table completely, though, and if you do plan to go for it just know that I require a lot more work on a topical version of the aff and some sort of in-road to how you resolve the claims of the 1AC. There are a lot of framework debates I have judged where I wish the 2NR did some work on the case flow -- ex: aff is about movements, 2NR makes arguments about why movements are coopted or repressed, therefore state engagement is essential.... whatever.

Procedural fairness is becoming less and less persuasive to me. I would vote on it if I have to, but I likely won't be happy.

I believe that debate is a game, but a game that has unique pedagogical benefits.

I may seem "K happy" but I promise my judging record proves that I am more than willing to vote on framework. But like I said, there needs to be more interaction between the affirmative and a limited vision of the topic. I have found that a lot of teams give case lists (both on the aff and the neg) but there is little to no clash over what those affirmatives are and why they are or are not good for debate. If you are trying to make arguments about why your vision of the topic provides a better set of affirmations, whether policy or critical, then there must be some comparison between the two. And those comparisons must have some sort of impact.

Other things - if there is anything else, please feel free to ask me. I know that some of this is vague, but my thoughts tend to change based off of the argument that is being presented and how exactly it is explained. I probably lean more on the side of truth over tech, but that doesn't mean I will make a decision wholly irrelevant to what is said in the debate unless I feel that it is absolutely necessary and something terrible happened. Plus I like to think I keep a clean flow so obvi tech still matters. I have absolutely no qualms checking debaters that are being rude or problematic. That being said, I look forward to judging you and happy prep!

Updated on 09/24/15

The only thing you really need to know:

I believe debate is an academic event and as a judge my role in the academy is to evaluate and facilitate the academic trajectory of the debaters. I don't think that my notions of what debate should or shouldn't be should ever limit the academic path of the debaters. I debated for 4 years in high school and in college. I currently am in my 5th year of coaching. In the six years that i have debated so far i have run everything from politics to Ks of secularism and some performance stuff. It doesn't really matter what you run in front of me i will evaluate it how you want me to. i have seen a lot of different styles of debate. that being said i am a K debater. i have gone for the K on both sides of the res for about 3 years now. The most important thing you can do is to write the ballot for me in the last speeches.

If you want to know more specific things read on.

T/Specs/Procedurals. I like really good T debates. You probably need to read cards in it and to tell me what the affs are included in your case list. I am not a fan of over-limiting the topic but the surveillance topic has a potential to be GIANT. I think that T and procedural should have some sort of in round abuse or reason why you are disadvantaged. I like T to be debated like DA's as well. In a world where you don't give me a way to evaluate topicality I will default to compete interps but can be easily sold on reasonability. These should also have impacts and you should tell me why the loss of X is important in the big picture. I want external impacts to these arguments not just they over limit or they destroy education. tell me why this matters for debate or for your project. I am very comfortable voting on Ks of T.

Framework: .I really enjoy these debates. Though the old state is good line can be a bit boring. I tend to reward creative positions with high points. In the clash of civ I default to K's as a whole being acceptable in debate though as I coach more it is becoming easier to win my ballot with framework. It is really hard to get me to throw an entire category of argument out, so this is my default to resolve sloppy framework debates: In framework debates if the aff/neg team wins their K bad framework and there are no voting issues about the legitimacy of the K I will evaluate case against that of the K and if the K team wins why framework is bad or a K framework is better i will evaluate the K first. I also think its dumb to grant K teams their framework and really hard to come back from when you are framed out of the round. they should have to defend why Ks are better.

I think a framework of evaluation is present in every debate, and I think that it is precisely what has been missing from the kritik for years. I find “real” impacts the most important aspect of the framework debate—“we should evaluate debates like this because…” of the education the framework provides and the impact of that type of education.

Counter plans: I am cool with them. i like a really good and specific CP but i find in most debates i am rather disappointed in that requirement. I actually love process CPs. i think PICs are awesome and probably fair to the aff but that's a debate to be had.

Dis-Ads: Read them, just give me a way to compare the impacts against case or vice versa. impact calc is very important in these debates and i want them because i don't really want to compare three different extinction scenarios after the 2ar. that's your job in the debate to tell me why your extinction scenario is better than the other teams. I think that 0 risk can exist in these debates but i prefer an offensive strategy when answering these from the aff.

Kritiks: I LOVE them. that being said don't run Ks if you cant defend them and don't know them. I know what most authors say at least on a basic level but you still need to explain your argument to me. i am not a fan of giant overviews unless they are in the 2ar and 2nr. on the alt i am not a huge fan of just reject the aff i like something a bit more substantive and specific. if your alt is just reject i want to know why that rejection matters and what it means in the context of the debate and the K itself. i am a huge fan of impact Ks. I am also a big fan of specific links especially in a close perm debate. I think the perm is a really important tool here and even multiple perms but don't go over board. I hate bad kritik debates more than I hate bad straight-up debates, and bad non-traditional debates are the worst of them all (in other words, for kritik debaters and non-traditional debaters, there is no excuse).

Experimental/deferral arguments: i am cool with these. i think they have a great strategic value that few teams use to their full potential. know how to use these well, if you have a metaphor in the 1ac or 1nc make sure it is pulled through to later speeches.

ID politics and Performance: Do your thing. This has been a growing interest in my academic path lately and i am much more familar with these then i have been in the past. Make sure you explain the purpose and goal of your project in regards to the meaning of my ballot and how it relates to the debate/community.

Theory: I think that most theory debates are rather shallow and underdeveloped. If you want it to be a viable option there needs to be some time to get the tags and warrants down. i think there should be in round abuse and even then i am not moved by petty fairness claims. i think they are rather dumb sometimes. You don't need gigantic shells with me, especially when you first introduce the argument. If you don't specifically address the other team's responses, you probably won't win my ballot. If you end up going for it, and it was straight dropped you don't need to spend all your time on it but it needs to fleshed out and the previous speeches need to have enough in them to justify 2ar/2nr extrapolations. i usually will vote on it if it is dropped. it seems that the only way to evaluate whether a standard is reasonable or whether a definition provides appropriate limits is to assess how the definition/standard combination effect the fair division of ground... and offense/defense seems a good way to figure that out. that means on theory and T i will default to offense/defense when evaluating it. All this being said, I find myself more willing to vote on theory than not.

Misc. I think terminal D is cool and i will vote on it but I think that offense is better. i like to have something to place my hat on at the end of the round and offense is the best way to do that

Speaker points: i will go from a 27.5 to a 30.

The bottom line is do what you do to win and i will judge it to the best of my abilities. Have fun don't make the debate unbearable for me or the other team. i like GOOD jokes in speeches.

Do what you want, debate is supposed to be fun!

I have 10+ years of policy debate experience as a competitor, coach, and judge.  My own view of debate have changed as I started as a CP/Da debater and am now very appreicate of innovative affirmatives and negatives.  Without being too cheesy debate is about education and critical thinking meaning that the debate space is a safe space. I believe that the debate space is a space where change can occur, and think that debaters have an obligation to push the social justice agenda.  I don't define what this is, but allow you to work on your own engagement on the issues that matter to you.   

Having spent time in other formats as a coach and judge I tend to prefer "manner" more than other judges, not necessarily in the speech but how you present yourself in round.  This means that I'm not judging you on if you wore a tie or not, but rather how did you engage with your opposition. Presentation of an argument affects how I engage with it. 

AFF - I am open to "K affs" but may be a bit more skeptical at first with a case I have not heard yet.  Not saying don't run it but don't assume I am where you are on this topic.  On this I am more familair with class issues as opposed to race/gender  so be willing to give me a framework or treat me as you would a high school freshman on your team.

NEG - anything goes 

I am open to any arguments as long as they were well represented within the speeches, or are clear enough to make it onto the flow.  Other than that there is little to say, and I consider myself a "tabula rasa" judge, but if no other weighting criterion is offered by either team I defalt to a policy making framework. 

 Only other notes:

Ts must prove in round abuse.  Out of round is not enough of a voter.

Ks need to be explained outside the cards and in the own debaters voice.  I.e a surface level knowledge will not be enought to persaude me.  I dont do work for debaters and will decide based on the flow.

Speed - fine with speed, will yell "clear" if I can't understand.  Does not happen often but be warned. 

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

Top-level, I really love debate and am honored to be judging your debate. I promise to try my best to judge the round fairly, and I hope the notes below help you. Most of the below notes are just some general predispositions/ thoughts. I firmly believe that debaters should control the debate space and will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, regardless of if you adapt to these preferences or not.

I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative. I am probably not the greatest person for counterplan competition debates.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of "I will vote against you for bad decisions you made out of round" or allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

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.

Debate is a fun competitive research game. Ask questions if you have them.

sauljhonathanforman@gmail.com

The #1 tip I can give you is that debate is about comparisons - no matter what you're going for, explain why I prefer your stuff even if they win their stuff

1. Cliff Notes

- Not familiar with the topic

- No preference for the number of issues in a debate.

- An argument isn't dropped just bc there's no ink next to it

- Having to choose from non-specific strategies, I prefer politics/case d, a topic t arg, or a topic kritik to process counterplans and kritiks about death and omissions in the 1ac

- I'm going to try to find any way not to vote on cheap shots, so if you're going for "Neg fiat or perms are a voting issue" close all doors

- K frameworks that change the decision from yes/no policy can be won, but even if you win "the role of the ballot is to form ethical subjectivity" you still need to win why the Aff's subjectivity is bad, which sometimes requires beating the case

- Counterplan competition - I generally think of it as textual / functional competition - CPs that contain all of the words in the plan are usually cheating

- The only relevant question for T is the most predictable interpretation

- Neither "uniqueness controls the link" nor "link controls uniqueness" mean anything - they're both uncertain estimates of the future

- I probably won't vote on reasonability

- I like jokes, but I also like taking speaker points from people who make unfunny jokes at other people that make them feel bad

- An argument has both an explanation of its validity (warrant) and of how it alters the way I think about the rest of the debate (impact)

- Critiques - both teams should debate the alternative - even if it's a critical pedagogy or something, explain how that solves both your and the other team's impacts

2. T-USFG

(Note: these are my gut leanings - I'm not emotionally attached to these and could be convinced to vote the other way)

- The Affirmative should defend a topical plan

- That does not mean the Neg gets a free pass - you should still defend why a more limited topic is more important than their offense

- Still do impact calculus - it's even more important here - why is having a limited topic more important than the existence of a general antagonism outside of the debate

- Fairness/predictability is an impact because debate is a competitive activity centered around argument

- Connect your offense to the ballot - if debate is dead and the ballot is structurally exclusionary then I need to understand why an Aff ballot would then resolve that

- I probably won't think it's a reverse voting issue

- Critiques of the topic are not a reason "being topical" is bad

- Critiques of debate as "Truth forming" are not a reason argument is bad

- You don't need a "Topical Version" of the Aff - just that your model of debate preserves their form of education / subjectivity / whatever

3. Speaker points

- Basic scale – 29.2-29.5: one of the top 3 speakers at the tournament; 28.8-29.1: top 10 speakers at the tournament; 28.4-28.7: very good, expect to break; 27.9-28.3: pretty good, shows some competence, but lacking technical skills in other areas; 27.5-27.8: below average, lacking technical ability in more areas than not; 27.0-27.4: poor, doesn’t fully participate in the debate or exhibits one or two moments of comprehension; 26.9 and below: you were offensive – it doesn’t mean you are a bad person, but something you did was deeply unsettling or hurt someone else in the round

I debated at Emory from 2015-2019, where I also coached for a year. I've since been out of the activity as I've been working on my PhD in political science.

I love debate. Thank you for the opportunity to judge your round.

As a judge, I promise I'll listen to you and flow carefully. That said, I don't have much patience for arguments that demonstrate a lack of serious research, but it is the responsibility of the other team to point that out.

Do what you do best. Still, I would recommend doing the following:

• Make fewer, better arguments.
• Read a topical plan.
• Organize your arguments so they are easy to follow. I do not find run-on paragraphs to be an effective way of communicating, and I will not be reading along in the speech document.

Good luck--and have fun!

Wake Forest 2014-2018

Email: nedgidley@gmail.com

Texas 2023 Update

Hello! I’m excited to be back judging after a brief hiatus. I had a bad hand injury earlier this fall; two bigger implications of this:
1. Extremely limited topic knowledge—I have not judged on the topic.
2. Flowing somehow even worse—I’m still adjusting to writing/typing with my right hand so I will be needing extra time to flow.

Pre-Northwestern 2021 Update (too many updates, need to clean up this mess)

Topic seems big and complex. I don't know very much so I would err on the side of explaining extra.

ADA/NDT/CEDA Update 2021

Top level--make choices. Prioritize arguments and explain why they matter. Reading comments like this is annoying but I have judged both policy and clash debates where both sides played a game of chicken except neither side caved so the judges just had to evaluate a bunch with almost no comparison, weighing, or calculus. This important for rebuttals but can start early: does the 1nc really need ConCon with 8 words highlighted? Does the aff need 3 advantages? You could extend both DAs quickly in the block or pick one and win it. Also I like a good case debate (realize harder with teams breaking new stuff).

Online debate--[grumpy flow rant]--I know everyone says slow down but easier said when you aren't the one giving a speech that has to respond to a lot. With that said, I do feel that in almost every debate it would be beneficial if people slowed down on analytics/tags. I think I do flow slower than others, but a benefit of online debate is being able to follow ev on my 2nd monitor. It's the non-card parts of the speech that cause problems. Some send no analytics, which would be fine except very quick perms/counter-interps. Others send the analytics and then just blaze through them because they are in the doc. Even if you slow down a tad saying these and give a tiny bit of pen time, it is very helpful (and adds very little time to the speech).

Cards--I really do like them regardless if it is a DA debate, clash debate, T debate etc. I want to reward qualified and specific evidence. But please don't answer a CX question about a warrant with "we have ev."

Time--would love to minimize the time that is neither speeches nor prep time. I really do like to spend the time to look over my flows thoroughly and read over cards. A lot of my decisions take right up till the end and I appreciate having more time (rather than less).

For Northwestern ‘20/Alliances

I did a tiny bit of executive and space work but did not judge any debates so I’m catching up on the debate meta. I have done some research for alliances.

I’m interested to see how much affs do on this topic. I think that consensus will settle somewhere between a pole on one side of affs blowing up alliances (Bandow’s dream) and tiny affs that tinker on the other pole but we will see. Trump seems to loom over.

Online Debate

Slowing down a bit and being clearer helps. Cross-ex is trickier: 4 people talking at the same time was not great with everyone in the same room but I think it’s even worse over Zoom(or comparable video debate platform).

Prefs/Top Level Stuff

Tech or truth?

Lean tech: if I flow a claim, warrant, and impact for an argument you should answer it. Like most judges, I have a somewhat arbitrary gut check for an argument that’s too absurd to vote on even if dropped; but it’s better to answer an arg that to bank on me to find something absurd.

Policy or K?

I made policy arguments as a debater. I lean policy on most arguments in a given clash debate; if I were a debater with an affinity for critical arguments I would not pref a judge like myself highly. But given the tech note above, policy debaters should be wary of just saying “fairness” and dropping every critical argument.

Cards

Love ‘em. I like when these are read. If you can explain why I should prefer your cards on important issues (nuanced warrants, they assume the other side’s best arg, qualifications, etc.) that goes a long way. Demonstrating that you worked hard to assemble the evidence you have and to come up with the strategy you went for is something I want to reward.

More Specific Things

Debating the Case

Love the case debate. A lot of judge philosophies have phrases along the lines of “lost art” in their judge philosophies and I will say I like a good case debate. This goes for a policy or if people are feeling bold critical affirmative. If you want to go for a case turn in the 2NR, I think you need some extra calculus and “even ifs”/tie-breakers in the 2NR. For link turns, I think normally this would be a timeframe argument or maybe a structural reason why you control the impact. For impact turns, normally this is some external offense and then mitigation of the original impact (could be an inevitability debate with a “now key/the sooner the better” warrant or a reason why you internal link turn the worst part of their scenario). Numbering args isn’t always possible but when the 1NC can introduce this (and the order doesn’t get jumbled in the debate) it is a thing of beauty.

Topicality

T cards aren’t the most exciting to cut but they win debates (for both sides). Defining words is important including counterinterpretations. You should meet your counterinterpretation.

Not of a fan of what Bricker calls “planicality”—word salad plantexts written around topic words to make winning a clear violation tough. I think in a lot of these cases, it might just be better for the neg to punish the aff for not having an advocate for anything close to the plantext and using that for CPs (explained below). Related to this, I think plantext in a vacuum is a phrase that gets thrown around with little to no explanation. If you can explain the relationship between mandates and affects in order to frame how I should view T vs. solvency than I am more likely to be persuaded by it.

Counterplans

I think generally I would describe myself as neg leaning but aff sympathetic. Arguments about fairness are important, but I think the literature surrounding an advocacy really shapes of lot for me. I have a hard time telling the negative why they should be required to have a strict advocate for the counterplan if the aff has a plantext that is not supported by a similar advocate.

PICs—like them. Especially if something is specified or in the plantext/advocacy statement.

Summers 94 CPs (counterplans that rely on should/resolved to be immediate/certain)—harder to win for the neg. Good evidence plus a set-up in cross-ex or a cross-application or a theory argument somewhere else can help.

DAs

It’s important for both sides to relate the aff offense and the DA and weigh them. Turns case/DA is important but I prefer a more direct route: e.g. “the link turns advantage 2…” or “the aff solves prolif” rather than “warming turns prolif” (more indirect). Cards also helpful there.

The link is important; otherwise the DA is irrelevant to the aff. On alliances, I think the neg needs to be weary of reading the link booster cards like “smaller shifts matter” or “any perception” because I think that jeopardizes many (of what I assume will be) UQ stories of “Trump rhetoric doesn’t matter; treaty obligations haven’t changed” if the link isn’t about changing the treaty/agreement.

Clash debates

Really don’t like a long 2NC overview (on framework vs a K aff or on the K vs a policy aff) and then tons of the line by line is just “that was above.” I am sure you have spent time coming up with the correct phrasing for your blocks but if you even just move that explanation to the correct part of the debate, it really helps the flow.

I mentioned above that I love hard work and specific strategies. The more recycled a speech feels, the less likely I am to vote for it. I also like cards. Strategies without cards are not great in front of me. These debates normally have a lot of layers (framework, perms, impacts etc.). That makes this debates difficult (and muddled) because you have to both “win” a lot of important arguments and also explain how those implicate the rest of the debate. A good formula I was told for this was “our link is X, our impact is y, we solve with the alt b/c z, even if they win [their best argument] we still win.”

Other Stuff

Don’t be Terrible

While this applies to blatant behaviors like racism or card clipping, it also applies to just interacting with others generally. We are a set of nerds who get together on weekends to read words off of our laptops quickly. Going hard against your opponent’s argument does not require you to go hard against your opponent. Lying (misdisclosing, misleading, misrepresenting, clipping etc.) is detrimental to fun debates.

Things Outside of the Round

Harder to adjudicate on these. I also haven’t been at tournaments the last two years so I’m sure I’ve missed some community developments.

Reciting This Philosophy in Round

Does anyone like this? I’m sure there are silly things I’ve typed here (maybe a typo); please don’t. I haven’t heard an RFD that went along the lines of “I really loved how you kept calling me by my first name. Then you also told me about what I had written on T in my judge philosophy so I couldn’t vote you down.”

Inserting Rehighlights

Seems to be contentious. I would say I don’t care if you read or insert it but whenever you do so it’s important to explain what you are revealing and why that matters. Normally, I think these are best for contextualization. If you rehighlight paragraphs of text or read aloud every word the other side didn’t read then the gist of it is “see their card says other words” which isn’t very helpful.

Have fun!

Justin Green - Head Coach - Wake Forest University

wfudbt@gmail.com

I plan to clap when the round is done; your effort is appreciated!

Argument Defaults

Preference - The good ones about the topic. Most of my research is on the policy side, but lucky to interact with great debaters and coaches across a wide spectrum of approaches for many years.

Topicality - Yes offense first; defense is essential. Impact turning or going just with reasonability without a quality counter-interp rarely wins.

Policy Aff v the K - Specificity is crucial for both sides. It's rare that I don't consider both the effects of the plan and the scholastic/rhetorical choices including the interactions between the two. Aff's should be prepared to defend the claims made in the 1ac. Winning the world is ordered by an oppressive structure is not enough.

CP Theory - Legitimacy of process CP's increases with more specific advocates. Some conditionality most likely OK - go beyond 2 or 3 or 2nc CP out of impact turns to do the opposite of the 1nc impact; less likely to be ok.

Case Debates - Where have all my heroes gone?

Effective Techniques:

- Articulate when reading! There has been an increasing trend in debates I watch where syllables are consistently muddled or skipped. I'll yell clearer. If I yell it twice know that you are in the danger zone.

- Cross Ex Matters! and it has a time limit – I listen, flow, and those who reference answers from the CX are likely to get higher points. When the timer goes off, it's judge prep even if the two teams decide to continue the CX during prep time. If the two side agree on something when a judge is not there "ex. neg agreed they could kick planks or part of the alt"...please fill me in.

- Smart Analytics exposing flaws can go a long way. Internal link chains and neg K alt solvency are two of many places where this can potentially be effective.

- Quality of Evidence+Quality of Explanation+Quality of comparison=weight of argument

- 2 Tips for last rebuttals beyond impact calculation - Give your partners credit explicitly. Acknowledge where the other side might be correct, but why that is not enough.

Just in case it happens, some strong defaults....

- No shenanigans policy - I expect a 2v2 debate. No three person teams, no one person taking all the speech time, please don't ask for something besides a debate to determine a winner, etc. Two people speaking in the same speech, ok if part of a pre-scripted performance early in the debate. In subsequent speeches, only one person's words count.

- If you ask for a 30. Your speaker points will likely have a 3 in it; 3 will most likely not be the first number. If both you and your partner are asking for a 30, you are playing a dangerous game given the previous sentence.

- Hard to imagine myself voting on elements not related directly to an argument made in the debate (coin flips, previous debates, what their coach did, how someone interacted outside the debate, initials at the end of the card, month of the year). Verified blatant false disclosure of more than a card or two and could be a voting issue.

- Evidence ethics. Yes, follow AFA, ADA and CEDA guidelines. And also, not really trying to vote on: whether the citation includes date accessed, initials of the card cutter (or who cut the card), if there were accidental exclusions of the text that had no material effect.

ENJOY!

I debated for three years at Strath Haven (PA). I don't debate in college, but I still judge and coach part-time. Please email me at mgyourko@gmail.com if you have any further questions. Also, please feel free to email me if I judged you. I usually take detailed notes on my laptop and am glad to share them with you.

I think my predispositions usually do not end up impacting my decision-making, so take everything I say here with a grain of salt. Do what you do best; I just want to hear a good debate. If you don’t have time to read through this whole thing, the bolded bullet points are what you really need to know:

• I make my decisions based off the flow. Regardless of your argumentative preferences, you will win the round if your arguments beat the other team’s on the flow. Be clear on the line-by-line, and do detailed impact calculus and comparison in the rebuttals. Explain your arguments fully and articulate what a ballot for your team means.
• I believe the affirmative should endorse a topical implementation of the resolution by the USFG, and the neg should respond to the 1AC. Framework is a strong strategy against teams that do not do this. That said, I have voted for affs that don't defend the state and negs that don't link to the 1AC, and this probably won't change any time soon. However, you should strongly consider striking me if your preference is to perform.
• Be clear, and don't spread theory/T. As long as you are somehow signaling when you change cards and actual words are coming out of your mouth, you can read cards as fast as you want. I recommend slowing down slightly on tags, and I implore you to slow down during theory and T.
• My kritikal knowledge base is poor. I have a baseline understanding of the most common kritiks, but the more obscure you get, the less likely I am to know what you're talking about. This is particularly true if you read at a million miles per hour or your K has lots of fancy words in it. This is OK, and I'd even dare to say that I like Ks. But it does mean that in the block you need to very clearly and slowly explain the thesis of your K, why it links to the aff, what the role of the ballot is, and why I should vote for you. 
• The rules of the tournament are not up for debate. One team will win, one team will lose, and speech/prep times are set. Prep doesn’t end until the flash is out of your computer.
• Don’t cheat. Please.

The rest of this is very disorganized. Here is a rambling list of some things I think you should do:

• Disclose your aff and past 2NRs before the round
• Flow the whole round
• Use the wiki to at least some extent
• Be respectful of your opponents, tournament staff, and the space in which you are debating
• Come up with smart, analytic takedowns of their stupid cards or arguments. Evidence is useless if it is misinterpreted or logically incoherent. I am a strong believer in an offense/defense paradigm, but I also believe that in some cases, analytic defensive takeouts can result in 0% risk of a disad/advantage. Moreover, you should go for presumption if the other team’s aff is really, really nonsensical and you’ve pointed that out throughout the debate.
• Not expect me to evaluate new arguments. You can (and should) expand on your previous arguments in the rebuttals, but entirely new arguments (claim-impact pairings) are no good. Also, as a heads up I was an angry 2N, so I really won’t be moved by new 2AR arguments.
• Keep overviews to under 30 seconds. An overview should explain your thesis and do some basic impact framing. You do not need to do it all there, however. Use the rest of the flow; it will make it easier for me to vote for you.
• Extend your interpretation/counter-interpretation when going for/defending against T. Unless their interp is terrible beyond a reasonable doubt, there is usually only risk of offense for the team that extended an interp. I don’t think it is possible to win a T debate on the aff without extending a counter-interp, unless you are 100% sure you meet their interp. Similarly on the neg, it’s not possible to win without extending an interp unless you are 100% sure they don’t meet their own interpretation.
• Make sure your T interps are actually interpretations/definitions. Not everything can be T evidence.
• Not read more than 2 conditional advocacies. My general guidelines: 0 or 1 = good, 2 = maybe, 3 = not good, 4+ = just don't.
• Use all of your CX time. You’re robbing your partner of prep if you don’t. I don’t care if you have to ask for your opponent’s opinion about the weather or Taylor Swift, just use the three minutes.
• Have a non-arbitrary role of the ballot. The community has seen a trend toward equating the question of “What should the role of the ballot be?” with “What is the most important issue that could be confronted in this round?”. While this sometimes works well, many times it does not. Ground your arguments about the role of the ballot in what it means for debate as an activity. Your RoB should be portable and applicable to any round.
• Be as technical and specific as possible. Our democracy is broken because our political discourse is composed of vacuous, vague assertions instead of the deliberation of directed policy questions. Debate is a great place to break from that.
• Not expect me to kick the CP for you unless explicitly told to.
• Remember that fiat is about what the USFG *should* do, not what it would do. Arguments like circumvention, rollback, or "Trump trumps" (apparently this is a thing!) are almost certainly illegitimate.

Wayzata (MN) '15

Emory University '19

tiffany.s.haas@gmail.com

Things that might be important:

Topicality -

Against no-plan affs: I generally think that defending the hypothetical implementation of a policy action is good. Fairness is definitely the truest arg, and if you can find a topical version of the aff, you basically won my ballot. That being said, I can also be easily persuaded to vote against framework, as I have been on both sides of the debate and can respect different types of arguments. Framework against a "high theory aff" is particularly persuasive, whereas framework against an identity aff is not.

Against plan affs: I'm a 2A and I've been frustrated the most by losing to T, especially because my aff is my baby and being told it's "not topical" after months of reading it is always a heartbreaking experience. Negative teams will have a hard time going for T in front of me unless you can specifically point out the violation and how that effects limits/ground and what that means for the topic/debate.

Kritiks -

I view the K more as a DA - explain the impact and how it interacts/turns the aff. Do that and you're good.

I find the perm persuasive if the K doesn't actually provide an opportunity cost to the aff. Reading a bunch of links on the perm debate can make sense if they're well-applied and explained, but I'd rather you explain why the perm itself is nonsensical (why the K and the aff are mutually exclusive).

High theory K's are less likely to make sense to me, as I'm not familiar with the lit - don't say "not our baudrillard" because it's probably your baudrillard.

Case - please do it - should be around 4 minutes of the 1NC and a large focus of the block

Politics/DA's - This is a good and bad thing - I'm pretty well-informed on what's going on with 'tix every weekend, so if you're bs-ing I'll be able to tell and your speaks will be punished. It's better to go for what you want, rather than to overadapt and become a politics debate just because I'm in the back.

Jokes are well appreciated (puns, or jokes about Kate Gehling) - add a cat gif to the email chain and <3 <3 <3.

KRHAMRICK@GMAIL.COM

I've been judging debates for a long time. I prefer listening to debates wherein each team presents and executes a well-researched strategy for winning. The ideological flavor of your arguments matters less to me than how you establish clash with your opponents’ arguments. I am open to most anything, understanding that sometimes “you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do” to win the debate.

At the end of the debate, I vote for the team that defends the superior course of action. My ballot constitutes an endorsement of one course relative to another. To win the debate, the affirmative must prove their course is preferable when compared to the status quo or negative alternatives. That being said, I interpret broadly exactly what constitutes a plan/course of action. An alternative is proven a superior course of action when it is net beneficial compared to the entirety of the plan combined with part or parts of the alternative. Simply solving better than the affirmative is not enough: the alternative must force choice. Likewise, claiming a larger advantage than the affirmative is not enough to prove the alternative competitive. A legitimate permutation is defined as the entirety of the "plan" combined with parts or parts of the alternative. Mere avoidance of potential or "unknown" disadvantages, or a link of omission, is insufficient: the negative must read win a link and impact in order to evaluate the relative merits of the plan and the alternative. The 2AC saying something akin to "Perm - do the plan and all noncompetitive parts of the counterplan/alternative" is merely a template for generating permutation ideas, rather than a permutation in and of itself. It's your job to resolve the link, not mine.

I believe there is an inherent value to the topic/resolution, as the topic serves as the jumping off point for the year's discussion. The words of the topic should be examined as a whole. Ultimately, fairness and ground issues determine how strict an interpretation of the topic that I am willing to endorse. The most limiting interpretation of a topic rarely is the best interpretation of a topic for the purposes of our game. The topic is what it is: merely because the negative wishes the topic to be smaller (or the affirmative wishes it bigger, or worded a different way) does not mean that it should be so. An affirmative has to be at its most topical the first time it is run.

I don’t care about any of your SPEC arguments. The affirmative must use the agent specified in the topic wording; subsets are okay. Neither you nor your partner is the United States federal government. The affirmative is stuck with defending the resolutional statement, however I tend to give the affirmative significant leeway as to how they choose to define/defend it. The affirmative is unlikely to persuade me criticisms of advocacy of USFG action should be dismissed as irrelevant to an evaluation of policy efficacy. I believe that switch-side debating is good.

All theory arguments should be contextualized in terms of the topic and the resultant array of affirmative and negative strategies. Reciprocity is a big deal for me, i.e., more negative flex allows for more aff room to maneuver and vice versa). Conditional, topical, and plan inclusive alternatives are presumptively legitimate. A negative strategy reliant on a process counterplan, consultation counterplan, or a vague alternative produces an environment in which in which I am willing to allow greater maneuverability in terms of what I view as legitimate permutations for the affirmative. I’ve long been skeptical of the efficacy of fifty state uniform fiat. Not acting, i.e., the status quo, always remains an option.

Debate itself is up for interrogation within the confines of the round.

I tend to provide a lot of feedback while judging, verbal and otherwise. If you are not clear, I will not attempt to reconstruct what you said. I tend to privilege the cards identified in the last two rebuttals as establishing the critical nexus points of the debate and will read further for clarification and understanding when I feel it necessary. Reading qualifications for your evidence will be rewarded with more speaker points. Reading longer, more warranted evidence will be rewarded with significantly more consideration in the decision process. Clipping cards is cheating and cardclippers should lose.

I value clash and line-by-line debating. Rarely do I find the massive global last rebuttal overview appealing. Having your opponent's speech document doesn't alleviate the need for you to pay attention to what's actually been said in the debate. Flow and, for god's sake, learn how to efficiently save/jump/email/share your speech document. I generally don't follow the speech doc in real time.

"New affs bad" is dumb; don't waste your time or mine. When debating a new aff, the negative gets maximum flexibility.

I believe that both basic civil rights law as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment.

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Hesu%2C+Alan

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan

Head Debate Coach, University of Chicago Lab Schools

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23)

Last updated: April, 2024 (new FR thoughts in the Topicality section, random updates throughout)

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college nuclear forces topic and the HS fiscal redistribution topic. For fiscal redistribution, I gave the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp and I wrote both the Topicality and Job Guarantee Aff/Neg files for their starter pack

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow: I will take Casey Harrigan up on his flowing gauntlet/challenge any day (he might be able to take me if we were both restricted to paper, but on our computers, it's a wrap).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure precious few allegedly "dropped" arguments really are accurately described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

For Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is extremely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and in truth if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a relatively workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing.

That being said, "functional-only" is a very defensible model as well, and I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you.

I don't default to the status quo unless you explicitly flag it at some point during the debate (the cross-x or the 2nc is sufficient if the aff never contests it). I don't know why affs ask this question every cross-x and then never make a theory argument about it. It only hurts you, because it lets the neg get away with something they otherwise wouldn't have.

All that said, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. Nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know... debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would). Second, "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

Flow and respond to what the other team says.

I don't have the speech doc open so do things that make it easier for me to flow. Position yourself so I can hear you. Don't speak into your laptop or stand on the opposite side of the room. Don't read typed-out things like they are the text of a card. Slow down and change the intonation of your voice when you're speaking.

If I don't understand something, I will not vote on it even if it is conceded.

Corss-x starts right after the constructive speech ends.

Starting and stopping prep each time you need to use more prep time will cost at least 15 sec.

Very simply, if you have trigger warnings because the topics are more taboo then I am not the judge for you. If you can't explain it to your school administration or parents without them raising concerns then don't run it in front of me. Time and place are important.

Things I will not vote on (AUTO 25 Speaks):

Arguments that suggest students should engage in risky behavior.

Death is good.

Fear of death is bad

Aff's that don't defend the resolution.

Aff's that link to debate in general instead of the resolution.

Judge pref disclosure

Disclosure

Asking me to vote on something that happened before the debate round started.

Asking me to vote on something that happened after the debate round is over.

Vote for a team because they are part of a marginalized group.

Bataille

Baudrillard

Settler Colonialism

Deleuze

Psychoanalysis

ontological argument

epistemological arguments.

In fact, it would be better if you just didn't run a K.

PIC's

Condo CP's

Topical CP's

Consult CP's

conditions CP's

A Critique of Full Text Disclosure

Spreading bad

A Critique of Disclosure

Vote only for women

This list will be ongoing. I will update it to let you know.

So what is left you might ask:

Case debate

Topicality

Da's

CP's that are not listed above.

Other things you might want to know:

1. Da's can have a zero-risk.

2. Aff adv's can have zero risk

3. Solvency can have zero risk

4. Substantial will be important in these types of debates.

5. The neg will get a healthy dose of presumption.

I really would like to listen to a debate about the resolution.

Updates:

PF is different from Policy. PF shouldn't try and be policy. If you try to be policy in a PF then you won't be as successful. You don't need to spread. Few cards are better. Explaining good. Tagline extensions only are bad.

I have been judging lots of PF rounds. And here are some things you should know.

1. I am more truth over tech. I would consider it
2. You might have evid on the world is flat. It doesn't mean it is true. The other team might not have evid on the world is round. I am still going to vote on the world is round, if they say it is round without evid.
3. The more internal links you have to your impact. The less likely it is.
4. Probability is more important than possibility.
5. Having 20 cards with two-sentence each won't get you very far.
6. Cutting evidence out of context is becoming a problem. Don't do that. Seriously, don't do that.
7. The big questions on the topic matter.
8. Common sense arguments are better than stupid arguments with cards.
9. Saying the other team dropped an argument when they didn't will cost you speaker points! I am tired of hearing this and I would suggest you flow.
10. I listen to cross-x. Cross-x is binding.
11. Spreading in PF is not needed. Your time is better spent going for fewer arguments better than lots of arguments poorly. The whole point is to collapse and explain.
12. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing.

Your evidence better match your claim. It is becoming a race to the bottom with evidence. If the evidence does not match your claim then I will not evaluate that argument. simple!

Maybe I am getting old. I like what I like. If you don't want to adapt to this judge then strike me. If you have me and don't feel the need to adapt then you take the risk on what happens at the end of the round, not me.

If you have questions before the round ask me.

UPDATE: 10/27/23---- Be on time! In fact, be early.

I debated for four years at Glenbrook South and four more at Wake Forest (and debated in elimination rounds of both the TOC and NDT) so I've "been around the block". However, I've been out of debate for approximately 2 years. This means I have very little topic familiarity and no familiarity with the most recent debate thinking. I preferred to go for policy arguments when I debated. I will strive to judge without bias to the extent possible. Judges that inspired me included Jarrod Atchison, Calum Matheson, and David Heidt. If it's helpful, here is a link to the judge philosophy I used for judging high school debates while I was in college.

2024 TOC update:

I have exclusively been coaching/judging college debate for the last 2 years and have done almost zero research on this year's high school topic. Please keep this in mind if I am judging you and err on the side of over-explaining.

General things:

Please add me to the email chain.

tayjdebater@gmail.com, dukesdebate@gmail.com

Currently the Interim Director of Debate at JMU. I debated on the local Missouri Circuit as a high school student and debated for 3 years at UCF when they still had a policy team (2011-2014). I coached Berkeley Prep for 2 years while in college, coached JMU as a grad student, took some time off to finish my PhD, and have recently returned to debate.

My MA thesis was about Indigenous anti-nuclear movements and I've spent a fair amount of time researching the intersections of settler colonialism, environmental justice, and nuclear testing/uranium mining/radioactive waste storage, so I have a higher-than-average amount of topic knowledge on that end of the topic, but probably a lower-than-average amount of knowledge on the various weapons systems/tech/military strategy side of the topic.

If I seem crabby in the round, there's a high probability it's not your fault. The later in the tournament it is, the higher that probability gets - my ability to mask my crabby faces/moderate my vocal tone is inversely related to my tiredness/hunger/stress levels, so I'm probably not actually mad at you, just irritated at the world.

My decision-making process/how I approach debates:

I tend to prioritize solvency/links first when evaluating a debate. I think it's totally possible to win zero risk of an impact and I'm definitely willing to vote on presumption (but if that's your strategy I expect you to do the work to make it explicit).

I like well-explained, smart arguments. I would rather hear you explain something well with good examples than read a ton of cards that all say the same thing. I'll stick as close to the flow as I can and judge the debate based on how the debaters tell me to judge.

An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact. Dropped things only matter if you make them matter. It is your job to frame the voting issues in the round for me and make it clear how I should weigh arguments against one another.

I prefer to minimize how much evidence I read after the round. I expect you to do more than shadow extend things. If all I have on my flow by the end of the round is an author name, I'm not hunting that card down to figure out the warrant for you.

I flow on paper and line things up on my flow. Please give me sufficient pen time on analytics, signpost, and keep things organized. If I am unable to get something on my flow because you did not do these things or because you were not clear, that's a you problem. I will always do my best to get everything written down, even if it's in the wrong place, but it will make it more difficult for me to meaningfully weigh arguments against each other, which means longer decision times and probably worse decisions.

I don't flow CX, but will pay attention throughout CX and jot down notes if something particularly important/eye-catching seems to be happening. If something occurs in CX that you want me to vote on, it needs to make it into a speech.

I do not follow the speech doc while flowing. I may have the document open and refer to specific cards if they are referenced in CX, but I won't be flowing from your doc or reading your evidence along with you during your speech.

Stylistic things

Prep ends when you hit send on the email, and unless you're planning to ask questions about the extra cards they added, please don't make us wait to start CX until they send them. I will keep as close to a running clock as possible - we all have a role to play in making sure the tournament runs on time, and we all want a chance to get a halfway decent amount of sleep.

If you play music/videos/etc. while you are speaking, please ensure the volume of the music is substantially quieter than the volume of your voice. I have some auditory processing issues that make it extremely difficult for me to understand people's voices while there is any kind of background noise. I want to flow and evaluate your arguments, but I can't do that if I can't process your words.

I vote on things that happened during the debate. I do not vote on things that the other team (or their friends, coaches, squad-mates, acquaintances, enemies, etc.) did during pre-round prep, in the hallway yesterday, at the bar last tournament, this morning at the hotel, etc. I will not attempt to adjudicate interpersonal events I was not present to witness.

I generally think debate is good. That doesn't mean I think debate is perfect. There are absolutely valid critiques of debate that should be addressed, and I think there is value in pushing this activity to be the best version of itself. However, if your arguments rely on the assumption that debate is irredeemably bad, I'm probably not the right judge for you. I think you need a model of debate that you think is desirable and achievable within the confines of an activity in which two sides argue with each other and at the end one side is selected as a winner.

Most debaters would benefit from slowing down by about 20%. Not because speed is bad, but because few debaters are actually clear enough for the average judge to get a good flow when you're going at 100% speed.

Examples, examples, examples. If you take one thing away from my paradigm, it is that I like to be given examples. What does your theory look like in practice? What kinds of plans are included/excluded under your T interp? Etc.

Please do not assume I know what your acronyms/etc mean. If I don't know what the bill/organization/event you're talking about is, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to evaluate your link story.

I will open the speech doc, but will not necessarily follow along. I may look at a card if something spicy happens in CX, if you're referring to a card in a rebuttal, etc., but I do not look at or flow from the doc. If you are not clear enough for me to flow without looking at your doc, I will not fill in gaps from the doc.

Ethics Violations:

I take ethics challenges extremely seriously. I consider them to be an accusation of academic dishonesty equivalent to plagiarism. Just like any other instance of academic dishonesty, ethics violations can have serious consequences for debaters and programs, and the perception that our activity condones such behavior could have serious repercussions for the survival of our activity. If an ethics challenge is issued, that is the end of the debate. If the tournament invitation includes a protocol for handling ethics challenges, I will follow the tournament rules. If the tournament does not have a clear set of protocols, I will clarify that an ethics challenge has been issued, make a determination in regards to the challenge, and either vote for the team issuing the challenge or for the team against whom the challenge was issued.

If you become aware of something you think might be an ethics violation prior to the round (you notice a card that is cited incorrectly, etc.) I would STRONGLY PREFER that you reach out to the team/their coach before the round and let them know/give them a chance to fix it, rather than initiating an ethics challenge in the round.

Because of the seriousness of ethics challenges, I consider it the responsibility of the team issuing the challenge to 1) prove that a violation (defined as card clipping or intentionally manufacturing or mis-representing the source or content of evidence) occurred and 2) provide a reasonable degree of evidence that the violation was intentional or malicious (i.e., I do not consider someone mumbling/stumbling over words because they were tired to be the same thing as intentional card clipping, and do not think it should have the same consequences).

That said, I understand that proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt is an impossible standard. I do not expect you to prove exactly what was going on in the other team's mind when the event happened. However, you should be able to show that the other team reasonably should have known that the cite was wrong, the text was missing, etc. and chose to engage in the behavior knowing that it was unethical. I do not think we should be accusing people of academic dishonesty as a strategy to win a round. I also do not think we should be engaging in cheating behavior to win rounds. No one debater's win record is worth more than the continued health of our activity as a whole. If we would like this activity to continue, we must have ethical standards, including not cheating and not frivolously accusing people of cheating.

Speaker Points:

These are relative for each division (e.g., what I consider an "average performance" that gets a 28.3 in novice will be different from what I think of as an "average performance" that gets a 28.3 in varsity)

29.5-30: You should be in the top 3 speakers at the tournament. I can count the number of times I have given above a 29.5 on one hand.

29-29.5: This was an incredible performance. I expect you to be in late out rounds at this tournament and/or to win a speaker award

28.6-29: This was an above-average performance. Something about your speeches/CXs impressed me. Keep this up and I anticipate you will clear.

28.3-28.6: This was an average performance. You had some good moments, but nothing incredible happened.

27.5-28.3: I like your attitude. Some rough things happened during this round. Maybe you dropped an off-case position, only read blocks, were extremely unclear, etc.

Below a 27.5: Something majorly wrong has happened in this round. You failed to participate meaingfully in the debate and/or failed to demonstrate basic human decency toward other people in the room.

Case debate

Yes, please. I love a good case debate, particularly when it is grounded in specific and detailed analysis of what the aff claims their plan/advocadcy does vs what their cards actually say.

T/Framework

I judge a lot of these debates, and enjoy them. Ultimately, these are debates about what we think debate should be. Because of that, I think you need a clear description of what your model of debate looks like, what it includes/excludes, and why that's a good thing.

Debate is an educational activity unlike any other, and I think that's a good thing. I generally default to believing education is the most important impact in these debates, but can absolutely be persuaded that something else (i.e. fairness) should come first.

Despite what I just said, I think the competitive nature of debate is also good, which means there should probably be at least some parameters for what the activity looks like that allows both sides a reasonable shot at winning. What that looks like is up for debate.

I prefer affirmatives with some clear tie to the resolution. That doesn't mean you have to fiat a topical plan text, but I do think it means debate is better when the affirmative is at least in the direction of the topic and/or about the same general content as the resolution.

Your TVA needs to actually access whatever offense the aff is leveraging against T. Lots of TVAs fail this test. I think a good TVA can be super important, but a bad TVA is typically a complete waste of time.

Against policy affs, I think giving me specific examples of ground you lost (not just "we lost some DAs" but "We specifically couldn't read these 2 core DAs and this core CP") is important. If you can show in-round abuse via spiking out of links, that would be ideal.

Please give me pen time.

Counterplans

If your counterplan has a bajillion hyper-specific planks, you need to slow down enough for me to at least get an idea of what they are in the 1NC.

I like counterplans that are specific, well-researched, and have a clear basis in a solvency advocate. I don't love counterplans that have a million planks that are not clearly explained until the block or the 2nr and are not grounded in some kind of solvency advocate/literature.

You should be able to clearly articulate how the implementation of the CP works. I think most aff teams should spend more time articulating solvency deficits based on the negative team's inability or refusal to articulate what the implementation process of the CP looks like in comparison to the aff.

I think conditionality is good, within reason. I think PICs are good, within reason. I think multi-actor fiat, counterplans with a zillion planks, etc. are probably not great, but generally are reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I can be convinced that any of the above opinions are wrong, given the right arguments by either team.

Disads

Please make clear what your acronyms mean, what your specific link story is, etc. early in the debate. I don't spend a ton of time judging giant big-stick policy rounds, so I'm probably not as versed in this literature as you. Please don't make me spend 20 minutes after the debate trying to decipher your impact scenario. Give me a very clear explanation in the 2nc/1nr overview.

Kritiks

I think the aff gets to weigh their impacts if they prove that the ideas underwriting those impacts are good and accurate. I think the neg gets links to the aff's reps/discourse/etc. I think the negative needs to win a specific link to the aff (i.e., not just to the status quo) and also either that the links are sufficient to undermine the aff's internal links (i.e. I should vote on presumption) or that the alternative can resolve the links. I don't think any of those statements are particularly controversial.

The role of the ballot is to decide who did the better debating in this round. Always. How I should evaluate what counts as "better debating" is up for debate, but I am pretty unsympathetic to obviously self-serving roles of the ballot.

If you say the phrase "vote aff to vote neg" or "vote neg to vote aff" in a round I am judging, you owe me $10.

Tony Johnson

I debated at Centennial H.S. in Boise, Idaho (2002-2006) and in college for the University of Wyoming and Idaho State University (2006-2011).
I have coached for Ashland H.S. (2008-2011), San Diego State University (2011-2012) and Southwestern (CA) College (2011-2013).
Currently the Co-Director of Forensics at Juan Diego Catholic High School.
7th year judging H.S. debates.

Short version 
Debate is a game. The rules are debatable, so I encourage you to establish a way for me to score your round. That means you should tell me how to evaluate, prioritize, and compartmentalize certain issues in the debate. 

To the extent it is possible, I will try to keep my predispositions away from your debate. I consider myself to be a clinician of argument tasked with evaluating the debate by listening to what you say and how you say it. I pay close attention to my to my flow unless asked to evaluate in some other form or fashion. If I call for cards I will rely on your spin and explanation from the round over my reading of the evidence in the post round. 

In general, I weigh competing claims and try to privilege warranted explanation and impact comparison. Logical reasoning is rewarded, especially when pointing out logical gaps in your opponents scenarios. 


Long(er) Version 
I credit several people for training me as a debater, coach and judge. I think it is instructive to call on them to give you an idea about how I judge debates: 

My hero in debate is Dr. Sarah Partlow-Lefevre, the Director of Forensics at Idaho State University. She taught me much of what I know about debate. She also sees the judges position as an evaluator of argument. In this world explanation and spin are key. 
"I seek to evaluate the quality of explanation of an argument in the debate. The debater's job is to communicate an argument to the judge. This means that arguments that are key parts of your strategy should be explained. I do not consider a list of jargon (for policy or critcal debates) clear explanation. Evidence is important to the way that I decide debates . . . but, it is not paramount. The debaters' arguments and explanations are much more important. Arguments about the spin on evidence or the quality of the evidence are always helpful in my judging process and are usually necessary to make me read much the evidence after the debate." 

My former debate partner, Mike Bausch and I learned debate together. His 'debate mind' is probably the most similar to mine in terms of training. He profoundly writes that any strategy can be powerful, provided that it is persuasively argued: 
"Debate is a game and strategy influences everything we do. Technique and truth are both aspects of strategy. Good, persuasive debating can make any strategy powerful.... 
teams that win in front of me provide me with judge instruction. Please write my ballot for me. What does this argument mean if you win it? What should I do with it in relation to other things in the debate? What does it mean if your opponents win some of their arguments?" 

Sam Allen and I have been dear friends since we both started debate in 2002. I love what he writes about CX. I firmly believe that debates are won and lost (most often) in cross examination. I also enjoy and will reward teams for treating it like a speech. Have questions prepared and execute strategically. This is the only time the competitors dialogue with one another directly and I love it. Sam writes, "Cross-x: I think this is the best part of debate. Arguments clarified in cross-x should be consistently held throughout debate. Speaker points." 

Topicality 
Economic engagement is a phrase with many different meanings. I'm interested in how your interpretation creates a fair division of ground and promotes education about economic engagement toward the topic countries. It will be up to you to forward framing arguments here too. Reasonability vs. competing interpretations? Depth vs. Breath? Etc. 

Counterplans 
Textual competition is probably a good standard. Although I am not as ideologically tied to that as others (read: Hardy trained folks) are. I tend to err negative on most other counterplan theory questions. Although multiple conditional worlds is an argument that affirmative teams must forward to protect themselves sometimes. If there is an egregious example of in-round abuse that the affirmative packages and explains well, I will check in everytime. Again, most of this depends on your execution. 

Critiques 
The best critiques engage the affirmative and either turn the case or frame out affirmative impacts. What does debate do? How does voting negative resolve the link? Alternative explanation and/or ballot framing is paramount here. In high school debates explanation tends to lack sophistication. I will reward you if you demonstrate that you have read the material beforehand and can set up the argument in cross-examination. 

Misc Notes 
Specificity is key. I am compelled to vote for contextual examples, in-depth refutation and historical examples. I reward specific strategies and research with higher speaker points. 
Quality over quantity. I appreciate the teams that can overwhelm the line by line with original insights or analysis that comes from a few (longer) cards. This applies to any quadrant of the ideological spectrum, from politics uniqueness to critique links 
I will work very hard as a critic. My biggest pet-peeve when I debated were judges that didn't respect the time and effort that went into preparing for debates. I will be excited to judge you and provide (hopefully insightful) feedback. 
Paperless transition of evidence will NOT be timed. 
Alternative use time if all debaters want. 
Cutting cards during the debate is okay. 
Receiving coaching is not. Or clipping cards. Or stealing an obnoxious amount of prep. 
Be Nice.

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

Director of Debate at The University of Michigan

General Judging Paradigm- I think debate is an educational game. Someone once told me
that there are three types of judges: big truth, middle truth, and little truth judges. I would
definitely fall into the latter category. I don’t think a two hour debate round is a search for
the truth, but rather a time period for debaters to persuade judges with the help of
evidence and analytical arguments. I have many personal biases and preferences, but I try
to compartmentalize them and allow the debate to be decided by the debaters. I abhor
judge intervention, but do realize it becomes inevitable when debaters fail to adequately
resolve the debate. I am a very technical and flow-oriented judge. I will not evaluate
arguments that were in the 2AR and 2AC, but not the 1AR. This is also true for
arguments that were in the 2NR and 1NC, but not in the negative block.

Counterplans/Theory- I would consider myself liberal on theory, especially regarding
plan-inclusive counterplans. Usually, the negative block will make ten arguments
theoretically defending their counterplan and the 1AR will only answer eight of them- the
2NR will extend the two arguments that were dropped, etc. and that’s usually good
enough for me. I have often voted on conditionality because the Aff. was technically
superior. If you’re Aff. and going for theory, make sure to answer each and every
negative argument. I am troubled by the recent emergence of theory and procedural
debates focusing on offense and defense. I don’t necessarily think the negative has to win
an offensive reason why their counterplan is theoretically legitimate- they just have to
win that their counterplan is legitimate. For the Aff., I believe that permutations must
include all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. I think the do the counterplan
permutation is silly and don’t think it’s justified because the negative is conditional, etc. I
do realize this permutation wins rounds because it’s short and Neg. teams sometimes fail
to answer it. On the issue of presumption, a counterplan must provide a reason to reject
the Aff. Finally, I think it’s illegitimate when the Aff. refuses to commit to their agent for
the explicit purpose of ducking counterplans, especially when they read solvency
evidence that advocates a particular agent. This strategy relies on defending the theory of
textual competition, which I think is a bad way of determining whether counterplans
compete.

Topicality- When I debated, I commonly ran Affirmatives that were on the fringe of what
was considered topical. This was probably the reason I was not a great topicality judge
for the negative my first few years of judging college debate. Beginning this year, I have
noticed myself voting negative on topicality with greater frequency. In the abstract, I
would prefer a more limited topic as opposed to one where hundreds of cases could be
considered topical. That being said, I think topicality often seems like a strategy of
desperation for the negative, so if it’s not, make sure the violation is well developed in
the negative block. I resolve topicality debates in a very technical manner. Often it
seems like the best Affirmative answers are not made until the 2AR, which is probably
too late for me to consider them.

Kritiks- If I got to choose my ideal debate to judge, it would probably involve a politics
or other disadvantage and a case or counterplan debate. But, I do realize that debaters get
to run whatever arguments they want and strategy plays a large role in argument
selection. I have probably voted for a kritik about a half of dozen times this year. I never
ran kritiks when I debated and I do not read any philosophy in my free time. Kritik
rhetoric often involves long words, so please reduce your rate of speed slightly so I can
understand what you are saying. Kritiks as net-benefits to counterplans or alternatives
that have little or no solvency deficit are especially difficult for Affirmatives to handle.
Evidence Reading- I read a lot of evidence, unless I think the debate was so clear that it’s
not necessary. I won’t look at the un-underlined parts of cards- only what was read into
the round. I am pretty liberal about evidence and arguments in the 1AR. If a one card
argument in the 1NC gets extended and ten more pieces of evidence are read by the
negative block, the 1AR obviously gets to read cards. I think the quality of evidence is
important and feel that evidence that can only be found on the web is usually not credible
because it is not permanent nor subject to peer review. I wish there would be more time
spent in debates on the competing quality of evidence.

Cheap Shots/Voting Issues- These are usually bad arguments, but receive attention
because they are commonly dropped. For me to vote on these arguments, they must be
clearly articulated and have a competent warrant behind them. Just because the phrase
voting issue was made in the 1AR, not answered by the 2NR, and extended by the 2AR
doesn’t make it so. There has to be an articulated link/reason it’s a voting issue for it to
be considered.

Pet Peeves- Inefficiency, being asked to flow overviews on separate pieces of paper, 2NRs that go for too much, etc.

Seasonal voting record:

**FUN SPIRIT OF THE SHIRLEY UPDATE 2017 **

Hi friends, a few top-level notes to keep in mind if I'm your judge this weekend:

General: 

- I haven't seen a debate at all this year, or in fact, since 2015. Seriously, the last time I watched a debate Obama was president -- which makes it feel like several lifetimes ago. 

- I currently work as the director of reproductive rights research at a progressive media watchdog organization, so I'm generally up to speed on current events, as well as general health care politics/policy. That said, I haven't seen a debate on the topic so I'm not as familiar with a lot of the minutia of alternative/academic proposals for health care reform or hyper-technical policy details. Most importantly: I'm not familiar with your deployment of topic literature to support different proposals, or the norms/expectations for the topic. 

What that means:

- Explain your arguments/shorthand, make clear the impact, and don't assume I'll be able to fill in the blanks for you based on how the topic has functioned thus far this year. Examples are good -- use them!  

- Please be clear, and slow down on shorter analytics or technical arguments. 

- Please be nice. 

- I think a lot of my beliefs from before still ring pretty true. I still think that debate should be about the debaters, the preparation they've done, and the arguments they make in the round. I'll do my best to respect the form and function of arguments, but I acknowledge that my areas of familiarity have narrowed.

Bottom line: do your thing, do your best, be good to each other, and I'll do the same.  

**EVERYTHING FROM 2015 **

Background—

Wake Forest (2015), University of Iowa (2014) 

General—

I believe debate is for the debaters. I will do everything in my power to respect and fairly evaluate anything. I’d be lying to say I don’t have areas of greater familiarity, but I believe my role as a judge isn’t to impose my viewpoint so much as be open to whatever the debaters in the room have worked to produced.

That said, I’ve debated far more than I’ve been a judge and as result I’m sure my views and habits will evolve over the course of the year.  At this point, the way I comprehend debates is largely in terms of the flow and the technical components of arguments. I’m not against adopting a different approach, I just don’t believe I have enough experience to confidently evaluate debate differently yet.

Big picture is important. Tech vs. truth is a continual struggle to resolve for me because depending on the quality of debating I can be persuaded to value either.

Specifics—

Case Debate: Such an undervalued part of negative strategy, but awesome when executed well. Any type of debate regardless of argument style can benefit from a strategy that includes strong and well-impacted case debating. 

DAs: Absolutely. There probably is such a thing as zero risk and link/internal link uniqueness is often times just as important as the top level uniqueness of the DA. 

CPs: I’m sympathetic to affirmative theoretical objections, but find myself negative leaning on most questions. Normal means, consult and other classic “cheating” strategies I’m not fond of, but must still be articulated as problematic by the affirmative.

T: Clear distinctions supported by evidence are more persuasive than generic limits claims. Good evidence can make a world of difference, but I tend to be aff leaning, and generally not great for tech over truth kinds of T debates. 

K: Good critical debates should focus on specifics rather than generalities. Affirmatives should look out for the types of arguments that can be auto-ballots for the negative, and the Negative should articulate their links and alternative in terms of specific examples/analysis. I’m not as well read as some, but I’m not bereft of any exposure so keep that in mind if your thing is being deep in the lit on your argument of choice.

Framework/Performance/Other: I was on both sides of this debate throughout my career and can see the relative strengths and struggles of each. Context, examples, and impacts are necessary in these debates for me whether you’re reading framework, answering it or otherwise.

I do want to be on the email chains: harvard.debate[at]gmail.com and kviveth [at] gmail.com

Evidence/Debating:

Dropped arguments and spin can be true/good to an extent. I tend to look more holistically at the argument even if it was "dropped".

CX ends after three minutes. You can take more prep time to ask questions, but it won't be "on the record"

"Framework" -

I think some of the most meaningful things I've learned from my decade doing policy debate have come from debating, researching, and preparing arguments that are "not about the topic".

That being said, debate is a competitive activity and the resolution is the only non-arbitrary starting point from which to begin research and preparation. If there were no equal prospect of victory and people were just showing up every weekend to talk about different things, there'd be some engagement, but the incentive to test other people's ideas with a level of rigor and tenacity that we value debate for just wouldn't exist.

The fact that there are a myriad of issues that may or may not be more important than the chosen resolution is certainly an important question we should be asking of ourselves and of the topic selection process, but the topic has already been chosen - that's when limits become important.

In general, I'm much better for aff teams that impact turn topicality / framework than teams that try to engage deeply with counter-interpretations.

Counterplans -

The plan is the focus of the debate and perms don't have to be topical.

If you have evidence that compares your CP to the plan, it's probably legitimate

I have a hard time seeing the neg winning on CPs that compete solely off of certainty and immediacy.

The "always a risk of the CP linking less than the plan" is silly.

You don't need solvency advocates especially for smart and intuitive advantage CPs and 2NC CPs out of addons.

I will kick CPs for the neg if the CP is conditional until told not to by the aff.

Critiques -

Framework is either the most important part of a critique debate or totally irrelevant. It's really helpful to me to elaborate on the what the consequence of either team winning their framework argument is.

In recent years, aff teams have radically underutilized the permutation and alt solvency arguments in favor of impact turns. If that's your strategy I'm all for it! However, given that the worst part of almost every critique is the alternative and lack of actual links this could be a good path for teams to take.

Theory -

Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.

Conditionality - Neg teams are garbage at defending conditionality and the aff should capitalize.

Literature usually guides theory questions for CP legitimacy - if you have evidence that compares the CP to the plan it's probably legitimate.

Last Updated 09/18/2020

Yes I would like to be on the email chain: jrad729@gmail.com

Online Debate Notes:

Flowing is hard online, and weird mic pauses make it harder. Please slow down slightly, like 5-10%, and emphasize CLARITY so that if something were to happen I'm not entirely lost. I will ask after speeches to fill in gaps of argument if your mic feed was interrupted. I am ready when my camera is on, please do not start a speech if my camera is not on because I am probably not in the room.

Judging Notes:

Tech > truth with limitations. I judge based on the flow, but some cards do not even get close to the claims being made and I am very hesitant to vote on garbage evidence just because there isn't the most robust answer. I think this is distinct from "spin", which if you have a justification for why I should extrapolate the claims of a piece of evidence, I am much more open to hearing that.

Clarity > speed

Argument and evidence distinctions > "our cards are better read them".

Quality > quantity of evidence.

Framework/Topicality for the Aff: I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise, and I think its valuable to tell me otherwise. Aff counter-interpretations are on some level always arbitrary and you are better off impact turning the procedural grammar of the interpretation. Affirmatives need to get out of thinking through fairness/education jargon of impacts and start thinking through the question: "what is the value of debate and to what extent is it more than a game?" Framework debates are both very stale and a hot mess of moving parts, so creative approaches to this question are a better approach in front of me. I strongly suggest you have a warrant for affirming/imagining your particular method because I find simple "refusal" arguments susceptible to "do it on the neg". Winning the aff method is a necessary condition to win impact turns on topicality and often times a preferable 2ar strategy, especially if you are making arguments about the form of communication that supersedes questions of debate procedure. The argument direction that will be successful in front of me is calling into question procedural standards of argumentation (traditional notions of uniqueness, solvency, fiat, the resolution) and how they are a product of a selective and violent interpretation of the world.

Framework/Topicality for the Neg: The negative does not get enough mileage out of their predictability arguments. Debate is a game that allows participants a constant refinement of arguments and pushes debaters to critically engage not only a literature base but also the interactions between arguments, which is always more suited around a stable point of clash. I am becoming more and more convinced that framework/topicality needs a theoretical defense of procedures and the negative cannot simply dispose of aff arguments via content/form/ "do it on the neg" distinctions (i.e. critical defenses of universal standards for argument validity/argumentative procedures. If you really want to get good at topicality, read Habermas). The argument direction that will be successful in front of me is well developed limits impact and thesis claims about the value of procedural equity + "game" approach to debate rather than education/advocacy arguments. It is always better to extend a case solvency takeout/case offense in the 2nr because while you might be making arguments about the form of debate, the affirmative team is likely making arguments about the form of communication as such and can avoid altogether your procedure/content distinction.

Aff things/Case debate: Solvency and internal links are always more important than impacts. Both sides underdebate these points and they are often the weakest and most crucial parts of an affirmative. Topical critical affirmatives are very strategic and I am inclined to give better speaker points to teams that can play with both critical and policy aspects of an affirmative.

Disads: Don't let affs spin their way out of links and use evidence (either yours or theirs) to disprove the spin (this is almost always better than generic "moving target bad" claims". I don't like Elections/politics disads, i find the link stories/impact stories are tenuous at best. Internal links are often jokes so affirmatives should capitalize and instead of reading another uniqueness card should invest in proving their absurdity. Yes a disad can be answered without any cards, don't give an argument more credit than its due.

Counterplans: Should be textually and functionally competitive. Sufficiency is thrown around and often needs more work explaining what parts are sufficiently solved (using aff solvency cards is helpful here because they almost never say ONLY the plan can solve this particular issue). Unless the add-on has a good internal link, the aff is much more suited to dig in on solvency deficits and permutation distinctions.

Kritiks: While it is fantastic to have plan specific links (which I will reward with higher speaker points), I don't think they are at all necessary to win the K. Taking more generic indicts and creatively applying them to how the affirmative defends their plan and how that implicates solvency and the world of the affirmative is a valuable skill and is the best parts of debating the K. I do not default to util and affirmatives should not be lazy in this part of the debate. Affirmatives should defend their epistemology and representations rather than trying to permute away the kritik. I often find that affirmatives who focus in on defending the plan rather than trying to dodge links are much more likely to win. Affs please stop reading framework arguments about the desirability of the plan unless you plan to fully commit to defending

Condo/Theory: Somewhere in the middle on conditionality, but I lean negative. If an affirmative team has a counter-interpretation for a certain acceptable amount of conditional options, they have implicitly conceded their strongest offensive claims about strategy skew and argument irresponsibility, and those counterinterpretations are always the most arbitrary. Condo is bad or it isn't, have the debate. Counterplan theory is severely underutilized, stop letting negatives say whatever they want (time is better spent making these theory arguments than on condo imo).

Random thoughts:

-- Don't be rude. There is a difference between being assertive and rude.

-- Laundry list impact cards are trash and I am highly persuaded by arguments that I shouldn't count them as impact cards.

-- internal links > impact defense always. The cult of impact defense is a detriment to debate. Time pressured 1AR's are better served investing in fewer but more developed internal link takeouts than reading a bunch of impact defense.

-- If your partner types things up for you on a separate laptop, remember to be clear when reading through it. Debaters often get mush mouth when trying to spread through other people's language.

-- As a rule, I will largely avoid evaluating claims made about interactions outside of round because they are on some level impossible to evaluate in relation to the round and I think ballots are not how they ought to be handled.

It should go without saying, do not say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist etc. or you can expect to get 0 speaker points and a loss. I am an educator first, so I will err on the side of letting the debate continue if someone used certain language that becomes an issue, and correct ignorance afterwords. I will intervene when I feel the safety of the participants becomes an issue.

Please ask/email me questions if my rambling here is confusing, and have fun!

Reuben Lack
Alpharetta High School '12
Emory University '16

I debated four years at Alpharetta and qualified to the TOC in my senior year before debating for Emory University. Currently, I'm a dubbing producer & director for Disney, with a specific focus on anime & animation content.

My top-line advice if you have me in the back of the room is do what you do best. These are general predispositions, not immutable laws of judging, and you're always best off advancing a strategy you know well.

Please add me to the email chain: reubenlack1@gmail.com.

We only have 5 minutes before the round, what should we know about you?
I consider myself a 'middle of the road' judge on most meta debate issues. When I was in the activity, I did everything from Politics DA 2NR's to more obscure 1-Off Kritik strategies. I'm comfortable with pretty much anything. I'm neither a "K judge" nor a "policy judge," and will do my best to examine the debate from the arguments you give me. Tactically, judge instruction and comparative evidence analysis are appreciated. My thresholds for theory arguments are probably lower than most judges.

To the extent I have certain leans on close calls, or musings about debate issues, I've done my best to illustrate those below.

Are you OK with K's/Critical Affs/Planless Affs/Performance/Non-Traditional Affs?
I've run everything from super 'policy' affs with giant heg and econ advantages to 1ACs that consisted largely of a poem and leftist arguments. In high school and college, I went for stuff like Security, Badiou, Derrida, and had a good share of 1NCs that were 1-Off Kritik. That said, it's been years since I've delved into these arguments, so explanation is a must for any high-theory strategies.

When it comes to framework and framework-related arguments against these types of Affs/K's, your 2NR/2AR 'story' should focus on the educational implications of each side's approaches. I'm interested in the question of how to make debate an educational and useful activity for students. How does your position interact with those considerations?

As for how to align your strategy, I'm more likely to be persuaded by a direct challenge to the efficacy of the non-traditional team's method/model for debate than a procedural fairness claim, which often falls short. It's always better to go on offense. There are serious & legitimate objections to K Aff's/performance Aff's that Neg teams should feel comfortable to make as part of their FW arguments. I have a particular soft spot for turns of the "cede the political" variety (e.g., withdrawing from the state/policy-making leads to state apparatuses controlled by conservatives).

Thoughts on the Politics DA & DA Strategy?
Love them. My senior year was almost entirely me taking that week's Politics DA in the 1NR. My favorite 1NR's dig deep into the aff evidence, tear it apart, and make solid comparative analysis. For the aff, don't be shy about putting all your firepower against 1 or 2 serious logical holes in the DA (this goes for any, not just Politics/Elections). The internal linkage between a particular bill passing to a terminal impact is typically pretty flimsy, and Aff's that push that point will do well in front of me. Zero risk of the disad is an RFD I've given.

Should I ever make Theory arguments an option in your rounds?
I'm probably more willing to vote on theory arguments than your average judge. That said, if you want to make "Conditionality Bad," "50 State Fiat Bad," or other theory arguments an option, you need to focus on what debate looks like under the other side's interpretation. What happens to prep, strategy, research, and why is it bad? Do the impact work, talk about what your vision of optimal debate looks like. These debates tend to be especially messy, so minimizing theory jargon is recommended.

Anything else you really like?
Impact turns, advantage counterplans, highly-specific case debates.

Any strong opinions about Topicality?
I enjoy a good T debate and was something of a "T Hack" for the first few years of my high school career. Reasonability is hard to win in front of me, but strong counter-interpretations are underrated. Like Theory debates, jargon is overused in T 2NR's/2AR's; I recommend focusing on the impact level, i.e., what happens to the topic if X is/isn't considered topical.

At the end of the round, how do you usually go about making your decision?
When the round ends, I take a note of all the key questions to resolve, then work through them one-by-one. This means framing arguments and judge instruction ("prioritize X," "view the [X] through the lens of [Y]," "here are the 2 ways to vote [X]") are great ways to win my ballot. My default state, unless guided by arguments in-round, is to assess the debate through an offense-defense paradigm, weighing how one area of risk interacts and/or outweighs another. I also rarely call for cards unless a nexus question of evidence quality decides the round. To borrow from Ed Lee's paradigm, "while I am a huge fan of quality evidence, my decisions will privilege a debater’s assessment of an argument over my reading of a piece of evidence."

What can I do to get high speaks if you're my judge?
Have fun! Be nice! Utilize cross-x effectively. My favorite debaters were all fairly slow at spreading, yet extremely strong speakers. And hey, I work in the anime industry, so pandering with references never hurts.

Any pet peeves we should know about?
Two pet peeves. First, please, please, please email/flash speeches in a timely fashion. Second, there is no "flow clarification" segment in policy debate, i.e., if you're asking what cards a team read, that's part of CX. You should always be flowing, with the speech doc as a reference, but not as the source of truth. There's been an unfortunate trend away from strong flowing skills, please don't let needless mistakes happen to you.

"Don't forget. Believe in yourself. Not in the you who believes in me. Not the me who believes in you. Believe in the YOU who believes in yourself."
- Kamina, Gurren Lagann
I wish you the best of luck and hope my feedback will help for future rounds. I love the activity and the fantastically cool people in it. I’ll do whatever I can to support you and help you grow as a debater.

No longer judging

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

I am currently an assistant debate coach with both Montgomery Bell Academy and George Mason University. This is my 15th year in policy debate.

I use he/him pronouns.

Last updated: 1/31/2024

Please put me on the email chain & make me an ev doc at the end of the debate. NJL1994@gmail.com.

Set up and send out the 1AC 10 minutes before the debate begins. Please avoid downtime during debates. If you do both of these things without me needing to say anything (send out the 1AC 10 minutes early + avoid downtime) you'll get higher speaker points.

If I'm judging you online, please slow down a bit and emphasize clarity more than normal.

Top level things:

I think about debate in terms of risk (does the risk of the advantage being true outweigh the risk of the disad being true?). I am willing to vote on presumption, particularly when people say really ridiculous stuff or people's cards are highlighted to say nothing.

I like specificity, nuance, and for you to sound smart. If you sound like you've done research and you know what's going on, I'm likely to give you great points. Being specific, having nuances, and explaining your distinctions is the easiest way to get my ballot.

Judge direction is a lost art. If you win the argument that you're advancing, why should it matter? What does this mean for the debate? What does it mean for your arguments or the other team's arguments? This is the number one easiest way to win my (and really anyone's) ballot in a debate. Direct your judges to think a certain way, because if you don't, your judges are likely to go rogue and decide things that make sense to them but not to you. So impact your arguments and tell me what to do with them. I think it's way more valuable to do that than include one more tiny argument and almost certainly the easiest way to get me to overcome any predispositions.

Decorum is very important to me. If your strategy is to belittle, upset, talk down to, yell at, escalate, curse at, or otherwise be rude or mean to your opponents, then you can expect me to give you terrible speaker points. I also reserve the right to end the debate early if I find the behavior particularly atrocious or potentially threatening to anyone in the room. I am very uninterested in the “I know what you did last summer” strategy or any personal attacks. You certainly don't have to be best friends with your opponents, but I do expect a sense of cordiality when engaging your opponents and their arguments.

"The existence of speech time limits, the assumption that you will not interrupt an opponent's speech intentionally, and the fact that I (and not you) will be signing a ballot that decides a winner and loser is non-negotiable." (taken verbatim from Shree Awsare).

I am incredibly uncomfortable adjudicating things that did not occur in the debate I am watching. Please do not ask me to judge based on something that didn’t happen in the round. I am likely to ignore you.

High school debaters in particular: I have consistently noticed over the past few years of judging that I vote for the team whose arguments I understand. If I cannot connect the dots, I'm not going to vote for you. This goes equally for kritikal and policy debaters. Most of my decisions in high school debates come down to this, and I will tell you that your argument makes no sense in my RFD.

How I decide debates:

First: who solves what?-- does the aff solve its impacts, and (assuming it's in the 2NR) does the negative's competitive advocacy solve its own impacts and/or the aff? In framework debates, this means the first questions I resolve are "does the aff solve itself?" and "does the TVA solve the aff sufficiently?"

Second: Who’s impact is bigger? This is the most important question in the debate. Do impact calculus.

Third: Whatever you have told me matters. Because I have started with solvency & impact calculus questions, everything else is always filtered along those lines (including framework/role of the ballot/role of the judge).

Other misc things:

1. A dropped argument is a true argument but it needs to be a complete argument to begin with or I will likely allow people new answers. For example, this epidemic with high schoolers reading aspec on the bottom of T flows to hide it: if it’s so quick I didn’t catch it in the 1NC, the 1AR gets all the new args they want. Additionally, an argument is not just a claim and a warrant, but a claim, warrant, and reasoning. In other words, your warrant needs to be connected to your claim in order for it to be an argument.

2. I am very flowcentric. Do not ask me to not flow, because I won't listen. Please do line-by-line. If you don't, I'll be frustrated and less likely to buy new extrapolations of arguments. Your speaker points will definitely drop if you don't do line-by-line. I do not like overviews ("overviews are evil"-- one of my labbies; "flowing is good for your health" -- another one of my labbies).

3. Show me that you care. Show me that you know things, that you've done research on this topic, that you want to win, and that debate matters to you. I love this activity and if you also love it I want to know that.

4. Judge kicking makes sense to me but I frequently forget about it, so if you want me to judge kick something you should tell me so in the block/2NR.

5. Cards and highlighting: Teams should get to insert rehighlightings of the other team's cards, but obviously should have to read cards if they're new/haven't been introduced into the debate yet. Two offshoots of this-- 1. You should insert rehighlightings of other team's cards if they suck 2. You should read cards that don't suck.

I do not follow along with speech docs during debates.

Please highlight your ev so it reads as complete sentences. This does not mean that I need you to highlight complete sentences, but if you are brick highlighting, I want to be able to read highlighted portions of your ev as complete sentences—it flows better to me. IE don't skip the letter "a" or the words "in" or "the." Just a random pet peeve.

If you do not have a complete citation or at least a full paragraph from your evidence I will not evaluate what you've said as evidence. Cherrypicked quotes with no context are not evidence.

I tend to not read a lot of cards after the debate unless things are highly technical or I think the debaters aren’t explaining things well. That being said, I’ll likely read at least some cards. Please put together a card doc for me.

6. Debaters parroting their partners: I usually just flow what the partner said. That, obviously, only exists within reason (you don’t get to give a third speech in a debate, but you can interrupt your partner to say something and I will flow it).

7. New 2AR args are bad for debate. I consciously hold the line against them as much as I can. I as a 2N feel as if I got a few decisions where a judge voted aff on an arg that didn't exist until the 2AR and it's the most frustrating. You can expect me to try to trace lines between args in earlier & later speeches. However, if I think the argument they're making is the true argument or a logical extrapolation of something said in the 1AR, I'm more likely to buy it. 2As-- this means if you're gonna do some 2A magic and cheat, you should trick me into thinking that you're not cheating.

Some specifics:

Disads: I’m better for the smart DAs than the silly ones, but I understand the value of bad DAs and will vote for them. I will likely reward you with higher speaker points if I think I understand your story really well and/or you have some cool/unique spin on it. I am fine with logical take outs to DAs that don’t require cards (especially if there’s some logic missing internally in the DA). Don’t just read new cards in the block or 1AR, explain your args (although also read new cards obviously).

I really do not understand how the economy works. I'm sorry. I've really tried to get it, but I just don't. You absolutely can go for econ DAs and/or econ case turns in front of me, but please be extra careful to explain (in lots of detail!) what you're arguing here.

Theory, CPs, and K Alternatives: I put these pieces together because my thoughts on these three args blend together.

Competition is determined off the plantext, not off cross-x, nor off the resolution. PICs & PIKs are only competitive if they PIC/PIK out of something in the plantext. I do not believe that you get to PIC/PIK out of a justification or non-plantext based word. The only way I will ever be convinced otherwise is if the aff allows you to do so.

Condo: It’s good. “They should get one less CP” is an arbitrary interp and makes no sense. The phrase "dispo solves" at the end of your bad 2AC condo block is not an argument and I will not be writing it down on my flow. I will vote on this if it's dropped, but I'm pretty persuaded by neg flex and education-style args.

"Performative Contradictions" is a term of art that has been bastardized to no end by debate. You're either saying the neg has double turned themselves or you're saying conditionality is bad; in my mind, perf con is not even worthy of being written on my flow.

Particular Theory: I’m better for this than most judges (and MUCH more persuaded by it than condo). States theory, international fiat, consult/condition, vague alts, utopian alts, etc—I have gone for all of these and actively coach my debaters to do the same. My predisposition is to reject the arg not the team, but I can be persuaded to reject the team on non-condo theory args (you should introduce the arg as reject the team in the 2AC, not CX, if you want this to be an option).

Theory can be a reason you get to make a cheating perm.

Counterplans/alternatives that use aff evidence as solvency advocates are awesome.

If the CP/alt links less I think it makes sense that I prefer it, but make that arg yourself because I won’t make it for you.

Case: I love love love case debate. You should make logical extrapolations that take out the internal link chains and make me question how the advantage makes sense. The block should read more cards but feel free to make logical case take outs without cards. I don't think you should have to go for impact defense to beat advantages-- uniqueness and internal link take outs are almost always the easier place to attack advantages. I tend to prefer a well-developed take out to the death by a thousand cuts strategy.

Affs-- 2NR that don't do well-developed case debate are generally overwhelmed by your "try or die"/"case outweighs"/"1% chance of solvency" args.

Topicality: I'm getting better for this as a strategy lately than I used to be. I do still generally think that it's about the plantext, but can be persuaded that I should think of the plantext in the context of the 1AC. Topicality is only ever a voter, not a reverse voter. I’m not great for silly/arbitrary T interps (I am very persuaded by the arg that these interps are arbitrary).

Kritiks: I like Ks that care about people and things. I'm optimistic to a fault. I certainly believe that things are still terrible for billions of beings, but it's hard to convince me that everything in the world is so absolutely irredeemable.

Your long overview is actively bad for debate and you will not change my mind.

Make your K interact with the affirmative. I want your links to be about the result of the aff as opposed to just the reading of the aff. Fiat bad links are bad. Your "state is always bad" links are slightly better, but also terrible. Don't just explain your theory of how power works, explain how the action of the aff is bad according to your theory of power.

I think that I am worse for structuralist style kritiks than I used to be for two reasons: 1) I feel more so that I want you to be responding to the action of the aff than I used to 2) I generally study poststructuralism and queer theory. I read a lot of Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler.

Grad school has taught me that theory is way more complex than I used to think it was. I will get annoyed if I know that you’re deploying the theory wrong. I'm not good for things like "death good," "meaning doesn't mean anything," or "language is meaningless" because I don't think those are questions even worth asking.

I have read some literature about antiblackness academically and have read a bit more from a debate standpoint. I would not call myself an expert by any means in this literature, but I do understand some of it better than I used to. I am still unwilling to fill in those blanks for you if you are lacking them (ex-- just saying the words "yes antiblackness ontological, natal alienation proves" is not an argument in my mind).

99.99% of the time I will entirely ignore your framework/role of the ballot args when you're going for the K against a topical aff. There's a high chance that I will just stare at you and not flow during your incredibly long and generic 2NC/2NR framework block on your K. I am serious, I may not even waste the ink in my pen flowing this. I do not know how to decide debates unless I'm weighing the merits of the aff against the merits of the K. For example, if the aff is an object of study, then to evaluate that object of study I have to weigh the aff's consequences. You are better off just saying "yes the aff can weigh the plan, we'll just beat it" in front of me. This also means that the role of the ballot/judge is only ever to vote for whoever did the better debating in every round I judge.

“Perms are a negative argument” and “method v method debate means no perms” are both not arguments. Despite judging for however long I have, I still do not know what a "method v method debate" even is or why it's different than every other debate. I will not write these words on my flow.

I also generally do not find the "voting for us gives us more wins/sends us to elims" as a solvency mech persuasive or that "X thing done in the debate is policing/surveillance/violence" (other than actual/physical policing/surveillance/violence) to be persuasive.

Ultimately, I evaluate K debates just like I evaluate policy debates. Technical line by line is key. Explain your args well. Put the debate together. Don't ignore the other side.

2NRs on the K that include case debate (with some level of internal link/impact defense; not just your security K cards on case) are substantially more persuasive to me.

Framework against non-topical affs: you should also read my section on Ks (right above this one) as well.

Framework is a strategy and it makes a lot of sense as a strategy. Just like every other strategy, you should try to tailor it to be as specific to the aff as you possibly can. For example, how does this particular aff make it impossible for you to debate? What does it mean for how debate looks writ-large? What's the valuable topic education we could have had from a topical discussion of this aff in particular? Same basic idea goes for when you’re answering generic aff args—the generic “state always bad” arg is pretty easily beaten by nuanced neg responses in front of me. The more specific you are, the more likely I am to vote for you on framework and the more likely I am to give you good speaks.

Stop reading huge overviews. They’re bad for debate. Your points will suffer. Do line by line. Be a good debater and stop being lazy. The amount of times I have written something like "do line by line" in this paradigm should really tell you something about how I think about debate.

I do not find truth testing/"ignore the aff's args because they're not T" very persuasive. I think it's circular & requires judge intervention.

I do, however, think that fairness/limits/ground is an impact and that it is the most important standard in a T debate.

T and/or framework is not genocide, nor is it ever rape, nor is it a microaggression, nor is it real literal violence against you or anyone else.

I’m a sucker for a good topical version. Teams seem to want to just laundry list potential TVAs and then say "idk, maybe these things let them discuss their theory". I believe that strategy is very easily beaten by a K team having some nuanced response. It makes way more sense to me if the TVA is set up almost like a CP-- it should solve a majority or all of the aff. If you set it up like that and then add the sufficiency framing/"flaws are neg ground" style args I'm WAY more likely to buy what you have to say (this goes along with the whole "I like nuance and specificity and you to sound like you're debating the merits of the aff" motif that I've had throughout my paradigm-- it applies to all debaters).

I oftentimes wonder how non-topical affs solve themselves. The negative should exploit this because I do feel comfortable voting neg on presumption. However, I won’t ever intervene to vote on presumption. That’s an argument that the debaters need to make.

Non-topical affs should have nuance & do line by line as well. Answer the neg’s args, frame the debate, and tell me why your aff in particular could not have been topical. You HAVE to have a defense of your model and not just say that framework is bad or else I will probably vote neg on presumption. The same basic idea applies here as it does everywhere else: the more generic you are, the more likely I am to vote against you.

Garbage/Hidden Stuff/Tricks: Nope. New affs are good, hiding aspec makes you a coward, death is bad, free will exists and I don't care if it doesn't. Make better arguments.

Cross-ex: I am becoming increasingly bored and frustrated with watching how this tends to go down. Unless I am judging a novice debate, questions like "did you read X card" or "where did you mark Y card" are counting as parts of cross-x. I tend to start the timer for cross-ex pretty quickly after speeches end (obviously take a sec to get water if you need to) so pay attention to that.

I pay attention & listen to CX but I do not flow it. Have a presence in CX & make an impact. I am listening.

Speaker points-- I do my best to moderate these based on the tournament I'm at and what division I'm in. That being said, I won’t lie—I am not a point fairy.

I will grant extra speaker points to people who number their arguments and correctly/aptly follow the numbering that has been established in the debate.

Paraphrasing from Shree Awsare-- I will not give you a 30.

29.8-- Top speaker
29.2-29.5-- You really impressed me and I expect you to be deep in the tournament
29-- I think you deserve to clear
28.3-- Not terrible but not super impressive
27.5-- Yikes
I will award the lowest possible points for people who violate the basic human dignities that people should be afforded while debating (e.g., non-black people don't say the N word).

I've also been known to give 20s to people who don't make arguments. I will not be giving you a 30; nobody gives a perfect speech.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the debate begins, or send me an email. I also do seriously invite conversation about the debate after it occurs-- post-rounds are oftentimes the most valuable instantiation of feedback, the best way to get better at debate, and important for improving intellectually. I know that post-rounds sometimes get heated, and I think we all get defensive sometimes when we're being pressed on things we've said (or think we've said) so I will likely consciously try to take deep breaths and relax if I feel myself getting heated during these times. This also means that I may take a second to respond to your questions because I am thinking. I also might take awkward pauses between words-- that's not because I don't think your question is important, I'm just trying to choose my words carefully so I can correctly convey my thoughts. I only post this here because I don't want anyone to feel like they're being attacked or anything for asking questions, and I apologize in advance if anything I say sounds like that.

Ethics Challenge Addendum:

I would strongly discourage ethics challenges in all but the most extreme instances. I don't want to adjudicate them, you don't want to be the team who makes the challenge, etc. If you notice something is wrong, please contact coaches and/or debaters and try to fix the problem rather than making it a challenge in round.

An ethics challenge is not a no-risk option for me. That is, when an ethics challenge is issued, the debate ends. I will clarify that the team issuing the challenge has issued one and then end the debate and adjudicate the challenge. I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward then and there. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances.

An ethics challenge may be issued along one of three lines: either you have accused the other team of clipping cards, of misciting evidence, or of misrepresenting evidence. Nothing else will be considered an ethics challenge for me.

Clipping cards is defined as claiming to have read more or less of the evidence than one actually has. Please note that I do not follow along with evidence as the debate is occurring. Missing a single word/a few words is not enough. I will decide what constitutes enough of the card to be considered clipping.

Misciting evidence is understood as providing the incorrect author and/or date as well as missing the first author, source of publication, and date (at least the year). Please note that putting something like "the New York Times" instead of "Nate Silver" is acceptable for an authorship. Source of publication can be broad (article title, URL, book title). If the article is easily accessible, then it is acceptable. Again, I will determine what constitutes an incomplete or miscited citation if this becomes a relevant question.

I do not consider missing credentials to be unethical but I do consider those pieces of evidence to be incredibly weak.

Misrepresenting evidence is understood as inserting evidence which is missing lines or paragraphs within the parts of the initial article/book being read. So, for example, if you want to read the first and third paragraph from an article, you must leave the second paragraph in the evidence you read in the debate. This means that, for me, ellipses to indicate that parts of the card are missing or stating something like “pages 4-5 omitted” is unethical. Cards need to be full paragraphs.

Providing a single quote from a book or an article is not a card. As such, I will not consider it as you having introduced evidence and it is not unethical for me. However, not providing full paragraph pieces of evidence means your argument is substantially weaker for me (because, again, then you have not read evidence).

I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances. Please note that I will take this seriously; an ethics challenge is not something to be debated out in a round.

The speaker points I will give are as follows: 28.6 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I vote for, 28.5 for the 1^st speaker of the team I vote for, 28.4 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I do not vote for, 28.3 for the 1^st speaker of the team I do not vote for. My assumption in the event of an ethics violation is that you made an honest mistake and that you were not intentionally cheating. I do not understand ethics challenges to be the equivalent of academic dishonesty or worthy of any punishment besides my ballot being cast in that particular debate (I do not hold these challenges against you in future rounds nor do I believe that you should be in trouble with your debate coaches or schools).

Please note that what I have written here is designed for varsity debate only; that is, when judging novice and JV debates, I will be more lenient and talk through what's going on with the students and, depending on the situation, allow the debate to continue.

These are thoughts that are still evolving for me as I talk with more people. Please bear with me as I continue to think this out. (Also note that this caveat goes along well with the first statement in this section: I would prefer you not introduce an ethics violation unless it is a serious issue in that particular debate).

Please also note that these rules do not apply to my standards for threatening violence against another debater (physical or otherwise) or hurling slurs at your opponent. I will immediately end the round and give the lowest speaker points that Tab will allow me to in that situation.

Experience: Debated nationally at Pace Academy. First-Year student at Emory. 2A.

General: My ideal debater shows interest in the round, speaks clearly, treats opponents and partners respectfully, reads specific strategies, frames the debate as a whole and impacts individual arguments, and knows their evidence. I care much more about how you debate than which arguments you read. However, I am human, so I do have some biases, which I will explain in the following sections. I try to keep a good flow but expect you to clearly flag important arguments that you don't want to risk me missing. 

Evidence: Your evidence can only hurt you. This means that I will only evaluate warrants and explanation you have given in a speech, not default to better evidence despite worse debating. On the other hand, if you make a claim that seems to require evidence to back it up, I will ignore your spin if your evidence quality is poor. I will only look at unhighlighted parts of evidence if the opponent brings it up.

DAs: I don't understand "link controls uniqueness" or vice versa. There can be zero risk of the DA (I am also more likely than most to vote neg on presumption). The politics DA is silly, though I will not hesitate to vote for it if the aff doesn't debate it well.

CPs: I weigh the CP against the status quo, not the aff. My default is that perms are a test of competition, but I can be convinced otherwise. 

Ks (Neg): I don't think I am bad for the K, but I do hold neg explanation to a high standard. I generally default toward the neg getting to read their K but the aff getting to weigh the effects of the plan. However, the critique can definitely bring the aff's solvency and predictions into question. I think most reps and epistemology Ks are repackaged case defense. You can fix this by impacting your specific links. Explain why what the aff said/why their specific scholarship was bad. "The aff securitized China which causes endless violence" is insufficient. Affs should either impact turn the K or attack alt solvency.

Ks (Aff) and T-USFG: You should have some relation to the topic. The closer to a resolutional US policy action, the more likely I am to vote against T. The aff should demonstrate that it is predictable, generates good neg ground, and is incompatible with the "T version." Debated evenly by both sides, I am not super persuaded by fairness bad, productivity bad, or predictability bad. The aff's best bet is winning their education outweighs a marginal loss in fairness. The neg will have an easier time defending fairness and argument testing than decisionmaking or other skills impacts

T: I'm kinda weird about T. Personally, I think the only thing that matters is the predictability of each side's definition. If the aff has the more predictable definition or neither side has a predictable definition, the aff wins. Otherwise the neg wins. Reasonability only makes sense if it is a claim that the aff's definition is approximately as predictable as the neg's. Obviously, this is not the norm, so I am happy to judge a typical limits/ground/topic education T debate as well. Just know that I am easily persuaded by "predictability turn x impact" arguments.

Theory:

General: Explain it well starting in earlier speeches. Slow down on your theory blocks. 

Conditionality- I lean neg. I don't see much of a problem with conditionality or even multiple conditional options. I am much more likely to vote aff if the aff can explain and impact an in-round contradiction or strategy skew that made the debate illogical or severely harmed the aff's ability to garner offense.

Process/agent/international/states- I lean heavily aff.

PICs- I evaluate competition based on the plan text. I am more likely to change my mind if the neg convinces me that the aff's plan is unfairly vague, the aff is too shifty, or the aff's solvency advocate clearly advocates something distinct from the CP.

Intrinsicness- Easier for the aff to win on CPs than DAs. I'm generally sceptical of intrinsicness unless the neg reads a CP that competes artificially or a net benefit that doesn't link to the plan.

Random things I don't like:

Death good- I'll vote for it if you outdebate the other team, but I find their arguments very persuasive. This includes dedev.

Making debates personal- If you like to win by attacking your opponents' character or discussing their activities outside the round, you should not pref me.

Prompting partners/taking over their cross-ex- It's okay every now and then, but if it gets excessive I will hurt both of your speaks.

Saying "they conceded" when they didn't- Self-explanatory.

Try or die without aff solvency- You can definitely win this framing, but you need a coherent explanation of how the aff may solve. If you say "an asteroid is coming so you might as well vote aff," you are probably not in a great position to win.

I've been a debate coach at South Eugene High School and Springfield High School (both in Oregon). I'm also a law professor at the University of Oregon. I was a lawyer before I became a professor.

I'm not going to write too much here because this is YOUR round. From my perspective, speed is fine, any K is fine, any competitive CP is fine, esoteric theory is fine, and T is also fair game (but rarely dispositive unless the aff has really overreached). If you prefer a straight-up policy debate, I'm fine with that too. I'll listen to anything. Just build your arguments carefully and explain why you think you have won.

When I flow, I devote a separate sheet to each argument. I'd appreciate a brief off-time roadmap in advance of each speech so I can put my flow sheets in order. You'll make a better record if you give a plain label for each point.

Be a good sport, don't whine, and above all, have fun!

River Hill '13
Wake Forest '17 with double majors in Communication and Religion and '19 MA in Bioethics

Updated throughout before 2022 GDS:

2022-2023 Res: I haven't worked at a camp but currently work in and studied bioethics, wrote a thesis on AI in medicine and existential phenomenology, and would love to hear a debate about areas of the topic you find interesting or important. The lit bases and quandries affecting or soon to affect our lives are vaster than debate allows discussion for. If your Aff is all about NATO and cyber stuff that's cool too, educate us.

Each team gets 5 minutes of tech time to send out docs, after that I time prep.

"Invisibilizing" (the macro in verbatim for taking away all of a card but the highlighted portions) is cheating and I will end the round immediately. Its happened far too often in front of me. The same goes for any kind of speech doc shenanigans during Zoom debate.

Strategy: I'd rather hear a more in-depth and developed strategy over throwing arguments at the wall in hopes that one will stick.

Argument Preferences: Whatever you do, specific over generic strategy and engagement with the other team's arguments is great.

Case debates's obviously awesome, especially when paired with CP's with Net Benefits specific to the aff.

Creative politics DA's are cool. Generic ones without good evidence are a tough sell.

Critiques are great but work best when refuting the case. A K as one big case turn is fun.

Love judging T in policy debates.

I read and coached K Affs most of the time and voted both ways, recently (end of the 2021-2022 season) probably more so aff. In FW debates, why your form of debating (or not debating) what you say the topic is is a must. I've voted neg on FW in more technical decisions and aff on more "performance outweighs, form affects content" decisions.

Any argument on debate being bad should address what we should be doing then, or why it matters whatever I do with a ballot in front of me. If you're answering this, please justify debate at least while we're stuck here.

Paperless: Yes, I would like speech docs. I try to flow warrants of cards and read to follow your research. Read great cards and emphasize their best parts in evidence comparison to your opponents' evidence.

Speaking/Flowing: Speed is the # of arguments effectively communicated to the judge that the other team must be held accountable to answer.

Slow down for theory, and ESPECIALLY 2ac's/1ar's on the case, or any long blocks of all analytics. I flow straight down and find that when I try lining up each team's arguments it distracts me from the argument being made, so go line by line and sign post but mainly just be sure that you are making a full argument.

Overviews are great, the best ones compare a ballot for you to the ballot for the other team, and weigh the question the ballot decides between the two. Doing this through any part of the debate first before the line-by-line helps to decide what's most important, an important skill to practice.

Numbering arguments helps me follow the flow order you intended.

I try my best to flow CX. Utilize CX later in the debate and I'll connect the flows. A lot of debates are decided based on 15 seconds of a good CX.

Tech vs Truth: Communicating what, why, and how you won, whether on the flow or being "actually right" through scholarship, knowledge of the lit, the world etc. Truth can transcend tech if what, why, or how you're debating supercedes the flow. But even when one team explains well their own side of the story, if they don't answer the most crucial part of the other side then more ballots on a technical decision address the lack of a interaction on important questions.

Many rounds with panel or team disagreement comes down to disagreeing on whether tech or truth mattered more. Its round context dependent and the best debaters spend at least the bare minimum time addressing it somehow. Could be on the impact debate, the link debate, overview, wherever it matters to you.

Teams excelling at tech inevitably debate those excelling at truth, and judging comes down to arguing about prioritizing either being "actually right", versus who moved debate-arg pieces to check-mate. Argue why your style should be preferred.

Make impact calculus arguments for tech, why specific drops on the flow matter. Everyone has a different flow. Many debaters assert arguments were dropped without impacting what dropping the argument means for the ballot, or how it fits into other parts of the flow. I favor technical debating when you are super clear. If you're not communicating clearly then its hard to know how you want my flow to be.

True decisions (who knows what's True) not based on tech are difficult unless you show through amazing cards, examples, and storytelling on your idea of what's true. Any style of debate works better if you can show why you have better scholarship, and why your forms of scholarship matter. This can be for policy, critical, any which way round or between.

If something on another flow implicity answers a "dropped" argument and there's a coherent explanation of this connection, it's not dropped.

An new argument can be justified if it is explained as crucial to making the decision. These justifications can also be debated.

Offense-Defense: I will use it unless an alternate paradigm is introduced and is argued as superior. Evidence on this question would be awesome.

In a T/Theory debate, TELL ME WHAT PARADIGM TO USE. Whoever controls this generally wins.

I will vote on low-risk=no-risk. Poking holes in internal link chains is underrated.

Cheap Shots: Are not the best route to victory. I will be willing to vote for you more if you pair them with a more comprehensive strategy.

Intrinsicness: When explained criticizing opportunity cost decision-making taught by debate links, is not a cheap shot, but works best in conjunction with other arguments.

Critical Intrinsicness? K Affs critiquing opportunity cost thinking as a method or otherwise applied to Neg strategy, especially K link claims about performative or material problems of the aff, are extremely persuasive for why Affs get perms in method debates or just why the perm wins. If your K has links to scenario planning, economics, policy thinking or statecraft, etc. then your lit probably also critiques opportunity cost decisionmaking based on scarcity of choice, i.e. the Aff/Perm forecloses the Neg/Alt because of the links. If the Neg/Alt doesn't engage in some form of action, thinking, organizing, planning on what should be done that performatively or materially denies the aff as an ethical option, then how does the Neg/Alt solve the links? I've rarely seen this debated out by either side but it would go far to answer why debate has a unique role to do whatever you want it to, and why the Neg's argument is not competitive, or the meaning of mutually exclusive performances.

If the Neg wins their performance is good but doesn't win that the Aff's is bad, then that's not a method debate its a presentation of a possible method without refuting the other.

Methods: What's a methodology is a good often undebated question. I'll assume its your approach to answering a question, politics, the topic, your performance, life, debate, whatever.

Everyone has some mode of debating, justify yours. If you think having a methodological approach is bad, explain why. This is where you could get into why debate or your form of it matters.

A policy without methodological support for why its a good idea is not fully argued or researched. Policy teams justifying their method and prepared with answers to K teams' various methods can be very persuasive.

Neg teams that explain what their method is and means, impacted with how your method's differences with the aff matter or are DA's to the aff, are persuasive.

Please don't just assert that its a method debate without a warrant for what that means, who your method is for and in what context, why it is a method debate, and how that changes my paradigm for evaluating the round. Answering the perm just by saying "it's a method debate" doesn't mean anything without a reason and impact.

Topicality: Love it. I don't have a huge preference between reasonability or competing interps. Having education offense for your interpretation is a must. Limits and ground are internal links and not impacts by themselves. This debate, along with FW, is a question of competing worlds of debating the topic.

Reasonability shifts the paradigm for evaluating topicality away from competing interpretations to a "good enough" interpretation for the topic. Its a critique or impact turn to Offense-Defense T debating and the perfective push of competing interpretations aiming for the best possible (only possible) topic.

Competing interpretations should justify why we should strive for the best possible topic and how the aff is not only unreasonable but that settling for the aff's topic would be bad, or that we shouldn't settle for an unideal topic, why the topic matters at all.

Reasonability is NOT a reason that you meet their interpretation reasonably enough. This means you must have an interpretation extended in order to win with reasonability. "We reasonably meet their interpretation" is a we meet argument and confusing blended with reasonability/competing interpretations.

Theory: These debates are unnecessarily messy and should forefront key impacts instead of extending bullet point defense that generally doesn't affect the decision. Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument and not the team. Conditionality is an exception, but only with specific in-round examples of how affirmative strategy was affected. More than 2 conditional worlds, the neg better have a good defense of their practice. Just 2 conditional worlds or less, the aff better have an example of in-round abuse.

If you must go for theory as a reason to reject the other team, dedicate your whole final speech to it. If not, concede the other team's "reject the argument" and show how rejecting that will set up the rest of your winning strategy. EX: reject the process cp, now the case outweighs their DA.

No, I will not kick the CP/Alt for you. Use those decision-making skills and make an actual strategic decision. The 2AR shouldn't be expected to read my mind to figure out which world they are debating. I'll assume that 1NC CX saying that "status quo is always an option" is about the neg and not me after the debate.

Counterplan Theory: I prefer anything with plan specific solvency advocates, and if the neg lacks one the aff should make a big deal of this. I'll admit I'm not the best at thinking through the minutiae of process counterplan competition and would be willing to reject the argument for sketchy CP's that compete off of arbitrary things. If you have a really interesting CP with specific solvency and competition evidence, I'll evaluate things much more in the neg's favor and expect the aff to have answers to an argument within their lit base.

FW when Aff against a K: I won't vote a team down for reading a critique. I will also probably give them access to an alternative. You're better off problematizing the alt's ability to solve because it can't change institutions, etc, while defending the justifications for the 1ac. The Neg on the FW debate should tell me what sort of debate I should prioritize.

FW against a K Aff: Both teams need arguments favoring their form of debate against the other team. Not sure how to vote without a justification of how debate should be.

A lot of debate practices are good and a lot are bad, but what does my ballot mean towards changing that? Is it better to improve the bad parts of debate and keep the good, or is debate so bad it should be abandoned? If abandoned, what do we do while here? How do we leave debate within norms of debating? How are you against or changing those norms? Is changing debate better than leaving it? How do we do either?

Interact with the other team's offense. If you ONLY read FW in your 1NC, it's most persuasive if argued as the ONLY way to clash with the 1AC. If you had other great arguments to read, let's talk about those lol. If you didn't, then practice FW. It's a waste if you read only FW to excuse never engaging other teams at all.

FW's persuasiveness increases when the other team skirts links to other 1NC positions. I've voted for FW many times, but you'd still be better off trying to think of something more creative beyond FW/CAP.

My favorite FW style is like a K about the necessity and inevitability of state and topic engagement showing how not engaging the state or topic turns their Aff AND other topic areas and you'll be much more persuasive than "but limits, judge". Tell me why we're learning about the topic at all. Limits upon an unethical and meaningless topic is a bad idea. Tell me why the topic is ethical and meaningful to learn about.

Decision Time: I will try to decide quickly not because it was a bad debate but because taking too long generally means I end up overthinking the round, as I often do. I will try to read as few pieces of evidence as possible. I expect you to articulate the warrants for cards the first time they are read so that I don't have to figure out what they say after the round.

Be funny, be nice, not over the top screaming at each other. Use analogies!

Longer (older but little has changed) philosophy:

A brief warning: I have not worked at a camp this summer, so I have little Oceans topic knowledge. If there are any intricacies of how the topic, your aff, or really anything operates that I should know in order to vote for you, please tell me. It'll show your expertise on your arguments, which will get you higher speaks, and make my decision much easier.

I do not care what arguments you make, just be passionate about them and execute them in a way that demonstrates that passion. Understand however that some arguments are of higher quality than others. While I will not be unwilling to hear a throwdown on the "The" PIC, my value to life may decrease because of it.

One caveat to the first statement about "run what you want". If you make an argument that is morally repugnant, I will feel no remorse when voting against you. Impact turns such as Racism Good, Sexism Good, Homophobia Good, Transphobia Good etc. are unjustifiable and I would like to think that the debate community is above that in terms of promoting meaningful education and argumentative strategy. If this is just your thing, you are always welcome to strike me. I'm sure we'd both be happier that way.

Also, some people may consider me a "point fairy." Just throwing that out there.


Since I have little preference about what specific arguments you do read, here are some meta issues that I think will better describe how I evaluate debates:

I will try my best to stick to the flow and not to intervene in my decision, HOWEVER no judge is perfectly objective. Judges are humans and not flow-bots. There are certain aspects of debate, argumentation, and communication that cannot be understood by staring at long pieces of paper with various colors of scribbles scrawled upon them. This means persuasion is not solely based on logic, but also emotional connection and personal credibility communicated to the judge. Odds are that if you combine these three factors, you will receive substantially higher speaker points and, if the stars align, you might just win.

Cross-X is very important and I try to flow it. Take time to think this through just as you would any other speech. Good cross-x's that get utilized in later speeches will earn you higher speaker points.

An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Without one of these, you do not have an argument.
Similarly, fewer arguments with more warranted and impacted analysis is always superior to more arguments with fewer warranted and impacted analysis.

Speed is the number of arguments effectively communicated to the judge that the other team must be held accountable to answer. This means I need to have your argument understood and somehow, somewhere written down on my flow AND this argument must be developed in a way that it holds enough importance that the other team has to answer it. I would rather you be clear and flowable than blazing "fast" and impossible to understand.
On a related note, I like to flow the warrants of cards. If you are unclear when reading evidence, it will decrease the persuasiveness of your argument because I will not have a full understanding of what your card actually says.
Unlike many other judges, I will not yell "clear" if I cannot understand you. If you are unflowable, that is not my problem, it's yours. Pick up on visual cues such as my facial expressions or inability to write things down and you can probably tell just how unflowable you are. Please, just be clear and we will never run into problems. If this requires you to slow down and read fewer cards than you would have otherwise, trust me it's probably worth it.

Quality over quantity. Always. I cannot stress this enough. I'd much rather you have a well developed, specific neg strategy with fewer, longer, more warranted cards that apply directly to the affirmative then a 1NC that throws arguments at the wall in hopes that something sticks. The same applies for 1AC's. A well developed advantage with fewer impacts that have many warrants is preferable to one shoddy internal link and solvency claim followed by endless number of impact cards.
Innovation is awesome and will be greatly rewarded. Just know that your new argument should still make sense. Some arguments aren't run for a reason.

Tech vs truth is entirely situational. If an argument is "conceded", it better have a claim, warrant, and impact in order to then count as "true" within the confines of the debate. If something elsewhere on other flows implicitly answers the argument and the other team provides a coherent explanation of this connection, the argument is not "conceded." If an argument is conceded, it does not automatically win the debate. It needs further explanation about what that concession means in relation to the other arguments in the debate.

The debaters who often win and receive the highest speaker points are those who make meta-level "framing issue" arguments, such as reasons to prefer only certain kinds of evidence, impacts, responses etc. If there is something that you think the other team has no game on, please tell me what that is, why it matters, and how it implicates how I evaluate everything else.

In this same vein, it is VERY, VERY, VERY important to tell me how to evaluate certain arguments, mainly permutations and framework arguments, often beyond the simple "perm's are tests of competition" or "we should weigh our plan." Tell me what it means for you to win the perm or framework, how they interact with other arguments on the flow. If the aff wins the perm, but the neg wins their framework, what does that mean? Impact these important portions of the flow so I know how arguments work together on the flow.

Evidence makes arguments, but so should debaters. Just because you have a card on something does not mean you will win. Sensible analytic arguments will be valued as highly as evidence, and definitely higher than shoddy evidence.

Offense-Defense is a useful heuristic for evaluating risk. However, I do think that there is such thing as terminal defense. It is still safer to extend offense.
PLEASE tell me whether or not I should use an offense-defense paradigm, and give reasons for this too. This is especially important in topicality and theory debates when it can be harder to win substantive offense.

Impact calculus is extremely important. The triumvirate of Magnitude, Timeframe, and Probability are overrated though. Certainly make these arguments, but explain them and why they are important/more important than the other team's impact. Impact calculus should tell a story. I want to know what the world, or lack thereof, will look like post-ballot. This is ESPECIALLY important in critique debates where the impacts can be more ethereal.

Theory debates can get messy, so clean them up and you'll probably win. If you clean up the flow and make larger, conceptual framing arguments as opposed to bullet point extensions of your theory block, you will be rewarded with good speaks and maybe even a ballot.
Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument and not the team. If you do wish to go for theory in the 2AR, you will win if you overcome this threshold.

The only strong theory bias I hold is against "judge kick." I do not think that the 2NR can go for both the CP/Alt AND the status quo, meaning that during the decision the judge should be able to kick the advocacy and vote for the status quo. The 2NR is very hard, but the 2AR should not be expected to read the judge's mind and debate in both the world where the neg's advocacy is kicked and where it's not. 2N's should make strategic choices by actually making a choice of what you want to go for. If you defend judge kick in the 2NR, I will be very unhappy and will probably not end up kicking the advocacy (unless the 2AR really drops the ball on this theory question AND there's no other way to resolve the debate).

If in cross-x the neg says "status quo is always an option", I assume that means that it's always an option for the neg and that they can kick the advocacy and go for the status quo and NOT that I can judge kick. To counter this form of negative shadiness, 1NC CX should always include questions of the status of advocacies AND whether the judge can kick the advocacy after the debate. It takes 10 seconds tops and is well worth your time.
If the 1NC does defend "judge kick", please make this into a separate theory argument in the 2AC. It's not a round winner, but bringing it up will hopefully deter this practice in some way.

I love debate, but understand it has LOTS of problems and is in serious need of improvement. However, it is still the most rewarding activity I have ever had the privilege of participating in.

If your argument claims that debates in the status quo are exclusionary/oppressive/pure-evil, then I am perfectly willing to vote for you if you provide an alternate method capable of changing debate for the better. We are about to be in a debate, after-all.

This can even include "burn it down" style arguments, but I want to know what myself as a judge can do while in debate about debate. This does not necessarily have to be framed in terms of a typical critique "alternative", but I would just like to know what ideal debates would look like after I sign my ballot.

Having said that, I think all forms debate can be highly educational. Whether one likes to call arguments performative, non-traditional, or anything else, it's all still arguments.

Framework arguments have varying levels of persuasiveness against these forms of debate. I find framework most persuasive when you paint a picture of what their world of debate looks like for both aff and neg teams, for debate research, for judges, for the community overall etc. and not simply by rehashing limits and ground arguments.

Topical versions of the aff need fleshing out and I hold a higher standard for explanation on how they actually address not just the advantage of the aff but also their solvency approach as well. Topical versions of the aff supported by evidence are much more persuasive. Think of them as counterplans with FW being the net benefit.

The same goes for other forms of topicality arguments. Limits and ground are internal links and not impacts by themselves. Debate about what debate should/shouldn't be like.

Conversely, teams having framework run against them need a defense of their argument's form, content (explanation for whether there is even a difference between those things), and a reason why their version of debate is superior to the other team's.

I've rethought my policy on paperless prep time. Prep time stops when you save the speech and the other team has access to it, whether this means you hand it to them on a flashdrive or you sent it to them through an email chain. Please just be quick about it or be a more efficient prepper.

Debate is built on trust. Cheating or unethical behavior will not be tolerated. If a team is proven to have debated unethically, that team will receive extremely low speaker points and will lose the round. However, if the team accusing the other fails to prove that any unethical behavior occurred, that team will receive the same punishment. This is to prevent off-the-cuff accusations of cheating that delegitimize actual, warranted charges.
Another important thing to note here: these accusations are not to be evaluated with an "offense-defense" paradigm. There can be no grey area. You must prove that the other team performed unethically using substantive evidence. The best example of this is a recording of the debate along with a copy of the speech.


If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

Also, have fun!! Debate is competitive, but don't let that get in the way of your enjoyment of the whole process =]

Debated at Emory. Coached at Harvard and Northwestern and Dartmouth.

Put me on your email thread, thanks: ksten52@gmail.com

TL;DR: Be attentive, prepared, and invested. I will do the same in return.

- Judge instruction is the most valuable skill you have and the most important one for you to use. Good judge instruction establishes tenets for judging the situation at hand by declaring what criteria I should care about when making choices.
- More often than not you can understand how I feel about an argument by monitoring my reaction
- My hearing is in the B- to B+ range but it's definitely not an A. Let's aim for a 10% clarity increase.

Clash Debates *Updated in 2020
I care about my flow, following assumptions to their logical conclusions, internal link defense, and answering the arguments the other team is making not the caricature of the argument you assume they're making.

I try to keep my opinions out of my judging in all contexts, but in this context the opinions that I am predisposed to agree with are:
- People shouldn't have to refute the subjective experiences of others.
- Without explaining the causal pathway, an assertion that debate makes us good or bad at something is an incomplete argument.
- Novelty for the sake of itself is silly
- Being told you're wrong isn't the same thing as being told you're bad.
- The debate round is not the same thing as Debate. Endowing the debate round, the single facet of Debate that is engineered to produce dissensus and us-them thinking, with a preeminent role in achieving community good has never made any sense to me.

Kritiks
- Links should have impacts.
- I tend to measure the utility of theories by my understanding of the consequences of adoption. Debate's understanding of consequence is often too narrow. But if you can't explain the material implications of your thing... we will struggle.
- Solving problems is an invaluable skill, but identifying them is a rather cheap one. I find that this belief influences how I think about the K more than any other.

Theory
- I don't think conditionality is that bad... but if saying it is constitutes your cleanest path to victory then do that.
- I’m generally persuaded that if a prepared 2A could have anticipated the CP, the CP belongs in debate.

Disads/Counterplans/Other
- A disad cannot be low risk unless you've substantively demonstrated that's the case with defensive arguments. Describing the nature of conjunctive risk bias is not that.
- People stopped doing good terminal impact calculus at some point? Don't love it. Please fix.
- Making courageous choices and knowing when to cut your losses is one of the hardest debate skills to master. I reward debaters who do it well.

Best of luck.

**standard operating procedure: 1) yes, if you are using an e-mail chain for speech docs, I would like to be on it: mikaela.malsin@gmail.com. The degree to which I look at them varies wildly depending on the round; I will often check a couple of cards for my own comprehension (because y'all need to slow down) during prep or sometimes during a heated cross-ex, but equally often I don't look at them at all. 2) After the debate, please compile all evidence that *you believe* to be relevant to the decision and e-mail them to me. I will sort through to decide which ones I need to read. A card is relevant if it was read and extended on an issue that was debated in the final rebuttals.

updated pre-Shirley, 2013 

Background: I debated for four years at Emory, completed my M.A. in Communication and coached at Wake Forest, and am now in my 2nd year of the Ph.D. program at Georgia.

global thoughts: I take judging very seriously and try very hard to evaluate only the arguments in a given debate, in isolation from my own beliefs. I'm not sure that I'm always successful. I'm not sure that the reverse is true either.  In the limited number of "clash" debates that I've judged, my decisions have been based on the arguments and not on predispositions based on my training, how I debated, or how my teams debate. 

speaker points: I will use the following scale, which (while obviously arbitrary to some degree)  I think is pretty consistent with how I've assigned points in the past and what I believe to represent the role of speaker points in debate. I have never assigned points based on whether I think a team "should clear" or "deserves a speaker award" because I don't judge the rest of the field in order to make that determination, I judge this particular debate. EDIT: I think the scale published for the Shirley is very close to what I was thinking here.

Below 27.5: The speaker has demonstrated a lack of  basic communication. 

27.5-27.9: The speaker demonstrates basic debate competency and argumentation skills. Some areas need substantial improvement.

28.0-28.4: The speaker demonstrates basic argumentation skills and a good grasp on the issues of importance in the debate. Usually shows 1-2 moments of strong strategic insight or macro-level debate vision, but not consistently. 

28.5-28.9: Very solid argumentative skills, grasps the important issues in the debate, demonstrates consistent strategic insight.

29-29.5: Remarkable argumentative skills, understands and synthesizes the key issues in the debate, outstanding use of cross-ex and/or humor.

29.6-29.9: The speaker stands out as exceptionally skilled in all of the above areas.

30: Perfection.

Critical arguments: My familiarity is greater than it used to be but by no means exhaustive.  I think  that the "checklist" probably matters on both sides.

Topicality: I believe in "competing interpretations" with the caveat that I think if the aff can win sufficient defense and a fair vision of the topic (whether or not it is couched in an explicit C/I of every word), they can still win. In other words: the neg should win not only a big link, but also a big impact. 

CP’s: Yes. The status quo is always a logical option, which means the CP can still go away after the round. (Edit: I am willing to stick the negative with the CP if the aff articulates, and the neg fails to overcome, a reason why.) Presumption is toward less change from the status quo. 

DA’s: Big fan. At the moment, I probably find myself slightly more in the “link first” camp, but uniqueness is certainly still important. There CAN be zero risk of an argument, but it is rare. More often, the risk is reduced to something negligible that fails to outweigh the other team's offense (edit: this last sentence probably belongs in the all-time "most obvious statements" Judge Philosophy Hall of Fame). 

Theory: RANT is the default. Probably neg-leaning on most issues, but I do think that we as a community may be letting the situation get a little out of control in terms of the numbers and certain types of CP’s. I think literature should guide what we find to be legitimate to the extent that that is both possible and beneficial. 

Good for speaker points: Strategic use of cross-examination, evidence of hard work, jokes about Kirk Gibson (edit: these must be funny) 

Bad for speaker points: Rudeness, lack of clarity, egregious facial hair.

Affiliation: College- Wake Forest '17, '19 High School- New Trier '13

Please add me to your email chains: jmichaelmanchester [@] gmail.com

This used to be a super long explanation of how I felt about debate, but given how little utility that has for many of you before a debate, here's the short version:

"I never was the smartest debater and I never will be, which means please do not make assumptions about argument understanding. Something could honestly just be over my head, this having happened multiple times in my debate career as a debater."- Lee Quinn hit the nail on the head. Don't assume that I'll know the in's and out's of your argument to the degree that you do. Regardless of argument type, explanation that contains an argument, claim, and warrant is essential.

Top shelf things for everyone:
Clarity- To quote the definition Jarrod Atchison has already beaten into my head: "Speed is the number ideas effectively communicated to the judge that the other team is held accountable to respond to." Slowing down on analytics and differentiating the tag from the rest of the card is a must.

Speaks- make fun of Duke and you'll be in a good place.

People on the right:
Do what you do well. Regardless of what you end up going for make sure you've got the "story" of your argument on lock. How does the aff's change from the squo cause the impact to the DA to be triggered? What affs are included under your interpretation of the topic? These narratives can be easily established in the overview of your DA/CP/T violation and go a long way in making sure I understand your argument as well as you want me to.


I tend to lean aff on most theory issues, though on most questions it isn't too far in the aff's direction (the exception to this is conditionality, I'm definitely in the you get one conditional option camp- that being said most people are bad at going for conditionality so that hasn't translated to any aff ballots on condo in front of me).


People on the left:
Do what you do well. I'll forefront that I'm not nearly as deep in the literature to the left as I am with the right but that doesn't mean I won't be interested in your arguments.

I think you probably should have some relation to the topic, whether that requires defending a normative action be taken by the state or simply discussing the implications of certain aspects of the topic is up for debate. If you're debating FW the question of reformism necessary v. unnecessary is super important.

If you're going for a K win framework and be good to go- though you should know I'll be inclined to let the aff weigh the 1AC if they put up a decent fight on FW.

Read links with clear impacts- just reading a wall of cards that says "the aff does the thing we are k-ing" without explaining how the interacts with the larger questions the alt/impact are getting at isn't super useful.

Assistant Director of Debate -- UTD... YOU SHOULD COME DEBATE FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE SCHOLARSHIPS AVAILABLE

So I really dont want to judge but if you must pref me here's some things you should know.

Arguments I wont vote on ever

Pref Sheets args

Things outside the debate round

Death is good

General thoughts

Tl:Dr- do you just dont violate the things i'll never vote on and do not pref me that'd be great.

Line by Line is important.

I generally give quick RFDs this isnt a insult to anyone but I've spent the entire debate thinking about the round and generally have a good idea where its going by the end.

Clarity over speed (ESP IN THIS ONLINE ENVIRONMENT) if I dont understand you it isnt a argument.

****NEW THOUGHTS FOR THE NDT**** I generally dont think process CPs that result in the aff are competitive -- I'm more likely to vote on perm do both or the PDCP if push comes to shove... could I vote on it sure but I generally lean aff on these cps.

Online edit -- go slower speed and most of your audio setups arent great. (See what I did there)

Only the debaters debating can give speeches.

I catch you clipping I will drop you. So suggest you dont and be clear mumbling after i've said clear risk me pulling the trigger.

ecmathis AT gmail for email chains... but PLEASE DONT PREF ME

Longer thoughts

Can you beat T-USFG in front of me if your not a traditional team.... yes... can you lose it also yes. Procedural fairness is a impact for me. K teams need to give me a reason why I should ignore T if they want to win it. Saying warrantless claims impacted by the 1AC probably isnt good enough.

Aff's that say "Affirm me because it makes me feel better or it helps me" probably not the best in front of me. I just kinda dont believe it.

Reading cards-

I dislike reading cards because I do not fell like reconstructing the debate for one side over another. I will read cards dont get me wrong but rarely will I read cards on args that were not explained or extended well.

K-There fine I like em except the death good ones.

In round behavior- Aggressive is great being a jerk is not. This can and will kill your speaks. Treat your opponents with respect and if they dont you can win a ballot off me saying what they've done in round is problematic. That said if someone says you're arg is (sexist, racist, etc) that isnt the same as (a debater cursing you out because you ran FW or T or a debater telling you to get out of my activity) instant 0 and a loss. i'm not about that life.

Debate Coach - University of Michigan

Debate Coach - New Trier High School

Michigan State University '13

Brookfield Central High School '09

I would like to be on the email chain - my email address is valeriemcintosh1@gmail.com.

A few top level things:

• If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is. This also includes forwarding the argument that death is good because suffering exists. I will not vote on it.
• If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
• Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
• I'm a very expressive judge. Look up at me every once in a while, you will probably be able to tell how I feel about your arguments.
• I don't think that arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates are at all relevant to my decision and I will not evaluate them. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.

Pet peeves

• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start
• Asking if I am ready or saying you'll start if there are no objections, etc. in in-person debates - we're all in the same room, you can tell if we're ready!
• Email-sending related failures
• Dead time
• Stealing prep
• Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team
• Asserting things are dropped when they aren't
• Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards
• Disappearing after the round

Online debate: My camera will always be on during the debate unless I have stepped away from my computer during prep or while deciding so you should always assume that if my camera is off, I am not there. I added this note because I've had people start speeches without me there.

Ethics: If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points.
*NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me.

Organization: I would strongly prefer that if you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn that it go on its own page - its super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders. Ditto to reading advantage CPs on case - put it on its own sheet, please!

Cross-x: Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions. If you don't start the timer before you start asking those questions, I will take whatever time I estimate you took to ask questions before the timer was started out of your prep. If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Translated evidence: I am extremely skeptical of evidence translated by a debater or coach with a vested interest in that evidence being used in a debate. Lots of words or phrases have multiple meanings or potential translations and debaters/coaches have an incentive to choose the ones that make the most debate-friendly argument even if that's a stretch of what is in the original text. It is also completely impossible to verify if words or text was left out, if it is a strawperson, if it is cut out of context, etc. I won't immediately reject it on my own but I would say that I am very amenable to arguments that I should.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate: I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting. This can also be accomplished by reading those lines in cross-x and then referencing them in a speech or just making analytics about their card(s) in your speech and then providing a rehighlighting to explain it.

Topicality: I enjoy judging topicality debates when they are in-depth and nuanced. Limits are an an important question but not the only important question - your limit should be tied to a particular piece of neg ground or a particular type of aff that would be excluded. I often find myself to be more aff leaning than neg leaning in T debates because I am often persuaded by the argument that negative interpretations are arbitrary or not based in predictable literature.

5 second ASPEC shells/the like that are not a complete argument are mostly nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans: I would say that I generally lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps, but obviously am more than willing to vote for them if they are debated better by the negative.

I think that CPs should have to be policy actions. I think this is most fair and reciprocal with what the affirmative does. I think that fiating indefinite personal decisions or actions/non-actions by policymakers that are not enshrined in policy is an unfair abuse of fiat that I do not think the negative should get access to. The CP that has the US declare it will not go to war with China would be theoretically legitimate but the CP to have the president personally decide not to go to war with China would not be. Similarly CPs that fiat a concept or endgoal rather than a policy would also fall under this.

It is the burden of the neg to prove the CP solves rather than the burden of the aff to prove it doesn't. Unless the neg makes an attempt to explain how/why the CP solves (by reading ev, by referencing 1AC ev, by explaining how the CP solves analytically), my assumption is that it doesn’t and it isn’t the aff’s burden to prove it doesn’t. The burden for the neg isn’t that high but I think neg teams are getting away with egregious lack of CP explanation and judges too often put the burden on the aff to prove the CP doesn’t solve rather than the neg to prove it does.

Disads: Uniqueness is a thing that matters for every level of the DA. I am not very sympathetic to politics theory arguments (except in the case of things like rider disads, which I might ban from debate if I got the choice to ban one argument and think are certainly illegitimate misinterpretations of fiat) and am unlikely to ever vote on them unless they're dropped and even then would be hard pressed. I'm incredibly knowledgeable about politics and enjoy it a lot when debated well but really dislike seeing it debated poorly.

Theory: Conditionality is often good. It can be not. Conditionality is the ONLY argument I think is a reason to reject the team, every other argument I think is a reason to reject the argument alone. Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Kritiks: I've gotten simultaneously more versed in critical literature and much worse for the kritik as a judge over the last few years. Take from that what you will.

Your K should ideally be a reason why the aff is bad, not just why the status quo is bad. If not, you're better off with it primarily being a framework argument.

Yes the aff gets a perm, no it doesn't need a net benefit.

Affs without a plan: I generally go into debates believing that the aff should defend a hypothetical policy enacted by the United States federal government. I think debate is a research game and I struggle with the idea that the ballot can do anything to remedy the impacts that many of these affs describe.

I certainly don't consider myself immovable on that question and my decision will be governed by what happens in any given debate; that being said, I don't like when judges pretend to be fully open to any argument in order to hide their true thoughts and feelings about them and so I would prefer to be honest that these are my predispositions about debate, which, while not determinate of how I judge debates, certainly informs and affects it.

I would describe myself as a good judge for T-USFG against affs that do not read a plan. I find impacts about debatability, clash, iterative testing and fairness to be very persuasive. I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I am not very persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.

I generally am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.

I don't think debate is roleplaying.

I am uncomfortable making decisions in debates where people have posited that their survival hinges on my ballot.

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Piper's older brother (pref her, not me)

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain. Please do email chains instead of sharing in the zoom chat/NSDA classroom! PLEASE no google docs if you have the ability to send in Word! If you send docs as PDFs your speaker points will be capped at 28.5)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Stealing this bit of wisdom from DML's philosophy: If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

I debated for Wake Forest in college and SPASH in high school. I coached debate at Niles North/West. I then went to law school.

I prefer and reward the speaker points for:
- clarity
- organized debates
- strategic thinking
- well researched arguments

I dislike the following and dock speaker points for:
- unclear speaking
- prep stealing/wasting
- being belligerent/overly aggressive

I've updated the argument preference section. I think overall judges should try to fairly evaluate everything before them no matter what the argument is. However, all judges have preferences. If you have the flexibility, here are my most favorite to least favorite types of debates:

Tons of fun:
Specific case neg/DA

Aff-specific CP/PIC (not a word pic - a pic out of something substantive in their aff or a CP that comes from the lit about their aff).

Impact turning the aff

K of the specific aff

Totally fine:
Generic DA/Case
Substance CP (not process based) and a DA
Generic middle of the road K (security, neolib, cap, biopower, topic K)
A good T argument (not ASPEC/OSPEC)

OK but a high threshold for good research and practice:
Agent CP's
Wilderson/anti-blackness
Performance arguments

No. Please don’t read or go for these:
Baudrillard/Nietzsche/Lacan/Psychoanalysis/Bataille
Process based arguments: consult CP's, rider da's, veto cheato, con con, etc
ASPEC/OSPEC

Do these things when going for these arguments to maximize speaker points and win

K's: 1. Focus on the link and turns the case arguments - these should be your primary focus. 2. Avoid relying solely on cheap-shots like "you dropped value to life".

T: 1. Be slow and clear. 2. Have a case list of what you include, what the aff includes, and why your caselist is better for debate.

3. Impact your arguments and compare them to your opponents.

DA's: 1. The link is the most important to me. 2. Have specific/reasonable turns the case arguments (not nuke war turns terrorism, but instead trade turns terrorism).

CP's: 1. Be as specific as possible to the aff. 2. Don't compete based on the process. 3. Debate the comparative impact to the solvency deficits to the net benefit.

Put me on your email chain: brentm310@gmail.com

I know this paradigm is does not cover anything, so feel free to ask me any questions you have.

I debated policy/cross-ex debate at Glenbrook South in High school (class of '14) and Wake Forest in College (class of '18). I made mostly traditional policy arguments for the first 7 years of my career, until my senior year at Wake when my style opened up a bit and I ventured into the world of K things (Thanks to Varun Reddy). That said, I'll vote on any argument that wins the debate. I try not to be ideological, but everyone inevitably is.

Y'all should know: I haven't been around debate much since I graduated Wake in 2018. That means I do not know what your topic is. This matters for how you explain things like T. Presume I know nothing, because I don't know anything. If you wanted to write the resolution on the board to help me out a little bit, I would not be upset.

I flow on paper. This means you know I'm not trolling around looking at memes, but it also means you know I'm not writing down every single word. Have convenient taglines for your arguments. Package things well. LBL is a lost art. Massive overviews are ruinous.

FW -- I think this argument is strongest on the negative when read as a movements disad, but no one seems to agree with me on this (except for the folks who debated with me ;)). If you INSIST on going for this as a procedural fairness argument, I need you to know: in my eyes, nothing about not being topical is PER SE procedurally unfair. You can't just read definitions, cry fairness, then explain why fairness comes first. I need you to flesh out what we used to call the "internal link" between your definitions and the concept of fairness. WHY is what they did unfair? Do they have a counterinterp that makes debate bad? Do they not have a counterinterp at all? Is your interp the only fair one? Tell me why. That's all I'm saying.


I love T debates. Go for T.

Oakland University - PhD Applied Mathematics (2017)

U of M - Dearborn - BSE Computer Engineering & Engineering Mathematics (2011)

I debated for Groves High School for two years, U of M - Dearborn for one year, and I debated for U of M - Ann Arbor for one year. I have been coaching at Groves High School since August 2007, where I am currently Co-Director of Debate.

Please include me on the email chain: ryannierman@gmail.com

Please also add the email grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

Top Level: Do whatever you want. My job is to evaluate the debate, not tell you what to read.

Speed: Speed is not a problem, but PLEASE remain clear.

Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. There needs to be specific explanations of your standards and why they are better than the aff's or vice versa. Why does one standard give a better internal link to education or fairness than another, etc?

CPs: I am willing to listen to any type of CP and multiple counterplans in the same round. I also try to remain objective in terms of whether I think a certain cp is abusive or not - the legitimacy of a counterplan is up for debate and thus can vary from one round to the next.

Disads: Sure. There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. The overviews should focus in on why your impacts outweigh and turn case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line.

Kritiks: Sure. I enjoy a good kritik debate. Make sure that there is a clear link to the aff. This may include reading new link scenarios in the block. There should also be a clear explanation of the impact with specific impact analysis. Spend some time on the alternative debate. What is the alt? Does it solve the aff? What does the world of the alternative look like? And finally, who does the alternative? What is my role as the judge? The neg should also isolate a clear f/w - why does methodology, ontology, reps, discourse, etc. come first?

Theory: I don't lean any particular way on the theory debate. For me, a theory debate must be more than just reading and re-reading one's blocks. There needs to be impacted reasons as to why I should vote one way or another. If there are dropped independent voters on a theory debate, I will definitely look there first. Finally, there should be an articulated reason why I should reject the team on theory, otherwise I default to just rejecting the argument.

Performance: Sure. I prefer if the performative affirmation or action is germane to the topic, but that is up for debate. I am certainly willing to listen to your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Paperless Debate: I do not take prep time for emailing your documents, but please do not steal prep. I also try to be understanding when tech issues occur, but will honor any tech time rules established and enforced by the tournament. I will have my camera on during the round. If my camera is off, please assume that I am not there. Please don't start without me.

Other general comments:

Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

I do not feel comfortable voting on issues that happen outside the round.

You should read rehighlightings.

Don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is.

Cross-x is a speech - it should have a clear strategy and involve meaningful questions and clarifications.

Have fun!

Last affiliated with: Wake Forest University, North Carolina (2014 - 2016.)

Previously Associated with: Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School, New York (2009 - 2014)

email: live.on.clouds@gmail.com (enter it into the email chain)

The work I put in is nothing compared to the work you have done preparing for this debate. But I can tell you that I will work hard in trying to make you feel like your time here is not wasted. That your work is being recognized the way that you wish it to be. Despite any doubts you may have of your own talent, to know that your love for this activity is meaningful. That is my promise to you.

At a glance:

-Speaks (novice&jv will vary)- I was told the last time I judged that, "times have changed," and the speaker points I gave were too little. Therefore, I have maintained my standards, but scaled the points to accurately reflect the current trends. I hope you will enjoy.

Line-by-line is necessary to break 27.0
Correct debate execution without appearance of deliberate strategic choices nets you 27.5 - 28.0
Deliberate strategic choices 28.0 - 29.0
Impressive execution and strategic choices 29.0 - 30.0
Missing decency - will not break 26.0

-Opinion on the current meta: teams are running towards affs that defend less and less, and teams are running towards reading framework against those affs. This meta is fine but stale. Words of advice for both sides;

IF you are "framework": I'd rather watch a debate where teams hold the AFF to reading affs within the scope of the topic by running an interpretation of what areas of literature the topic should cover to promote the best depth of knowledge and debate skills about said topic. Then explain why the AFF has not met that interpretation of the topic. Note here that topic =/= usfg.

IF you are "non-traditional debate": You'll have a higher success rate if your aff has links to the topic. Your aff doesn't need to be USFG but it has to do something. That something can be flexible. But as I like saying, "however far of a stretch you think it is, you have to close that distance before you can start on other flows."

-Decision Making-

Debate is a game. It has an established meta. Both sides believes they are correct while the other side is wrong. I'm of the opinion that it's not a game of proving who's right, but effectively translating your ideas and communicating them to me so that I can write a ballot with your name on it. (i.e: policy debate is not an exercise in writing a thesis paper, it is an exercise in translating from your language to mine.) Translation of ideas often times are more successful the more languages you speak - this is to say, having many different ways to say the one thing will find you more success among many different judges through many different rounds. I am no different here. Speak my language and the barrier to explanation will be lower. Speak a foreign language to me and the barrier will be higher.

Speed is good. I akin it to dribbling in basketball/tech-skill in videogames, a barrier of entry that allows for a wider range of volatility, providing an avenue for potential creativity (if you're not fast) or defeating shortcomings through sheer dedication (if you wanna be fast).

Evidence is good. Claims with warrants is an absolute deal breaker. Tech that is true > tech believably true > truth without tech > tech without truth > truth.

(And here is a personal bias: I like a good cross ex moment like any other judge. But where I differ is that if you can be honestly kind during cross ex while still getting the answers you need to get, you'll get a lot higher points from me compared to other judges.)

For novice/jv: If your coach/senpai gave you blocks to read, read them before the debate to figure out what that block is saying, and then re-write the block in your own words. I understand that this cannot be done 100% of the time, but it can be done more often than not. If it becomes apparent that you are reading blocks in the rebuttals without thinking about the arguments and how they interact, I won't just lower your speaks, I will most likely not give that argument much more weight on the flow. I've certainly given novice/jv teams the W when they have lost on the flow, but they understand all the arguments they made and how it interacts with the opponents' arguments. We're aiming for long term growth, not short term Ws in novice/jv.

About me:

I'm an all around low-maintenance judge. But here are some things to keep in mind behavior-wise:

- Please clean up after yourselves. We're most likely having a debate in a public space (some school) or a rented space (some hotel). It would be nice if you are courteous of your surroundings.

- I'll smile and give facial feedback (I am human after all) while you are debating. Look at these and adjust accordingly and you will have more success.

- You can easily hurt my feelings by: not appearing to listen to my reason for decision, appearing to degrade others for wanting to debate, insulting people I hold close to me. Most of the time if this happens before the round, you'll probably lose since I'll look for every reason to vote against you :')

- In case this becomes important, I live under a different rock than you do. I don't really know anything about your "pop-culture" so your references will most likely fly over my head. Sorry ^^

My history:

For those people who think that getting some background on the judge's history tells them more about how they judge debates, I've listed out some important historical details about me:

I've done pretty much all sorts of things in every facet of Debate. I've read a plan text that had ten words to a plan text that read like a novella. I've read a plan without a plan text. I've read a policy big stick aff. I've read a small squirrely aff designed to beat T-substantial but was not substantial. I've read an identity aff. I've read all sorts of negative arguments from consult to pic-ing out of individual debaters, to reading poems about purple kush. I've read everything from Mills to Baudrillard to Rodriguez to Wilderson to Kagan. I've read DisAds that didn't have uniqueness but were 'linear' to the DisAd formerly known as "the Obama DA."
I haven't done all of those things with tremendous success, but I've done all of it at a national-circuit level. Which is something that not everyone can say.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that in front of me, you can be whomever you want to be. You don't have to be yourself if you don't want to. You can be the best politics debater (and by that virtue you can be the worst politics debater and instead go for something else), you can do a mean line by line, you can drop the overview and go for truth, or you can go for conditionality bad for however many minutes your rebuttal is. Whatever floats your PIK.

Lastly:

I used to really like debate. Now it's an old memory of mine. If you're really passionate about debate, don't be afraid to let it show. Hold onto that flame and enjoy it while it lasts.

Best of luck.

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

Experience:

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

Education:

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

Debate arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

Random comments:

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

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

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

Final thoughts:

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

Niles West (Debater 2010-2014, Coach 2014-2018)

Northwestern University (2014-2018)

Columbia Law School (2018-2021)

I'm always working on recognizing my habits as a judge, so take all this with a grain of salt. I think all types of debate are interesting and enjoyable as long as you do it well. I’d rather you do what you do best than what you think I like best. You should assume I don't have much familiarity with the topic. I am not perfect. I am not a machine. Connect with me (on important arguments, not as friends. I don't want to be your friend). Make Arguments. Say Words.

Note for Novices -- Congratulations for reading judge paradigms before debates. You probably don't need to read much more than this. If you've figured out what's going on in a debate round, how to flow, go line by line, and do impact calc & comparison, you will do really well, and I will be impressed. I am more strict about novice tag-team CX because too many novices abuse the privilege. Bring your own timer. Please do not try to shake my hand after debates. I am your judge, not your friend. Don't make things weird.

Procedures

I care deeply about plan texts and counterplan texts being written correctly. More than grammar, this is an issue of clearly defining the scope of your ability to fiat action and making sure your plan/CP does what you say it does. Texts must be entirely written out.

I strongly prefer that you do your own CXs. Your partner is a lifeline, not the focus of the CX. I will let you know if your tag-team gets out of hand.

I do not take prep for emailing or flashing, but it needs to be done efficiently. When you end prep time, I expect you to have your speech ready and have a road map.

Often times, I feel that people aren't speaking loud enough.

Be confident and assertive, not rude and insulting.

Don't cheat. You should clearly state at which word you are marking a card during your speech. If a prep or speech clock is not running, you should not do or look like you are doing any preparatory activity related to the debate. Don't lie.

Tech Over Truth

Truth and evidence quality are important and are usually persuasive, but I feel more comfortable rewarding you for work you have done in the round than punishing you for not answering true arguments that your opponent hasn't meaningfully developed.

Having a card on something doesn't always beat a good analytic press.

I will not assume dropped arguments are true if you haven’t done the work to extend it.

Good analysis needs to make it all the way through to the final speeches.

You will be rewarded for keeping my flow organized.

You can make all of the arguments you need to win the debate, but I cannot find them or understand your strategy, you may be disappointed with the results.

Kritikal Arguments

I think they’re interesting and useful as long as they’re articulated well. If you’re going for Security and can’t explain threat construction or Wilderson when you don’t know what social death is, you will most likely lose unless the other team messes up worse which will make me upset with everyone. With enough work, even the most generic K can be devastating. Make your arguments apply to the aff, or I will be very sympathetic to a perm.

You must advance some coherent normative claim for me to explain why my ballot should go to your team. I didn't realize that this was a controversial issue, but after judging some Bataille and Baudrillard debates, I learned that I was mistaken.

What is the alt? Is there an alt?

I prefer it when K affs are tied to the topic, have a clear advocacy/method, and a clear reason to vote aff in the debate at hand (not reliant on what happens after the debate or outside of it).

I am willing to pull the trigger both for and against framework. Neg teams may struggle in front of me if they choose not to engage the aff at all. Thinking of good T versions of the aff are very useful for the neg and can be very dangerous for the aff. Generic state good/bad debates don't necessarily tell me whether advocating governmental policy with fiat in a debate round is good or bad. Impact analysis and comparison is very important for both sides.

I often question the role of the judge, the ballot, and the debate space on my own time without resolving anything, so deciding these and other issues should be debated out in round. Be sure to explain how I should be making my decision under whichever framework you propose.

Counterplans

Specific Counterplans are cool. Advantage CPs are good; if you have a bunch of planks with totally unrelated solvency advocates, I might find it unreasonable at some point. I would prefer that you read some form of solvency advocate (not necessarily specific to the aff) in the 1NC, but I don't think I should punish you for thinking of a smart CP on the fly.

Aff teams should make sure that their permutations are coherent.

There’s a theory debate to be had about many different categories of CPs.

If you want the aff to defend something that they have not said explicitly, you need some pretty good evidence for me to not be sympathetic to aff clarification arguments.

Generic Conditions, Consult, and other Process CPs are dubious in both competition and theory, but I have read those types of CPs and am willing to vote on them.

Theory

Theory arguments can be used very effectively, but they usually don’t get developed enough before the final rebuttals.

I usually won't reject the team on issues other than conditionality, but sometimes rejecting a certain argument is enough to beat the other team. If no one has articulated what I should do about a theory violation, I will default to whatever I think will resolve the impacts best.

Some of this was covered in the CPs section.

Regarding conditionality, having 1 conditional option is probably fine, having 2 conditional options is probably okay, and having 3 conditional options is probably pushing it. New affs probably justify more leniency. All of this is debatable, but those are my predispositions.

If you're going to read an interpretation, try not to do so arbitrarily. If you extend a theory interpretation, your standards should be explained in the context of that model of debate compared to the other team's model.

I will not kick the CP or alt for you unless you say so in the 2NR.

Does T come before theory? Probably.

Topicality

Put in the effort to describe debate under each interpretation (Case lists, why certain types of affs are good/bad, specific examples of ground gained/lost, why that aff/neg ground is good for debate) to explain why your interpretation is a better version of the topic for debate.

I will default to competing interpretations. However, a reasonability argument is winnable and very useful for the aff. To be clear, reasonability is an argument about how reasonable your interpretation is for debate, not how reasonable or predictable the aff itself is.

Well-researched T debates are interesting to watch.

Disadvantages

Good. The more specific, the better.

Most politics theory arguments are bad.

This is my twenty sixth year as an active member of the policy debate community. After debating in both high school and college I immediately jumped into coaching high school policy debate. I have been an argument coach, full time debate instructor, program director, and argument coach again for Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart in Miami, FL for the past seventeen years.

I become more convinced every year that the switch side nature of policy debate represents one of the most valuable tools to inoculate young people against dogmatism. I also believe the skills developed in policy debate – formulating positions using in depth research that privileges consensus, expertise, and data and the testing of those positions via multiple iterations—enhance students’ ability to think critically.

I am particularly fond of policy debate as the competitive aspect incentivizes students to keep abreast of current events and use that information to formulate opinions regarding how various levels of government should respond to societal needs.

Equipping students with the skills to meaningfully engage political institutions has been incredibly valuable for me. Many of my debate students have been Latina/Latinx. Witnessing them develop an expert ability to navigate institutions, that were by design obfuscated to ensure their exclusion, continues to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and I am constantly grateful for that privilege.

I am deeply concerned by the ongoing trend toward clash avoidance. This practice makes debate seem more trivial each year and continues to denigrate our efforts in the eyes of the academics we depend on for funding and support.

Affirmatives continue to lean into vague plan writing and vague explanations of what they will defend. This makes for late breaking and poorly developed debates. I understand why students engage in these practices (the competitive incentive I lauded above) I wish instructors and coaches understood how much more meaningful their contributions would be if they empowered students to embrace clash over gimmicks.

I will be less persuaded by your delivery if you choose to engage in clash avoidance. Actions such as deleting analytics, refusal to specify plans, cps, and K alts, allowing your wiki to atrophy, and proliferating stale competition style and Intrinsicness arguments will result in my awarding fewer speaker points.

Remember your friends’ hot takes and even your young coaches/lab leaders’ hot takes are just that – they are likely not the debates most of your critics want to adjudicate.

If you are not flowing during the debate, it will be difficult to persuade me that you were the most skilled debater in the room.

Be “on deck.” By that I mean be warmed up and ready for your turn at bat. Have your table tote set up, the email thread ready, you pens/paper/timer out, your laptop charged, go to the restroom before the round, fill up your water bottle, etc. I don’t say all this to sound like a mean teacher – in fact I think it would be incredibly ableist to really harp on these things or refuse to let students use the facilities mid-round – but being ready helps the round proceed on time and keeps you in the zone which helps your ability to project a confident winning persona. It also demonstrates a consideration for me, your opponents, your coaches and teammates and the tournament staffs’ time.

Be kind and generous to everyone.

You can likely deduce most of this from the discussion of clash avoidance and why I value debate above.

I would prefer to see a debate wherein the affirmative defends the USFG should increase security cooperation with the NATO over AI, Biotech, and/or cybersecurity.

I would like to see the negative rejoin with hypothetical disadvantages to enacting the plan as well as introducing competing proposals for resolving the harms outlined by the affirmative.

One of the more depressing impacts to enrolling in graduate school has been the constant reminder that in truth impact d is >>> than impact ev. A few years ago, I was increasingly frustrated by teams only extending a DA and impact defense vs. the case – I thought this was responsible for a trend of fewer and fewer affirmatives with intrinsic advantages. I made a big push for spending at least 50% of the time on each case flow vs the internal link of the advantage. My opinion on this point is changing. Getting good at impact defense is tremendously valuable – you are likely examining peer reviewed highly qualified publications and their debunking of well…less than qualified publications.

I find Climate to be one of the most strategic and persuasive impacts in debate (life really). That said, most mechanisms to resolve climate presented in debates are woefully inadequate.

I am not averse to any genre of argument. Every genre has highs and lows. For example, not all kritiks are generic or have cheating alternatives, not all process counterplans are unrelated to the topic, and not all politics disadvantages are missing fundamental components but sometimes they are and you should work to avoid those deficiencies.

The folks with whom I see debate similarly:

Maggie Berthiaume

Dr. Brett Bricker

Anna Dimitrijevic

David Heidt

Fran Swanson

Varun Reddy

Wake Forest University 15-19

Westwood High School

Since writing this, I have experimented with debating both kritikal and policy arguments as well as combinations of both. I will do my best to judge whatever arguments you choose to deploy to the best of my ability.

T

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise specified. The standard on T is limits and I will filter much the 2AC as well as the 2NC explanation of the violation through this guiding frame. When going for Topicality in front of me, it would help to treat the argument like a disad in terms of ordering.

CPs

Explain why the counter-plan solves at least some or all of the aff that is important. Aff needs solvency deficits and theory arguments to defeat the CP. Criticizing the process of the CP and the logic of a net-benefit is also welcome.

K

Good k debates are won with specific micro level impacting at the link level and alternative defenses. I am highly persuaded by an aff team that spends a good time on the permutation and fights some of the link arguments. Similarly, a negative team with good framework arguments about why I should not weigh the aff are compelling as well. As far as strategy, 2ACs should have 1. perm 2. link turn/ no-link 3. alt solvency deficit 4. theory argument 4. impact turn/no impact. 2NCs should have the following 1. impact overview 2. framework argument 3. alt explanation 4. link debate

FW

Negative, Have a competing interps argument. Explain why the form of the affirmative is more important than the content in terms of debatability. Secondly, have strong explanations for why limits and jurisdictional constraints on debate are important for preserving the predictability and debatibility of the topic.

DA

Good Disad debates are good. I am of the opinion the politics disad are maybe suspect in the conjunction of link and internal link chains and an aff team that is good on this question may be persuasive. Justifications for probability, magnitude, and time frame can really make or break alot of these close debates and I think spelling out the direction of the link debate for me is good as well.

Concluding Notes (Must Read :P)

Debate is TOO serious sometimes. Be a fierce competitor and come to win but also don't lose sight of the subtleties in debate that make it fun. Enjoy yourself. Believe in the process and good things will come. Otherwise, good luck!

Put me on the chain: imtaylorsanchez@gmail.com

Affiliations: Coached East Kentwood (MI) 2012-2016, Debated at Oklahoma (2016-2018), Coach for SPASH (WI) & Oklahoma

Thoughts:

I don't know exactly what you want from me here. I'm a film person. I write about it. I know some stuff about a lot of kinds of critical theory and ideology. Jazmine and I read arguments about visual relations/the symbolic economy informed by radical black and native feminisms.

I think of debates as competing worlds/models and default to a flow-centric, offense-defense paradigm. If you tell me to think of debate differently, I'll do that. When I debated, my overviews were LONG and I talked in paragraphs. I don't think folks should necessarily replicate this, lol but I'm a big picture person. I need y'all to frame the impact debate for me, frame my ballot, etc. etc. It's a cliche but "even if" statements are underutilized.

K-stuff outside of what I'm used to is fine, but examples are important for me to conceptualize theory. I usually won't read cards unless something is challenged.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Debated 4 years Marquette University HS (2001-2004)

Assistant Coach – Marquette University HS (2005-2010)

Head Coach – Marquette University HS (2011-2012)

Assistant Coach – Johns Creek HS (2012-2014)

Head Coach – Johns Creek HS (2014-Current)

Yes, put me on the chain: bencharlesschultz@gmail.com

No, I don’t want a card doc.

Its been a long time since I updated this – this weekend I was talking to a friend of mine and he mentioned that I have "made it clear I wasn’t interested in voting for the K”. Since I actually love voting for the K, I figured that I had been doing a pretty bad job of getting my truth out there. I’m not sure anyone reads these religiously, or that any paradigm could ever combat word of mouth (good or bad), but when I read through what I had it was clear I needed an update (more so than for the criticism misconception than for the fact that my old paradigm said I thought conditionality was bad – yeesh, not sure what I was thinking when I wrote THAT….)

Four top top shelf things that can effect the entire debate for you, with the most important at the top:

11) Before I’m a debate judge, I’m a teacher and a mandatory reporter. I say this because for years I’ve been more preferred as a critical judge, and I’ve gotten a lot of clash rounds, many of which include personal narratives, some of which contain personal narratives of abuse. If such a narrative is read, I’ll stop the round and bring in the tournament director and they will figure out the way forward.

22) I won’t decide the debate on anything that has happened outside of the round, no matter the quality of evidence entered into the debate space about those events. The round starts when the 1AC begins.

33) If you are going to the bathroom before your speech in the earlier speeches (constructives through 1nr, generally) just make sure the doc is sent before you go. Later speeches where there's no doc if you have prep time I can run that, or I'll take off .4 speaks and allow you to go (probably a weird thing, I know, but I just think its stealing prep even though you don't get to take flows or anything, just that ability to settle yourself and think on the positions is huge)

44) No you definitely cannot use extra cross-ex time as prep, that’s not a thing.

5

55) Finally, some fun. I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it. So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows. I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do! By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points

Top Shelf:

This is stuff that I think you probably want to know if you’re seeing me in the back

· I am liable probably more than most judges to yell “clear” during speeches – I won’t do it SUPER early in speeches because I think it takes a little while for debaters to settle into their natural speed, and a lot of times I think adrenaline makes people try and go faster and be a little less clear at the start of their speeches than they are later. So I wait a bit, but I will yell it. If it doesn’t get better I’ll yell one more time, then whatever happens is on you in terms of arguments I don’t get and speaker points you don’t get. I’m not going to stop flowing (or at least, I never have before), but I also am not yelling clear frivolously – if I can’t understand you I can’t flow you.

· I don’t flow with the doc open. Generally, I don’t open the doc until later in the round – 2nc prep is pretty generally when I start reading, and I try to only read cards that either are already at the center of the debate, or cards that I can tell based on what happens through the 2ac and the block will become the choke points of the round. The truth of the debate for me is on the flow, and what is said by the debaters, not what is said in their evidence and then not emphasized in the speeches, and I don’t want to let one team reading significantly better evidence than the other on questions that don’t arise in the debate influence the way I see the round in any way, and opening the doc open is more likely than not to predispose me towards one team than another, in addition to, if I’m reading as you go, I’m less likely to dock you points for being comically unclear than if the only way I can get down what I get down is to hear you say it.

Argumentative Stuff

Listen at the end of the day, I will vote for anything. But these are arguments that I have a built in preference against. Please do not change up your entire strategy for me. But if the crux of your strategy is either of these things know that 1 – I probably shouldn’t be at the top of your pref card, and 2 – you can absolutely win, but a tie is more likely to go to the other side. I try and keep an open mind as much as possible (heck I’ve voted for death good multiple times! Though that is an arg that may have more relevance as you approach 15 full years as a public school DoD….) but these args don’t do it for me. I’ll try and give a short explanation of why.

1. I’m not a good judge for theory, most specifically cheap shots, but also stuff seen as more “serious” like conditionality. Its been a long long time since anyone has gone for theory in front of me – the nature of the rounds that I get means there’s not usually a ton of negative positions – which is good because I’m not very sympathetic to it. I generally think that the negative offense, both from the standpoint of fairness and education, is pretty weak in all but the most egregious rounds when it comes to basic stuff like conditionality. Other counterplan theory like no solvency advocate, no international fiat, etc I’m pretty sympathetic to reject the argument not the team. In general, if you’re looking at something like conditionality where the link is linear and each instance increases the possibility of fairness/education impacts, for me you’ve got to be probably very near to, or even within, double digits for me to think the possible harm is insurmountable in round. This has come up before so I want to be really clear here – if its dropped, GO FOR IT, whether alone or (preferably) as an extension in a final rebuttal followed by substance. I for sure will vote for it in a varsity round (in novice rounds, depending on the rest of the round, I may or may not vote on it). Again – this is a bias against an argument that will probably effect the decision in very close rounds.

2. Psychoanalysis based critical literature – I like the criticism, as I mentioned above, just because I think the cards are more fun to read and more likely to make me think about things in a new way than a piece of counterplan solvency or a politics internal link card or whatever. But I have an aversion to psychoanalysis based stuff. The tech vs truth paragraph sums up my feelings on arguments that seem really stupid. Generally when I see critical literature I think there’s at least some truth to it, especially link evidence. But

3. Cheap Shots – same as above – just in general not true, and at variance with what its fun to see in a debate round. There’s nothing better than good smart back and forth with good evidence on both sides. Cheap shots (I’m thinking of truly random stuff like Ontology Spec, Timecube – stuff like that) obviously are none of those things.

4. Finally this one isn’t a hard and fast thing I’m necessarily bad for, but something I’ve noticed over the years that I think teams should know that will effect their argumentative choices in round – I tend to find I’m less good than a lot of judges for fairness as a standalone impact to T-USFG. I feel like even though its never changed that critical teams will contend that they impact turn fairness, or will at least discuss why the specific type of education they provide (or their critique of the type of education debate in the past has provided), it has become more in vogue for judges to kind of set aside that and put sort of a silo around the fairness impact of the topicality debate and look at that in a vacuum. I’ve just never been good at doing that, or understanding why that happens – I’m a pretty good judge still for framework, I think, but youre less likely to win if you go for a fairness impact only on topicality and expect that to carry the day

Specific Round Types:

K Affs vs Framework

Clash rounds are the rounds I’ve gotten by far the most in the last 5-8 years or so, and generally I like them a lot and they consistently keep me interested. For a long time during the first generation of critical affirmatives that critique debate/the resolution I was a pretty reliable vote for the affirmative. Since the negative side of the no plan debate has caught up, I’ve been much more evenly split, and in general I like hearing a good framework press on a critical aff and adjudicating those rounds. I think I like clash rounds because they have what I would consider the perfect balance between amount of evidence (and specificity of evidence) and amount of analysis of said evidence. I think a good clash round is preferable than almost any round because there’s usually good clash on the evidentiary issues and there’s still a decent amount of ev read, but from the block on its usually pure debate with minimal card dumpage. Aside from the preference discussed above for topicality based framework presses to engage the fairness claims of the affirmative more, I do think that I’m more apt than others to vote negative on presumption, or barring that, to conclude that the affirmative just gets no risk of its advantages (shoutout Juliette Salah!). One other warning for affirmatives – one of the advantages that the K affords is that the evidence is usually sufficiently general that cards which are explained one way (or meant to be used one way) earlier in the round can become exactly what the negative doesn’t need/cant have them be in the 2ar. I think in general judges, especially younger judges, are a little biased against holding the line against arguments that are clearly new or cards that are explained in a clearly different way than they were originally explained. Now that I’m old, I have no such hang ups, and so more than a lot of other judges I’ve seen I’m willing to say “this argument that is in the 2ar attached to (X) evidence is not what was in the 1ar, and so it is disallowed”. (As an aside, I think the WORST thing that has happened to, and can happen to, no plan teams is an overreliance on 1ar blocks. I would encourage any teams that have long 1ar blocks to toss them in the trash – if you need to keep some explanations of card warrants close, please do, but ditch the prewritten blocks, commit yourself to the flow, and listen to the flow of the round, and the actual words of the block. The teams that have the most issue with shifting argumentation between the 1ar and the 2ar are the teams that are so obsessed with winning the prep time battle in the final 2 rebuttals that they become over dependent on blocks and aren’t remotely responsive to the nuance of a 13 minute block that is these days more and more frequently 13 minutes of framework in some way shape or form)

K vs K

Seems like its more likely these days to see clash rounds for me, and next up would be policy rounds. I’d actually like to see more K v K rounds (though considering that every K team needs to face framework enough that they know exactly how to debate it, and its probably more likely/easier to win a clash round than a K v K round on the negative, it may be more strategic to just go for framework on the neg if you don’t defend the USFG on the aff), and I’d especially love to see more well-argued race v high theory rounds. Obviously contextualization of very general evidence that likely isn’t going to be totally on point is the name of the game in these rounds, as well as starting storytelling early for both sides – I’d venture to say the team that can start telling the simple, coherent story (using evidence that can generally be a tad prolix so the degree of difficulty for this is high) early will be the team that generally will get the ballot. The same advice about heavy block use, especially being blocked out into the 1ar, given above counts here as well.

Policy v policy Rounds

I love them. A good specific policy round is a thing of beauty. Even a non-specific counterplan/DA round with a good strong block is always great. As the season goes on its comparatively less likely, just based on the rounds I usually get, that I’ll know about specific terminology, especially deeply nuanced counterplan terminology. I honestly believe good debaters, no matter their argumentative preference or what side of the (mostly spurious) right/left divide in debate you’re on, are good CASE debaters. If you are negative and you really want to back up the speaker point Brinks truck, a 5+ minute case press is probably the easiest way to make that happen.

Individual argument preferences

I’ll give two numbers here – THE LEFT ONE about how good I think I am for an argument based on how often I actually have to adjudicate it, and THE RIGHT ONE will be how much I personally enjoy an argument. Again – I’ll vote for anything you say. But more information about a judge is good, and you may as well know exactly what I enjoy hearing before you decide where to rank me. 1 being the highest, 10 being the lowest.

T (classic) --------------------------------------- 5/4

T (USFG/Framework) ------------------------ 1/1

DA ------------------------------------------------ 3/2

CP ------------------------------------------------- 4/2

Criticism ----------------------------------------- 1/2

Policy Aff --------------------------------------- 2/2

K Aff ---------------------------------------------- 1/3

Theory ------------------------------------------- 8/9

Cheap Shots ------------------------------------ 10/10

Post Round:

I feel like I’ve gotten more requests lately to listen to redos people send me. I’m happy to do that and give commentary if folks want – considering I saw the original speech and know the context behind it, it only makes sense that I would know best whether the redo fixes the deficiencies of the original. Shoot me an email and I’m happy to help out!

Any other questions – just ask!

Current affiliation: director at Purdue & assistant at Head Royce.

Did you know Purdue is a public University with over 40,000 undergraduate students? Despite our excellent reputation for our engineering and computer science programs, as well as our success in the NCAA basketball tournament, we are in fact a public land-grant university in West Lafayette, IN. Tuition is less at Purdue than it is at Indiana University.

Past affiliations: Weber State, Wake Forest, Loyola Marymount, Idaho State, West Georgia, as well as College Prep, Georgetown Day, Bishop Guertin, Chattahoochee, and many other high school programs.

I love debate. I chose to return to debate after spending a few years working at a consulting firm. I make less money now, but enjoy the work much more. I appreciate your participation in the activity and will do my best to determine a winner, as well as help you improve in the time I spend judging your round.

I will default to flowing on paper. I appreciate efforts to be organized and go line-by-line; I will reward speakers that make flowing easier.

I will not read along with the speech doc. I believe debate should be a persuasive activity. I think following along with the speech doc is a poor practice, and I feel some type of way about it. I would like to be on the doc chain; everybodylovesjim@gmail.com& hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

If the round has started and there is no timer going, please don’t prep. I’ll kindly ask you to stop prepping if I notice you prepping while no timer is running. I think remote debate may have contributed to lax prep time standards, and I feel some type of way about it.

I’m a fan of multiple flavors of debate. I’m somewhat of a dinosaur at this point, but I still appreciate attempts at innovation. I’ve voted for and against all sorts of arguments. I’ve coached teams on various flavors of arguments. I’m generally agnostic. My best piece of advice for debating in front of me, or any other judge; debate powerfully, make the judge adapt to you.

I love cross ex! It’s generally my favorite part of the round. I usually flow it. I always pay attention to it. If you make gains in cross ex, please leverage those gains in your speeches. I will reward speakers for a well executed cross ex. I prefer you don’t treat prep time as cross ex time, I frequently leave the room during prep time and appreciate these opportunities.

I will reward speakers that focus on clarity over speed. If I ask you to be clear, please make an effort to adjust.

I start the process of deciding who won by establishing the most important issue(s) in the debate and determining who won the core controversies. I ask myself who won the round if both teams win their package of arguments. I frequently write a rough draft of a ballot and then try to argue against that decision to check against overlooking something. I try to edit my many thoughts to keep things more brief in delivering my RFD, particularly when on a panel. Sometimes when I sit I ask to give my RFD last - sometimes this is so I can get a sense of where the other judges are at, sometimes it’s to circumvent judges from editing their decisions when I’m confident in my RFD.

Hello - I debated for Emory for four years and just graduated.  I have some biases but will try to not let them affect me during the debate.  I also don't read speech docs during the round unless a certain card becomes a huge deal in c/x.  Below is my speaker point scale - I will try to reference this to avoid inconsistent point distribution throughout the year/at any given tournament.

Below 27.5: The speaker has demonstrated a lack of  basic communication. 

27.5-27.9: The speaker demonstrates basic debate competency and argumentation skills. Some areas need substantial improvement.

28.0-28.4: The speaker demonstrates basic argumentation skills and a good grasp on the issues of importance in the debate. Usually shows 1-2 moments of strong strategic insight or macro-level debate vision, but not consistently. 

28.5-28.9: Very solid argumentative skills, grasps the important issues in the debate, demonstrates consistent strategic insight.

29-29.5: Remarkable argumentative skills, understands and synthesizes the key issues in the debate, outstanding use of cross-ex and/or humor.

29.6-29.9: The speaker stands out as exceptionally skilled in all of the above areas. 

I think vagueness is going to be an interesting argument on this topic - I would encourage teams to specify as much as their solvency advocate does to encourage good debates and interesting neg strategies

Counterplans: I think CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive. I think process, consult, and agent counterplans are bad for debate/not competitive

Disadvantages: The link controls the direction of the disadvantage. If the disad turns and outweighs the case, but has no link, I won’t vote for it. Absolute defense is possible.  All of this equally applies for aff advantages

Critiques: Alts are important and not just a K prior question.  Negatives should explain what the alternative does and what it means to vote for the critique.  I can be persuaded to vote for any critique, as long as I understand it

I think that debate is a game that should revolve around a topical plan/action.  I am persuaded more by topicality arguments rather than framework arguments. Topicality is more along the lines of you have to defend the resolution/debating about the resolution is a good thing.  Fairness is an impact in and of itself-but the negative still has to explain why

Seven—Misc:

Presumption goes to less change, not necessarily the negative.

I am very willing to grant absolute defense, especially if I feel an argument is silly.

Smart analytics = good. You don’t need evidence to make an argument.

Evidence v. Debating—if an argument is conceded and explained (or if one team is out-debating another), I won’t look to evidence. If arguments are well contested (at the margins), evidence is very important to me. Better evidence > more evidence. Evidence > spin.

Please email me your speech documents. I have judged over a 1000 HS and College Debates over the last 18 years. I am a lawyer and lectured this past summer on this year's HS topic at Institutes for the NY UDL and the DC UDL Coaches Workshop and at Summer Institutes at the University of Michigan, Gonzaga, Georgetown and Harvard.

If you run a K, and actually have an ALT that can be proven to SOLVE a problem - - - any problem - - - it would be the first one I have heard that does solve a problem in 18 years of judging debates and then you might get my ballot, but probably not depending on how well the AFF does. If you are AFF and have a Plan that SOLVES a problem without creating more or larger problems - - - you might well get my ballot, depending on how well you debate during the round.

I listen to arguments, favor clash to determine who does the better job of debating, and no matter the chosen framing or style of either or both teams, I judge the debate based on what is said during the DEBATE by the Debaters.

I began high school judging in 1973.

I started judging college debate in 1976.

Between 1977 and 2002, I took a vacation from debate to practice law and raise a family.

Since 2002, I have judged between 40 and 80 Rounds a year in High School and had brief stints judging college and professional debate while "coaching" for the University of Redlands, my alma mater, in, I believe, 2010.

You can debate your own stuff, but I am not a theory fan.

I believe I have voted NEG on topicality four times in 18 years, twice in non-traditional AFF debates and once at the Kentucky RR when I thought the AFF made a mistake and I also thought the NEG made them pay, although a very competent and distinguished judge who was also judging the same round felt differently. So, even in the one traditional debate round where I voted NEG on T, I was probably wrong. I believe in AFF creativity, reasonability which guarantees predictability.

BUT (and and this is a CAPITAL BUT) I like/strongly prefer substantive debates ABOUT the topic area, so long as the Plan is a reasonable illustration of the Resolution.

People who listen and answer arguments well get great speaker points. People who are nice and friendly and not jerks also like their speaker points.

I have had teams run K's and all kinds, types and nature of CP's. The PERM Debate really makes a difference in a K and CP Round. I am not the most philosophically literate humyn being on the planet, so please explain your esoteric K and your even more esoteric K responses.

Cross-Examination is IMPORTANT, so please ask questions, get answers and ask more questions. When responding, please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. No need to fight or argue. Ask questions, Get Answers, move on.

For the clash of civilization people who want to know more about my feelings and leanings, perhaps the best information I can give you is that I listened to a recording of the final round of the 2013 NDT and would have voted for Northwestern had I been judging. The framework debate in my mind flowed Negative.

I enjoy DISADS and case debates. I am particularly fond of hidden Case Turns that become huge Disads.

I know how hard you work and will attempt to work just as hard to get things right.

elijahjdsmith AT gmail.com

My General Thoughts on Debate

Debate is what you make it. I have an extensive history in circuit policy/ld and college policy debate. I care about education more than fairness, good cards over the quantity of positions, and quality arguments over the number of arguments in a debate.

An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact in a single speech.

The role of the affirmative is to affirm and the role of the negative is to negate the affirmative in an intellectually rigorous manner. However, I would personally like to hear the affirmative say we should do something. I would prefer to hear about an actor outside of the folks reading the 1AC (Nonprofits, governments, the debate community as a whole, etc) do something but that is not a requirement. Most of it sounds good to me.

Please don’t say racist, sexist, ableist things or things that otherwise participate in -isms . Sometimes these are learning moments. Sometimes these are losing moments.

If there was an accessibility, disclosure, or other request made before the debate that you plan to bring up in the debate please inform me before the debate. I would like to evaluate the debate with this information ahead of time. More personal issues/things that someone did last year are difficult for me to understand as relevant to my ballot.

I decide debates by figuring out 1. framing issue 2. offense 3. good defense 4. if the evidence is as good as you say it is 5. deciding which world /side would result in a better outcome (whatever that means for the debate in front of me)

These thoughts are fairly general yet firmly how I think about debate.

My RFDs have been less "little c, little d mattered to my ballot" and "let's talk about the conceptual, big-picture things that both sides missed that will help you win the next debate". If you want the small line-by-line issues to matter as much you have to give them weight in your final speech. That requires time, investment in explanation, and comparative claims.

LD***

Tricks, silly arguments, etc. Please skip. I haven't read your ethics phil but I've voted on it when it makes sense. 4+ off is grounds for a condo debate. K links require longer than 15 seconds to explain.

Public Forum****

If you already know what evidence you are going to read in the debate/speech you have to send a document via email chain or provide the evidence on a google document that is shared with your opponents before the debate. Those cards have to be provided before the speech begins.

You don’t get unlimited prep time to ask for cards before prep time is used. A PF debate can’t take as long as a policy debate. You have 30 seconds to request and there are then 30 seconds to provide the evidence. If you can’t provide it within 30 seconds your prep will run until you do.

The Final Focus should actually be focused. You have to implicate your argument against every other argument in the debate. You can’t do that if you go for 3 or 4 different arguments.

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

Director of Debate at Westminster 2013-2021, lawyer, college and high school debater before that -- but slow it down some if you want your arguments to make it to my flow, which is usually on paper.

It is unlikely that I can flow the tiny details of your pre-written blocks.

I definitely do not know the details of your politics DA or answers, or topicality arguments that were devloped from some obscure 1879 state court ruling - please understand that I am evaluating your argument based on what you say in the round, although I will look at cards if you give me reason to.

Don't assume, and explain well.

Quick thoughts:

1) Make your speeches flowable. I will not be able to flow (and likely will not catch) all the details if you are reading pre-written blocks at top speed with no breaks or changes in inflection. If you're going to read blocks, try to at least pretend you're not reading blocks by having breaks between arguments, emphasizing tags, slowing it down a little on analytics, etc. You are also a lot more likely to hold my attention to details and help me not miss stuff that way. I will reward your speaker points if you do a good job of this.

You would be shocked at how many "good" judges think the same thing about block-reading and the above advice, and how little some judges are flowing, or even catching, of what you think you said.

2) I disagree with approaches that make the personal identity of the debaters in the round relevant to the decision in the debate, especially for high-school-aged students, and I am also not a good judge for these debates because I often do not understand what the judge is being asked to vote for. This does not mean you can't read K arguments or arguments about race or identity, in fact there are many K arguments that I think are true and make a lot of sense, I just don't think a teacher should in the position of ratifying or rejecting the personal identity or experiences of a teenager.

3) "Death good" is a reason to reject the team, and I may auto-vote that way even if the opponent doesn't make the argument.

4) There needs to be a fair stasis point in order to have good debates. Debate is good.

5) Theory: You are really taking your chances if you rely on a sketchy CP that requires winning a lot of theory, because I do not spend a lot of time outside of debate rounds thinking about theory. I can't tell you which way I will come down on a particular theory issue because it usually depends on what is said -- and what I flow -- in that particular round. This applies to T debates and other theory debates too.

6) If it is pretty close between the CP and the aff (or even if it isn't close), you need to give some really clear comparative explanations about why I should choose one over the other -- which you should do for any judge but make sure you do it when I'm judging.

7) I really dislike high theory and post-modernism in debate.

8) Reading cards to decide the debate: For many years I tried to judge without looking at the speech documents during the speeches, but I have recently concluded that is unrealistic because there is an entire additional level of the debate that is happening between the debaters in the speech documents. I don't think it should be that way, but I understand why it is happening. However, if the claims made about a card or set of cards are uncontested by the opponent, I am likely to assume when deciding the debate that the cards say what their reader claimed they say rather than reading both sides' cards or any of the cards.

9) I am not at all deep in the files and evidence especially for most neg arguments, so I am really judging the debate based on what you say and what your cards say as you present them in the round.

9) Links and impact calculus are really, really important, especially in the last rebuttals. However, I think lengthy pre-written overviews are not as good as 2NR/2AR (and prior) explanations based on what actually happened in the particular debate.

Lexington High School 2013
Wake Forest University 2017

Short Version:
Do what your good at, and at the end of the round you should be fine.

Long Version:
In high school I read hard core policy aff’s, and was a DA, Case and Kritik debater on the neg.

DAs:
Love DA, case debates. In high school I went for politics all the time.

CPs:
Case specific CPs are great and will get you good speaks if clearly articulated. I am not a fan of generic process CPs, I tend to err aff on theory pushes, but can be convinced otherwise. Generic word PICs suck. Specific PICs are great.

Kritiks:
Specific link and alt explanation will reward you. However, do not assume that I know the literature behind your kritik as well as you do.

Topicality:
I default to competing interpretations.

Performance:
Clearly articulate your method.

Kritical Aff’s:
Fine by me, but make sure you know what your talking about, have a defense of what your talking about, and clearly explain to me what your argument is.

Theory:
Generally believe that two conditional options is good, but can be convinced otherwise. Three is pushing it, and four or more is definitely absurd.

General:
Be polite and nice in CX- this doesn’t mean you can’t be firm or persistent. Smart and strategically used CX will get you a long way with speaker points
Evidence comparison is great
DO NOT clip cards. If I catch you, I will give you zero speaker points
Good jokes are awesome
Clarity over speed

I'm a crazy, old man.  You are strongly advised to strike me.  If that didn't convince you, I hope the following will.

While I'm pretty much willing to listen to anything, the following are my biases.  As much as I try to set aside my preferences, I'm sure they influence my understanding what teams say, what the warrants are, and ultimately my assessment of issues.

I firmly believe that the affirmative should advocate a topical plan.  I think this is the only viable way for the negative to have a chance to prepare well. If defended well, there is some chance of my voting for an aff without a plan, and the odds are a little better if the affirmative at least talks about issues related to the topic.

On topicality, I prefer a standard slightly different from reasonability and competing interpretations.  I think it should be negative burden to prove the affirmative interpretation is bad for debate, not just that the negative interpretation is marginally better.  The best way to prove an interpretation bad for debate is limits – that the interpretation is so broad than the negative could never be thoroughly prepared to debate every possible case.

I do not think debate is role playing of federal actors.  You're you and I'm me, and there is a debate about what we think the federal government should do.  Fiat obviously doesn't assume anything really happens.  Fiat is just ignoring the question of "will" and debating "should" in order to focus the debate on the merits of the idea/ policy.

I tend to be fairly liberal on counterplans, with competition being about the only requirement.  PICs, agents, etc are fine.  There does needs to be some limit on negative fiat for agents, but that can be debated out.  Presumptively governmental actions are OK, and private actors are not.

K's and K affs with plans are fine with me.  I am not that familiar with much of the literature.  So, you should explain things thoroughly.  Ultimately, these debates become matters of what makes sense to me.

Spin, explanation, and telling a good story are crucial to winning my ballot.  Even more important is resolving arguments, and I am increasingly frustrated by debaters in rebuttals emphasizing their own arguments and never referencing opposing responses.  2NRs and 2ARs with lots of "they say…, but" references are more likely to win my ballot.

Please be clear.  Start speeches at less than full speed.  Pause a little before and slow down some on the argument tags.  I hate it when I cannot tell that a card has ended and a new argument is being made.  Please do not get quiet when reading cards.  I know this is hard for you to believe, but if you stop to breathe at punctuation marks, you will be faster and clearer than the awful double gasping that so many of you do.

I debated four years pf, ld, and policy in high school and four years of policy in college.

I can flow pretty much everything, and I’ll evaluate all the arguments to the best of my ability. Try to give your arguments impacts and help me create a framework to evaluate the debate.

Update April 2024- some thoughts after a few years of judging pf

I'm considering not allowing off-time road maps as I think they've become super long-winded and silly. It's my preference that you say, "pro case then con case" or vice versa. Sometimes there are extra sheets of paper that's fine, but I've been in too many debates when the off-time road map sounds something like this, "I'm gonna start by talking about the major issues in the round, then I'm going to address some of the things my opponent has said, before frontlining and then weighing at the bottom." That is, essentially, meaningless to me.

I think that debaters should reward punctuality and timeliness. When I was a debater I didn't realize how much judges are on the clock. There is a judging deadline and if the debate starts late, or seems to take forever. Besides extenuating circumstances, I am always trying to be on time and I think it's selfish to make the tournament run late. That means if I only have two minutes left before the decision deadline, I am spending two minutes deciding. It is in your best interest as debaters to give me more time, not less to think about the round.

I've watched a few theory debates this year. I tend to think RVI's are silly. PF theory is not my favorite but I have voted on it before.

I do really like it when debaters make arguments comparative and have a lot of topic knowledge. I'm often interested in these topics and it's nice when you are too.

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans

Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.

Disadvantages

I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.

Criticisms

I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.

Performance

In my eight years as a debater, I ran a policy affirmative and primarily went for framework against performance AFFs. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Notes

Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

Fran Swanson
Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart ’13
Harvard ‘17
franswanson95 [at] gmail.com (please add me to the email chain)

I debated at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart for 4 years and I'm currently a college senior. Assume no familiarity with the topic: acronyms, “norms” that have developed about topicality, and other topic-specific knowledge must be explained.

The aff should defend a plan that is an example of a topical action by the United States federal government. Teams that do not do this (or vaguely claim to in 1AC cx but shift out of this later) will be vulnerable to framework/topicality. A topical example of the aff when paired with well-impacted arguments about ground and fairness is a persuasive 2NR.

Each debate comes down to a few key questions. Give 2NRs and 2ARs that "write the ballot" by resolving these. Make fewer, more well-explained arguments (this goes for the 1AR too) with "even if" statements. 

Debate in a way that shows me how hard you work: read high quality evidence, be familiar with it, have an end-of-round vision, and plan strategic CXs.

Silly T violations, procedurals (ASPEC, etc), and bad theory arguments (new affs bad, no neg fiat, etc) are a waste of time and will hurt your speaker points.

Kritiks must be made specific to the aff/advantages/impacts (possible with an IR or consumption K, impossible with a death/suffering K). Don't neglect the case-- use solvency deficits, impact defense, and framing arguments. The aff is often in good shape with well-explained perms, attacks of alt solvency, and distinguishing the 1AC from the neg's (usually broad) link arguments.

Theory must be slow, consistently explained/extended, and impacted to be winnable. I will hold the 2AR very closely to the 2AC/1AR extension. Conditionality is good, within limits. A well-explained, impacted, and flowable push by the aff could persuade me otherwise. Theory requires a significant 1AR time investment. 

Non-condo theory is usually a reason to reject the argument but can be explained otherwise with significant investment on impact assessment. Conditions, consult, process, and agent CPs need specific solvency advocates and are very susceptible to theory. They are often so poor that they can be beaten on well-worded/explained perms and low risk of a net benefit.

Don’t overlook the internal link level of the case debate. Negs with well-impacted solvency take outs are in great shape against 2AR “try-or-die” framing. Case turns and impact turn debates are awesome and often determined by evidence and time frame comparison.

Competing interpretations seems like the least arbitrary way to evaluate topicality but a well-explained reasonability argument can help the aff. Reasonability requires a counter-interpretation. Evidence comparison is essential. So is a case list and topical version of the aff. Topicality is never a reverse-voting issue.

Dropped arguments are true but must be impacted and can be outweighed by other arguments.

Please make sense of your arguments and ask for a ballot. I want to do the least work possible as a judge to determine an rfd.

10+ years as a judge. Debate is a game among other things. At this point, I'm pretty soulless and I don't know what more to say than that. The rounds that I enjoy the most are well organized and the debaters attempt to inform clear decisions on how the game should be won.

Fine with all kinds of debate and arguments

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions. Please put BOTH of these on chains: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com and lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Virtual Debate Updates:

I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.

Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.

Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.

Evidence/Argumentation/General

I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.

I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.

I listen closely to cross-ex.

Ks

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.

Name: Rohan Varma

Years in activity: 2009 - Present

Experience:

- 3 years of high school debate for Leland High School, qualified to the TOC in 2013

- 2 years of coaching Pittsburgh Central Catholic Prep 

In high school I primarily read counterplans, disads, and heavy case. However, during my senior year and the last two years of coaching I began reading critical literature more and have been coaching my teams to run critical arguments. Thus, I have a pretty good amount of experience with all forms of debate and will be able to evaluate whatever form of debate you want to run with.

At a high level, I believe that indepth analysis and clash on warranted arguments is what wins rounds. If you are giving me tagline extensions and answering their taglines during your speech then you are probably not making interesting arguments to the debate.

I will also reward your with speaker points for being ballsy. In high school I loved doing crazy, game changing things in the 1AR. Allocating your time to strategically pressure and dare your opponents will be well-recieved. This requires you to have a high-level view on the round to see where your opponents are spreading themselves out or doubleturning themselves.

Finally, please utilize cross-ex. If you do cross-ex correctly, then you can literally erase arguments your opponents make and you also have access to super juicy quotes that probably exemplify your points better than your own analysis could.

At its core, debate is a presented activity. How your present your arguments is important. Speaking persuasively is everything. Through your voice inflection and intesity I should be able to tell which arguments you are passionate about and which arguments you believe are game-changing. Look at some of the youtube videos of Nate Sawyer and John Spurlock debating if you want some tips on how to be a dam good speaker.

Here are some of my specific argument preferences:

Topicality: Love the argument. If you can debate your standards well and give me reasons why your interpretation/standards either access or outweigh their standards, then you should be in a good position. I default competing interpretations but I think that aff teams can win reasonability if they argue it well.

Case: I love case debates. I think that the best part of debate is when both teams are interacting with the intracacies of the plan's solvency mechanism and impact scenarios. 

Disadvantages: I think that in the last two years, there haven't been great generic disads like there were when I was debating. That being said, it would be beautiful if you could read a specific link card/get a link from cross-ex. Saying things like "China hates all US ocean activity" against an aff that increases lifeguards at beaches is probably not going to fly.

Politics: I ran politics religiously in high school and was usually succesful. I think politics is a great place for highly technical and clashing debates. I think that comparative evidence analysis goes a long way in these debates. If you did your research the night before in the hotel and have the best evidence then make sure that you leverage that against your opponents shitty evidence from 2 weeks ago.

Counterplans: I think that counterplans are generally a good thing. Case specific counterplans that cite 1AC evidence is usually going to get you a nice bump in speaker points.

Kritiks: I think kritiks are a great way to engage the affirmative's case. I debated anthro in high school and have been primarily coaching capitalism so I will be most well versed on these issues. However, dont assume that I am familiar with your literature. In order for me to give a fair evaluation of the round I need you to give me warranted reasons backing your claims. Don't just refer to your amazing card that washes away all aff arguments. Explain to me why it actually wins you the round.

Performance Affs: I love these debates. I think that good performace affs are usually educational to everyone in the round. That being said, I 100% will vote for framework if you beat the aff team on it. However, I believe that negative teams that go out of their comfort zone and get creative against the aff always lead to better, more educational, and funner debates. 

Update for Loyola 2020

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

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

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

Update Pending

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

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

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.

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'

Background:

USN head coach 2012-present

MBA assistant coach 2000-2002

The stuff you are looking for:

email chain: bwilson at usn.org

K Aff: Defend a hypothetical project that goes beyond the 1AC.

Framework: My general assumption is that predictable limits lead to higher quality debates. Aff, how does your method/performance center on the resolutional question in a way that adds value to this year's topic education? Why does the value of your discussion/method outweigh the benefits of a predictable, topic-focused debate?

Topicality: I am agnostic when it comes to the source of your definitions. Just tell me why they are preferable for this debate. Aff reasonability defense must be coupled with an interpretation, and RTP that interpretation. I will be honest, when it's a T round against an aff that was cut at workshop and has been run all year, I have a gut-check lean to reasonability. Competing interps becomes more compelling when there is significant offense for the interpretation.

Theory: Other than condo, a theory win means I reject the argument unless you do work explaining otherwise. For condo debates, please have a clear interpretation and reasons to reject. I am more open to theory when it is about something particular to the round and is not read from pre-written blocks.

CP's: I prefer CP's that have a solvency advocate. I think a well articulated/warranted perm can beat most plan plus, process CP's.

Politics: I like it better on topics without other viable DAs, but I am fine for these debates.

DAs: I find "turns the case" analysis more compelling at the internal link level.

Cheating: If you are not reading every word you are claiming through underlining or highlighting, that is clipping. If it seems like a one time miscue I will yell something, and unless corrected, I'll disregard the evidence. If it is egregious/persistent, I will be forced to intervene with an L.

If the other team raises a dispute. I will do my best to adjudicate the claim and follow the above reasoning to render a penalty either to dismiss the evidence in question or reject the team. I think I have a fairly high threshold for rendering a decision on an ethics challenge.

RIP wiki paradigms, or how my paradigm started for years but is now showing its age:

I like it when debaters think about the probability of their scenarios and compare and connect the different scenarios in the round. If it is a policy v critical debate, the framing is important, but not in a prior question, ROB, or "only competing policy options" sense. The better team uses their arguments to access or outweigh the other side. I think there is always a means to weigh 1AC advantages against the k, to defend 1AC epistemology as a means to making those advantages more probable and specific. On the flip side, a thorough indictment of 1AC authors and assumptions will make it easier to weigh your alternative, ethics, case turn, etc. Explain the thesis of your k and tell me why it it is a reason to reject the affirmative.

Update: 2020

Hello, I would like to preface this paradigm with "I have been out of the activity since 2018" and I'm coming back to judge. Since leaving the activity, I have started my PhD in communication studies and performance studies at LSU. For policy debaters, I have been still in the critical theory literature, but I'm still adjusting back to the activity. If there is one thing I remember from judging: Impact framing!!! Every debate I've judged since coming back ends up coming down to both sides comparing why their "worlds" or "positions" are better.

Lastly, please be nice. My biggest frustration is teams that are mean and unnecessarily hostile on issues that do no matter to the debate. I understand being loud and proud on key issues in the debate, but being indigent about micro level things = lower speaks.

This was my first year of judging college debate, and I’ve learned a lot about myself as a judge, hence this addendum to my current judging philosophy. I know that for many seniors, this is your last tournament, and it’s only right that I let you know so you can decide where you want me (if at all) in your prefs. As a judge and a competitor, I’ve always tried to embody the mantra of ‘You do you, ’ and this sentiment is still true. However, there are ‘little truths’ that I will not negotiate as a judge.

1. I will flow in a linear and straight down manner regardless of any team’s request. First, flowing is important because it forces me to pay attention and process your argument better. Second, I don’t have the ability to remember a debate, especially the particular framing of the arguments without my flow.

2. Debate is an activity with set speech times. If both teams do not agree to alternative rules of engagement, then the default must be 9-minute constructive speeches, 3-minuete cross-examination, 6-minute rebuttal speeches. During each constructive or rebuttal, only one team may speak. The other team must respect that rule. Under no circumstance is that up for debate (unless agreed upon before the 1AC begins). I’m not a good judge for debate innovators that seek to question or change the form (i.e. speech times), but I’m a good critic for teams that criticize the content and style of debate (i.e. the resolution and the norms established by the constraint of the form). If you interrupt an opponent while speaking, and they ask to you stop, but you don’t stop, then that will reflect in your speaker points.

3. Tech over truth, with obvious caveats. Personally, the flow matters to me. It’s primarily, with the exception of speech docs, what I use to evaluate the debate. Not all dropped arguments are true, but dropped arguments, impact framing, claims, and so on become the easiest way for me to make a decision without intervening. I’ve been told by some ‘very’ left and non-traditional teams that I’m often too technical for them. For example, I’m more than willing to pull the trigger on procedural fairness and truth testing, which means you don’t get the 1AC if it means I don’t intervene.

4. Embedded clash – based on my previous point, I want to clarify distinction between a dropped argument and embedded clash, but first I would like to express my views on embedded clash. I often judge many debates where the 2NR/2AR will speak, with presumed embedded clash, and just talk about what they want to talk about straight down with little reference to the previous speech. Let me clear, I’m not asking for a technical line by line, but rather I want teams to use embedded clash and cross apply it where it’s necessary. I.e. cross apply the link debate on the perm. In my philosophy proper, I explain a lot about my love framing, which you should read if I’m judging you, and I will often go rogue and not connect the dots the way you understand the debate.

5. Dropped arguments – I’m not technical to the extent where, if you drop something blippy, then you auto lose. Obviously, winning smaller arguments makes it harder to win larger claims, but the 1AR should be able to explain to me why the 2AC didn’t drop ‘x’ arg because of ‘y’ argument/card.

5. I will not vote on arguments with a metathesis that I do not understand. There’s a difference between methods, such as a praxis that allows for particular groups to communication between one and other in a manner that cannot be understood by the hegemonic majority, and poorly explained high theory or philosophy. Often, I judge debates where the 2NC clearly pivots from the 1NC and will apply a different theory to existing pieces of evidence. This kind of strategy is not a good move if you’re going for my ballet because I will often default to cards and speech docs as a means to understand the debate. In other words, I use evidence to trace the debate if I cannot trace it via of the flow.

6. When in doubt, assume I have never been in your lit or that I understand all of ‘your big words.' I’m smart enough to follow along and if you can teach me. I’ve judged many debates where students will say, “they dropped the libidinal economy,” and why didn’t I auto-win. Yes, there are meta-levels claims, if dropped, make the debate over, but you need to explain to me why that is the case. Impact out why dropped arguments and buzzwords matter. In other words, frame your arguments as “if we win “x”, then that mean “y” and that means the aff can’t win for “z”.

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

Hello, my name is Andrew Wirth. I debated for three years in high school at Forest Hills Central, and for four years at Wayne State University. I have 9+ years of debate experience at the college and high school level.

Preface (General):

When I started the activity in 2007 (wow, that seems so long ago), I debated in the traditional manner (plan text/USFG action good) and transitioned to critical debate, more specifically queer theory and disabilities studies, my senior year of college. As a coach, I found myself coaching an assemblage of different types of teams ranging from policy to performance. When describing myself, I don't consider myself a "tab judge", a critical hack (whatever that means), or a traditional policy judge. The only way I can describe myself as a judge would is by quoting famous philosopher Hannah Montana:

You get the best of both worlds

Mix it all together and you know that it's the best of both worlds

I know what you're thinking, "is this guy really quoting Hannah Montana?" If you think that's a reason to strike me, then go for it, I wouldn't blame you tbh.

As a judge, I feel like you get the best of a judge who's been trained in policy debate and analysis. I'm interested in debates that centered around methodological questions about if the state is a good actor, even redeemable, or maybe that doesn't even matter. You tell me. [If you're thinking to yourself, "it sounds like this guy judges a lot of clash of the civ debates," then you're totally right].

However, Hannah Montana didn't state that when you get the best of both worlds, you often get the worst of both worlds too. In this case, I will confess that I have major short comings in policy and critical debate. For example, I'm the worst judge for intense counterplan competition debate. Seriously, that's one thing that never really carried over from my policy debate training. [Note, I know actor CP (ie, xo, congress, courts) aren't, or maybe are competitive]. In regards to critical debate, I'm still somewhat new to all the literature. I often find myself judging debates where both teams are screaming buzzwords that I have no idea what they mean. Just to be safe, assume that I'm an idiot.

Also, I almost forgot, I'm a huge fan of ghost stories, paranormal activity, and spectators. If you have an aff that deals with the spookies, then I'm your ordinal 1.

Now back to the regularly scheduled program.

Top Level:

1) Personally, I’ve debated every style of debate; I’ve read everything from one advantage heg affs to performance. I think every different style of debate has a unique pedagogical benefit, and you shouldn’t feel obligated to adapt to what I think a good debate looks like. You do you and I'll come along for the ride.

2) Personally, I believe arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. Any argument that has these three things is fair game for my ballot, regardless if it’s carded.

3) A dropped argument is a true argument, however, if it doesn’t have a claim, warrant, or an impact, then I don’t think its true. I tend to give leeway to teams answering dropped arguments if the other team presents new warrants and impacts to those claims.

Framing questions:

So I've been judging for about 8 years and my biggest pet peeve is that I don't think that many 2NRs or 2ARs give very good impact framing. Personally, I find it difficult when the final two speeches of the debate spew out a bunch links and impacts and don't tell me how to intpret or weigh them. I think that we've all come to the conclusion that judge intervention is the worst, and we hate it when our fates are arbitrarily decided by a judge.

Framework:

My final year of college debate, I decided to read affirmatives that did not endorse USFG action. Typically, many framework teams believe this makes me incredibility bias towards the affirmative. However, I find myself voting on framework more often than not. This may sound weird, but I'm most comfortable judging a framework debate.

I find framework to be more persuasive when it’s framed as critique of method because it directly clashes with the method of the 1AC.

My only aff side bias is that I tend to have a higher threshold for topical version of the aff.

Topicality:

I will first confess that I don't like judging T debates. At the high school level, debaters are often going way to fast for me and it's difficult to keep up T debates at full spreading speeds. Another issue I find is that high schoolers do not know how to transition between arguments, and that makes T debates only more difficult for me to judge.

Spoiler: I hate judging T debates tbh.

Theory debates:

I tend to default on reject the argument not the team in most theory debates. I think it’s up to the 2NR/2AR to present a reason why I should vote down the other team. I think winning theory gives you access to strategic benefits in the debate, like leeway on perms for cheating counter plans.

Condo is pretty sweet in my opinion, well at least in moderation. I find it difficult for a team to persuade me that one CP and K ,two CPs, or two Ks is impossible for the 2AC to handle.

Consult/Delay/Process CP: This is my inner 2A coming out here, and if the counter plan results in the plan, then I’m pretty sick to my stomach. Unless the counter plans contain specific evidence about the affirmative. I don’t think they are a reason to reject the team, but justify abusive permutations. Did I mention that I'm horrible at judging counter plan competition debates?

Perm theory: Reject the arg not the team because any other standard is silly. Even if the other team drops severance is a reason to reject the team, I think that doesn’t have a real warrant….

Counter Plans:

I love a good counter plan debate, however, I'm not really the best judge for CP debates that compete on immediacy or really intricate texts that makes the CP uniquely different from the plan. Based on the nature of debate tournaments, I have very little time to make a decision and I would ideally love an hour to sit down and hash out these kinds of debates. Please, don't make me judge a counter plan competition debate.

Critiques:

Critiques are fine by me. I must confess, there might be a high chance or probability that I may have not read your literature, which means I find it very important for the negative to define particular terms. I mean, I know what epistemology, ontology, methodology, and so on are, and however, I have yet to read the entirety of feminism studies or various other disciplines.

I think the aff needs to defend the method of the 1AC, and these are often the most beautiful debates to watch and judge.

I think it’s hard to win the perm because the negative team will often always win a risk of a link, however, I think winning the impact and alternative level of the debate is the best way to go for winning my ballot. However, I've started to realize that teams aren't reading links these days, and by that I mean the neg is just reading generic links no about the aff, so maybe the perm is an option.

Have fun, don't be mean, and make me laugh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument preferences:

I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.

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

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

I am cool with policy arguments.

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

Speaks:

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

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

Contact info

mail all speech documents to: headofthewood@gmail.com

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