Oak Hill Purely Policy Debate Tournament
2018 — Eugene, OR/US
Christopher Bellavita Paradigm
Deven Bishnu Paradigm
Kevin Burgess Paradigm
Mark Carrier Paradigm
Mallory Copeland Paradigm
Debated for 4 years at Shawnee Heights High School in Kansas (Military Presence- Economic Engagement), coached for 4 years in Kansas, and currently coach for Lincoln High School in Portland.
Put me on the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
*Everyone should be respectful. If y'all are rude/racist/homophobic/ableist/sexist etc. I consider that a reason to vote against you.* this will be your only warning. You can be nice and still win debates.
*If y'all aren't reading a content warning and describe trauma/violence/in general issues that need a content warning, I will vote you down*
Overall: Tabula rasa, default policymaker. I prefer you go at a moderate speed and slow for tags, especially as we are doing virtual debates. I'm not super familiar with all of the topic literature yet, and haven't been able to watch any practice rounds or judge camp debates, take that into account. I'm probably not your ideal K or counterplan theory judge. I understand the basics of Ks and some of ideologies, but I tend to get lost in the theory debate. If you slow down and explain it more that would help win my ballot. On T- I default to competing interpretations. If you’re not rejecting the topic, you should be topical.
When it comes to CJR and issues that relate to racism/incarceration/sexual assault, I'm truth over tech. There is no reason why we should perpetuate lies to win a debate.
Framework vs non-traditional affs: If you think the aff should be topical, tell me why your model of debate is better than theirs. I prefer external impacts, but will still evaluate fairness as an impact if you go for it.
Aff: Need to have a method through which you solve your impacts, if you’re topical, that means you’re using the USfg and have a plan. If you’re reading a K, I want a clear articulation of how your advocacy is adopted/changes the debate space/matters in terms of impacts.
Case Debate: You don’t need carded evidence to point out solvency deficits of the aff. Analytics are generally smarter and more true than the arguments that take you 20 seconds to read the card.
Clarity>Speed: I’ll say clear once, but after that I’ll probably just stop flowing. I don’t think it’s my job or my prerogative to flow the speech off of the speech doc, so don’t assume you can go as fast as you want just because I’m on the email chain. SLOW on theory/T/analytics. Embedded clash in the overview is nice, but don’t put all your answers to the line by line there.
Cross-x: I flow cross-ex, and I think you should have a strategy for cross ex that helps you set up or further your arguments. If there is truly a part of the aff that is confusing, go ahead and ask for clarification, but your CX shouldn’t give the other team an opportunity to re-explain entire arguments.
Topicality: Describe to me what type of debate your interp justifies, and what type of debate theirs justifies. Whose interpretation of the resolution is better? Impact T out, for example limits in a vacuum don’t mean anything, I want you to explain how limits are key to your education and fairness. I could be persuaded to vote on reasonability, but for the most part think that competing interps is the best paradigm.
Disadvantages: Link controls the direction of the disad. Specificity over generics.
Counterplans: Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for the CP. I would judge kick the CP even if not explicitly told by the 2NR, unless the 2AR tells me a super cool reason why judge kick is bad that I haven't heard yet.
Kritiks: Run what you want, articulate what the alt is and how it solves for the impacts you’re claiming. Not enough teams explain HOW the alt works, which I think is devastating when compared to an aff’s clear mechanisms for solving their harms. A conceded root cause explanation or a PIK (“alt solves the aff”) would be a way to win my ballot if explained well. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made early on for me to evaluate it. I’m most familiar with fem, anthro, and neolib, but would listen to other K’s.
Theory: I rarely, if ever vote on theory. Mostly because most teams don’t spend more than 1 minute on it in the final speeches. If the aff thinks the neg reading 7 off was abusive, then the 2AR should be case + condo bad. Dedication to explaining and going for the argument validates it as a reason to consider it. If you spend 30 seconds on extending a dropped ASPEC argument, I’m definitely not voting on it.
Kate Dixon Paradigm
Eliza Haas Paradigm
Quick update for online (10/14/2020): I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I haven’t judged enough fast rounds online yet to know if it will make speed harder to follow; I will say slow or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.
TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.
If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!
Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com
Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.
I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.
I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.
However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:
Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.
For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.
Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.
Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.
Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.
For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.
I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).
I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.
Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.
I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.
I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.
If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.
Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.
Final Approach to RFD:
I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!
Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:
- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.
- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.
Jerry Hooton Paradigm
Jeff Koegler Paradigm
Updated: Sept 2020
Background: I am the head coach at Lincoln High School (Portland, OR) and a former LD and policy debater from Texas. I have a background in economics, am a military veteran, small business owner, and have ample government experience.
TL;DR version: Speed is fine. If your argument is obscure or poorly linked/warranted, I am not going to do the work for you. I like good theory, but frivolous theory generally gets underweighed even in drop scenarios. I default to drop the argument. K's are welcome. I will vote down a debater that creates a toxic environment for debate. Debate is a game. Impact calc evaluation is generally weighted towards probability, particularly in cases where the probability delta is negligible. Assume that I am familiar with the topic, but do not assume that I am familiar with your lit.
Speed: Speed is fine. I don't believe in interference in the round, so if you have heard that you are unclear regularly, you might want to take that into account from the outset. I will accept speech docs at jkoegler at pps dot net.
1) I will not "connect the dots" on your arguments. If it is a complex argument, break it down to the point where an intelligent observer could follow you. Assume that I am an informed judge, both on the topic and in technical debate.
2) I will vote on topicality. The debate can occur on whatever ground the debaters agree on and I am ok with that, but I will default back to topical ground. To win topicality, the neg needs to show me how the Aff has abused the the fairness or educational aspects of debate AND give me the bright line of minimum responsibility the Aff should have used (and why). Conversely, the Aff wins T by showing how their argument answers the resolution substantively. Words matter, so I consider linguistic arguments as valid T challenges.
3) For impact calculus, I weigh probability first. I find it troublesome to vote on negligible probability increases even when magnitude is maximized. Your best bet is to make your magnitude argument, but spend time showing the change in probability.
4) Claim, warrant, impact. Warrantless arguments are not weighed. There is no such thing as implied impact. Warrants can be evidence, clearly explained reason, or analytics.
5) Drops are not "true" arguments. Extend and impact them if they are relevant for you to have me include in my decision calculus.
6) Weighing arguments should be contextual and logically consistent.
7) I try to be as objective as possible. Using terms that encourage my intervention without additional explanation require me to fall back on my preconceived notions on the argument. As such, I tend to underweigh (but still weigh) these arguments.
K's: I like well executed K's, but generally don't buy into generic K's. Frame it well. It must be thoroughly explained. If it lacks analysis, it won't win you anything. A K should have a solid link.
1) Theory should be a response to a violation/abuse, not a standard strategy. A lack of specificity will lose you the argument. If you are rattling off random theory in the hope that something is going to stick, it won't. Save yourself the time.
2) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
3) I default towards dropping the argument over the debater.
4) I generally don't buy into RVI's. If you go for "drop the debater", the creation of a W/L mandate for your opponent does open you up for RVI arguments.
5) I believe in being as objective and non-interventionist as possible. However, I find that debaters are often asking for judge intervention through the use of terms like "fairness," "education," "reasonability," and "competing interpretations" (to name a few). Doing so will force me to self-identify what I consider these terms to mean and it will affect how I evaluate those arguments. As such, I tend to undervalue these arguments, as I am trying to be as objective in my evaluation as possible. If you choose to use terms that require evaluation based on my understanding of debate or what I see as fair, reasonable, etc., then I strongly recommend that you tell me the specific reason why I should weigh these arguments more heavily. Generic shells without clarity become relatively empty arguments for me. To really weigh these arguments, I need you to really dive into why the violation is bad enough to weigh, what aspects about it actually violate the principles you uphold, and why I should support your standard or voter.
Prep: If flashing, agree upon an email chain or online resource for doc sharing at the beginning of the round. Include me in your document sharing. Please flash me in at jkoegler at pps dot net.
Speaks: I consider 27.5 (27 on Oregon circuit) to be the average speaks, however I give 29+. Better points are achieved through clarity, professionalism, and technique. Points are deducted for rudeness, poor technique, and incomprehensibility. Speed will not impact this evaluation, unless it becomes unclear or sloppy.
1) I will not tolerate racism, sexism, toxic masculinity, etc. If you leave me wondering what you meant, you might just lose a few speaker points. If I feel offended (thats pretty tough to do) or if I feel your opponent is the target of your issues, you will lose the round. Easiest way to avoid: treat every opponent as a person.
2) I prefer substantive debate to theory debate and generally err towards substantive debate. This doesn't mean I don't find value in theory, but I tend to undervalue bad theory in order to evaluate substantive debate.
3) I don't have any triggers, but I expect you to clear the issue with your opponent and inform the room.
4) Pref list:
5) Signpost. Please signpost. Even if you give a good roadmap before your speech, signpost during, so that I make sure I am following your arguments the way you want me to. You know what happens when you assume...
6) My pronouns are he/him.
7) Just call me Jeff.
Evidence Ethics: If you feel like you are the victim of an ethics violation and want to pursue it, what you are asking me to do is end the round immediately. The burden of proof is on the accuser. I will vote on the spot based on the evidence of the accusation. I don't vote on intent of the accused, just the act of misrepresenting evidence. Accusations that I deem unfounded will be ruled against the accuser.
Disclosure: I feel like disclosure is a settled discussion. For Nat Circuit, disclosure should occur on any case that has been run before. For local circuits, I do not have this requirement.
Policy Judging Paradigm:
TL;DR: Send your speech docs to jkoegler at pps dot net. Topicality is important. Impact calc evaluation is weighted towards probability, then magnitude. Theory and K's are welcome. I prefer substantive debate.
Speed: I can handle speed. However I can't flow what I cant understand. I don't believe in interference in the round, so if you have heard that you are unclear regularly, you might want to take that into account from the outset. Send me your speech doc at jkoegler at pps dot net to avoid an issue.
1) I vote on topicality. Be topical.
2) I prefer high probability harms to infinitesimally improbable harms. Look at it this way: if you have harms that have infinitely small probability, that is how much weight I will give them in the round.
3) My ballot calculus typically includes weighing the biggest argument(s) in the round and the flow. Prefiat interests preempt all other weighting.
4) Theory is fine. I don't vote on frivolous theory. If your arguments are asking me to evaluate what is "fair" or "educational" you need to clearly tell me what those terms actually mean, otherwise you are asking for my preconceived notions, in which case I tend to undervalue the argument.
K's: I like well executed K's, but generally don't buy into generic K's. Frame it well. It must be thoroughly explained. If it lacks analysis, it won't win you anything. A K must have a solid link. Please don't assume I am familiar with the lit.
1) I will not tolerate racism, sexism, toxic masculinity, etc. If you leave me wondering what you meant, you might just lose speaks. If I feel offended (which is pretty tough to do) or if I feel your opponent is the target of your issues, you will lose the round. Easiest way to avoid: treat every opponent as a person.
2) Run any argument you want, but I tend to favor T over K Affs. Use them at your own risk. No prejudice against them, but I feel that a burden of proof exists on the affirmative and that is tied directly to the resolution.
3) I don't have any triggers, but I expect you to clear the issue with your opponent and inform the room.
4) Signpost. Please signpost. Even if you give a good roadmap before your speech, signpost during, so that I make sure I am following your arguments the way you want me to. You know what happens when you assume...
5) My pronouns are he/him.
6) Just call me Jeff.
1) Theory should be a response to a violation/abuse, not a standard strategy. A lack of specificity will lose you the argument. If you are rattling off random theory in the hope that something is going to stick, it won't.
2) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
3) Instead of stacking your shell with 9 voters or standards, just give me the best one you've got. Please fully explain your violation and ensure that your interpretation actually demonstrates the rule that has been violated. Please define what you mean with terms like "fairness" and "education", though I find this is less of an issue in policy.
4) I default towards dropping the argument over the debater. Clearly intentional abuses identified by theory can change that.
Evidence Ethics: If you feel like you are the victim of an ethics violation and want to pursue it, what you are asking me to do is end the round immediately. The burden of proof is on the accuser. I will vote on the spot based on the evidence of the accusation. I don't vote on intent of the accused, just the act of misrepresenting evidence. Accusations that I deem unfounded will be ruled against the accuser. I will read your evidence. This is one of the few times I will intervene on purpose. If I catch your evidentiary violation, I will vote on it.
I am fairly flexible in my PF paradigm.
1) Speed is fine. Be clear and provide evidence to your opponent after your speech, if requested.
2) I am ok with follow-on questions in crossfire so long as they follow the same thought process. Questions may be answered by partners, but it may impact your speaker points if only one partner ever answers questions. Questions should only be asked by the two speakers from the immediately previous round.
3) Be topical. This is rarely an issue in PF, but I will vote on it.
4) Impacts will be weighed by probability first. Extremely improbable impacts won't impact the ballot significantly even if they are "big stick" impacts.
I have a more traditional view of Parli.
1) Topicality is critical as it is the only way to show comprehension of the topic. Demonstration of comprehension of the topic is required to get my ballot. This means that K's will probably struggle to win my ballot.
2) Prebuilt cases/arguments are discouraged. Theory is still an appropriate way of drawing attention to potential norm violations. I want to see argumentation developed in the allotted time frame.
3) Speakers have an expectation to accept and respond to a reasonable number of questions during the allotted times in their speech. Generally speaking, 3 questions should be responded to (with exceptions). Failure to answer additional questions is acceptable if the speaker fills the remainder of their time with new arguments. You can expect to lose speaks if you don't accept additional questions and end your time with enough time remaining to have fielded those questions. Abuse of the questioning standard (rambling questions, failure to acknowledge questions, interruptions) will result in speaker point losses. Abuses can be used as voting issues.
4) Truth over tech. Arguments that are not factually correct will be undervalued in my evaluation.
Tom Lininger Paradigm
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!
Mark Little Paradigm
Email chain: email@example.com
Current: OES (Oregon Episcopal School) 7 years
- Cornell assistant coach
- UW debater
- Interlake debater (long time ago)
1. Open to any argument.
2. Debate is a game. You get to set the rules, except for speech times, speech order, and prep time.
3. Tech > truth. I am deeply suspicious of truth claims in debate. I endeavor to be flow centric in my judging.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Debate is a scholarly activity. Sharp use of excellent ev is compelling to me.
6. If I seem grumpy, it just means I'm engaged and interested.
Comments on specific lines of argument:
The general rule is that T is great, subject to the exceptions below in the "Substantive arguments" section. Innovative interps or well carded args on T are refreshing.
Theory other than T
I vote for and against theory args.
- Condo / dispo: make no assumptions about the number of neg positions a team gets. Default to dispo (its ok to kick). Need justification for condo (its ok to contradict). Willing to change these defaults.
- Framework / T USFG: sure, but you will be more successful if you also engage substantively with the aff even if you don't ultimately go for those args in the 2NR.
- ASPEC, OSPEC, etc: if they are meaningful arguments, no problem voting for them.
- Novel or resurrected theory: explain it, win it, and the ballot is yours.
Straight forward. A couple of pet peeves:
- "Perm do both" is not an argument. Perms need an explanation of how they function and why they disprove competition.
- "Perms are severance and VI" is not an argument. As a default, perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, barring an actual shift by the aff.
Mild preference for Ks grounded in the topic or with meaningful links to the aff. Links of omission are usually not persuasive.
Sim Low Paradigm
i competed in policy for three years and public forum my senior year. i’m currently studying biology and africana studies at johns hopkins university, where i also compete in college parli. my largest influences in debate are michael koo, joseph barquin, and rohan ajjarapu. especially michael, please read his paradigm if you have the time since it is more detailed and i am likely to judge with the same inclinations.
current affiliations: colleyville cz (policy), little rock rl (policy), elkins jl (policy), baltimore city college, beacon high school, korea international school
please add me to the email chain (firstname.lastname@example.org) – i flow on paper and by ear, but i will check the doc to hold debaters accountable.
after having the privilege of judging more this season, i’ve taken some time to reflect more on the kind of judge i want to be and there have been many slow adjustments to the way i evaluate rounds.
tech determines what is true within the round, i.e conceded arguments (which are warranted claims, not simply assertions) are the truest. i believe this for anything presented to me with a caveat – please do not read arguments that are violent towards marginalized people. as in, no “x-ism good”, no “the usa should bomb insert-country-in-the-global-south-here”, none of that nonsense.
two hard rules – 1. stick to the speech times, 2. there must be a win and loss for the purposes of tab. anything else is up for debaters to establish if it is reasoned out.
debate is still a communication activity – clarity and coherence are priority. this is not about your style or speed, but i need to have a clear vision of your advocacy and how your method resolves your impacts. signposting and organization is extremely important. i would call myself a fast flower, but i need pen time to switch pages and it’s nice to have a clear delineation of when you’re done with a card or moving on to the next argument.
i find that pretty much every time i’m in the back, it is a k round… for good reason, i suppose. i love the k – good with any theory or style you want to go with. however, please do not assume i know your literature base and jargon. you need to have comprehensive explanations and tell me how to frame and filter this round – it’ll go a long way. regardless if it is a k, this applies to any position you read – i need a warrant and implication for every claim you make. rebuttals need to be comparative and explain why your impacts come first. judge instruction is a must!
the 1ac & case: affirmatives do not need to defend a hypothetical government policy, so YES k affs. i still believe the 1ac needs to engage with the resolution, even if it’s a kritik of debate or the state – analyze the resolution, it is relevant. neg teams often neglect the case page and it makes me ): -- i specifically love smart re-highlighting of the aff’s own ev! but even if it’s just impact defense, a satellite k, circumvention, anything… engage case. i'm also very happy to vote on presumption. i read some soft left affs – these are good too!
kritiks: links should be contextual to the resolution and arguments in the round, well-researched and specific indicts of the aff’s mechanisms and scenarios are impressive and persuasive. if you go for the alt, explain how it resolves impacts and what its world looks like – historical and real-life examples are always welcome. if you read an overview, it should explain your thesis to me, do impact calc, and tell me how to frame the round and filter arguments. overviews should not be too lengthy and certainly not at the cost of the line by line.
framework: just debate the aff. being honest, i do not vote for t-usfg a lot (tactics framework and the sort are fine). this is still a viable 2nr in front of me, i don’t hack against it, but a topical version of the aff is absolutely necessary and i need an explanation of how this resolves (at least some of) the 1ac’s impacts and claims. framework loses in front of me when it doesn’t interact with case. fairness can be an internal link or an impact, not highly persuaded by procedural fairness but i’ll still vote on it.
disad/counterplans: i start with 100% risk and aff needs to knock it down. zero risk is hard to establish, but it exists. it’s your job to model counterplans (t or not, textual vs functional competition, etc.) and i’m willing to vote on conceded severance or intrinsic perms.
topicality/theory: i default to competing interpretations. for t proper, you need to tell me why your definition is more apt and reliable – i do not know why you should win otherwise. this isn’t my forte, so i wouldn’t be liberal with theory cheap shots.
for ld: i am a good judge for k and policy positions, i am a bad and inexperienced judge for phil and tricks. i do not like excluding arguments or intervening, but know that if you decide to read these positions in front of me anyway, you need to be extremely clear and explain like i’m new to debate. these debates also get jargony – i do not know what a paradox or permissibility is. please do not hide arguments in blocks of text, if offense is not clear to me but you suddenly go for it, you will not like my rfd. you do not win the round just because you win framework – you need to extend your case throughout all speeches and weigh.
for pf: i’m on the more technical end of judges and will vote on “progressive arguments” (but not aimlessly – debate these well), but i would also vote on reasons why they shouldn’t be in pf. nothing is “sticky” – if it isn’t addressed in the prior speech, it has been dropped. no new substance arguments in second summary. evidence should be CUT CARDS that includes the contextual paragraph and has a citation with a link. if i ask for evidence and you send me a link with a place to “control f”, i will dock your speaks. if you are asked for evidence and it’s inefficient because your opponent has to ask you for the full article/card or more information, i will dock your speaks again.
*** i have been a bit of a points fairy in the era of zoom debate and if we happen to be in a round with immense tech difficulties i will boost dwdw ;-;
<26.5: likely did something offensive and/or made this debate inaccessible (not honoring content warning requests, not changing highlight color when asked, etc.)
26.6-27.5: clean dropped arguments and made big strategic mistakes ): lots of work left to be done, but i believe in you!
27.6-28: didn’t make strategic choices, dropped arguments here and there, and likely tagline extended. it’s okay, put the work in and you’ll get there :D
28.6-28.9: hmm, i see you in the bubble round. good work, but some skills to sharpen.
29-29.6: you should clear and get a speaker award! nice job!
29.7-30: i have little to no words for how incredible u are, one of the best i’ve seen!
Mat Marr Paradigm
Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.
My name is Mat Marr and I am one of the Speech and Debate coaches for Ashland High School in Oregon.
Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)
I try to be a pure flow judge.
Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.
I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments. That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round.
Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.
I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.
Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.
Good skill and have fun.
Specific event notes:
Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.
ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.
I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.
For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com
If you want to see what Oregon debate is like join us Dec 13-15, 2019 at the Grizzly Invitational in Ashland.
Cameron Nilles Paradigm
Email chain: email@example.com
NEW EDIT: I have taken ~1 year off from debate and will be fresh to the topic as well, everything else below is still valid. Prior to the 2019/2020 school year though I was judging 50+ rounds a year w/ TOC & National qualifying teams on my squad.
I have competed and judged for a combined +14 years (averaging 40+ rounds a year) at the varsity-national circuit level.
If I debated in this current era I would be a framework debater. Tech > Truth, up until the point where I need to evaluate directly two objective claims (this happens less than you would think).
I have not read every piece of critical literature that you have read to write your arguments.
I will vote on 0% risk if there is dropped defense or even much better warranted argumentation, but I default to a 1% risk calculus most of the time.
I am OK with any level of speed. I think it is worth reminding most debaters that I am (oftentimes) not looking directly at your evidence as you read it which means that varying tone/speed on tags is necessary. Only be rude if you can back it up.
What I aim for:
I believe that the debaters frame the debate round. Any RoB or Framework lens will stand and will guide my ballot unless contested. I will default to a policy maker/utilitarian if no one tells me otherwise. Overall, I aim to leave my biases towards positions out of an objective evaluation of the arguments as they are flowed.
Debate is a game; create your own rules. However, ensure that they provide competitive fairness to both teams (I think fairness is intrinsic to debate/a competitive activity). I firmly believe that the K needs to provide a fair division of ground for the opposing team to argue - you need to explain what your alternative is doing well enough that I know what I am voting for, not simply that the plan is what I shouldn't.
If Framework wasn't applicable to a round I would be reading mostly a CP/DA combo. But that doesn't mean I won't hear your Kritik, just please make sure it follows the above two criteria (provides fairness, has an explainable alternative).
Things I like:
Make signing my ballot very clear and easy; take the easy way out. Creative topicality violations and well thought out theory debates. Uphold competitive equity. Don't use every second of your prep time if you are clearly ahead and don't need it. I believe some T debates can be resolved with only a bold "we meet (+ explanation)."
Stealing prep and not realizing it. If no one is taking prep in the room do not be typing on your computer, flash/email time is not a free-for-all. Telling me a team dropped an argument when they didn't. The sudden shift of teams seemingly not flowing arguments makes for very poor line-by-line and that makes for worse quality debates. Card clipping will get you in a lot of trouble on my ballots; have integrity. If you say "cut the card there" I will ask to see your evidence (if not already on an email chain) and I will expect you to mark your evidence accordingly. I actively monitor for card clipping if your behavior makes me suspicious and I will drop teams that do any degree of clipping.
Tony Rodriguez Paradigm
Erin Royce Paradigm
Conrad Sproul Paradigm
TL;DR: Tab/flow judge. Organization = high speaks. Speed is fine. Ks/K affs are fine, but so's FW. T/Theory are great. CPs/DAs are also great.
Note: The below was written with Policy and TOC Parli debate in mind. If you're a PF/lay Parli debater, probably just focus on the General Preferences and DAs sections. If you're circuit LD, it all applies to you, plus see the LD Specific section. If you're trad LD, check out the General Preferences and LD Specific sections.
Me: He/him or they/them, third year college student, debated NPDA parli for the UO for 2 years, previously 4-year high school debater at Oak Hill, mostly policy, some parli.
I consider myself entirely tabula rasa. I do not care what arguments you run, only that they are chosen strategically and well executed. Thus my argumentative preferences will mainly explain what I consider to be effective and not-so-effective execution.
Organization is really cool; when your line-by-line is in order and I can flow it straight down, I appreciate that. When you clearly indicate when you shift from one argument to another and one sheet to another, I appreciate that. When your second rebuttal highlights a clear and coherent path to the ballot while showing why your opponents' path doesn't function, I appreciate that.
You should probably know that I'm actually not the fastest flower in the world. I can certainly keep up with speed, but if you're a fast debater, please please please slow down on especially important or convoluted arguments if you actually want me to catch them all. Also, slow down on plantexts/interps/roles of the ballot and read them twice if you want me to get the whole thing. I will say "clear" if you're unclear, and "slow" if you're too fast, and if I have to do that to you more than once or twice, your speaks will suffer
DAs: Yes please. Generics are cool, specifics are better (not because I think they're more "true," but just because they're more strategic). When answering them, please read some sort of offense, cause I'm one of those weirdos who doesn't believe in "zero risk." You can of course win on defense, but it has to be because your aff outweighs the risk of the DA being true.
CPs: Love 'em. Probably the most overpowered neg argument, when used correctly (that is, with a proper net benefit that outweighs any solvency deficit they might have). If nobody makes an argument about it either way, I default to functional competition over textual. I assume all CPs are conditional unless neg says otherwise. I don't have a strong position on conditionality theory, I'll vote for the team that wins it. All CPs are legit until the aff proves they're not. That being said, I am quite receptive to arguments that certain types of CP are abusive. See the theory section for more.
T: Unpopular opinion, but I love Topicality. I think T debates tend to actually be more educational than the same generic politics DA or cap K everyone has blocked out, and I really like to see how well debaters can think on their feet, which T forces you to do. That being said, I certainly wouldn't say I "err neg" on T; T is a very powerful argument, and a collapse to T gives neg a very positive time tradeoff. With that in mind, I'll give aff a fair bit of leeway when it comes to answering T, and so if you're the neg and you're considering going for T, you better be ready to win decisively.
Theory: Even more unpopular opinion, but I also love theory debate for the reasons I explained on T. For the reasons discussed on T, I lean in favor of the "defending" team on theory (i.e, the team having theory run on them). But, you should still definitely run theory in front of me, because if it's well-executed I will gladly vote on it. I like to think I'm more willing than most judges to hear non-conventional, outdated, or "stupid" theory shells. In my opinion, just because the community has decided a given argument is silly, doesn't mean teams shouldn't be prepared to answer it. So please, run A-Spec, Plan Flaw, Whole Rez, Disclosure, No Neg Fiat, No New Args in the 2NC, or whatever else you feel like. As long as you can do it well.
Ks: Sure. Run Ks if that's what you want to run, I will evaluate it like any other argument. Personally, I find a lot of K debate, especially when it's a K vs a policy affirmative, to be rather stale. But, I won't fault you for that, you do you. Just make sure to tie it into the affirmative, and explain in layperson's terms what the alt is, who does it, what it solves, and why it solves. Aff, when answering Ks, please don't neglect the framework and thesis, and consider impact turns - maybe capitalism/securitization/biopower/static identity/whatever is actually a good thing?
I'm not incredibly well-read on the lit, but I can probably keep up if you're explaining things properly. I'm pretty familiar with Marx, Ahmed, and Agamben, somewhat familar with Buddhism, Foucault, DnG, Baudrillard, Churchill, Tuck and Yang, and Wilderson, and I have a decent understanding of the overall arch of Western philosophy and political theory. Make of that what you will.
K affs: If that's what you wanna do. If you're not gonna engage with the topic, at least have a little blurb explaining why. Performance is cool, but you may not touch the ballot, and I will only flow arguments from the person who is officially giving the speech. Refer to the above for further info. If you're the neg vs a K aff, try to get some decent case answers on the flow, that tends to make all the difference
Framework: I won't vote for you because you ran it, but I have a soft spot in my heart for FW. I think a non-topical aff needs a clear and persuasive explanation of why the benefits of the aff outweigh the benefits of conventional plan-focused debate. There are a few arguments that the neg should always make on FW that I find especially strategic. Topical version of the aff, "read it on the neg," and "clash is key to see if your aff is actually a good idea."
Case: on-case arguments are both the most strategic to deploy and the most fun to watch; please read them. Case turns are an immensely powerful tool. In general, the more offense you read on case, the more likely you are to win, so lay it on thick. Defense is cool too, and should be leveraged extensively when you do your impact calc. 8 minutes of case turns is the best possible 1NC strategy, and I'll give both neg speakers very high speaks if they pull it off.
LD Specific: I'm not super experienced with LD; I never competed in it, and I've judged it only a bit. But, just debate how you normally would and I'll try to give you a good judging experience. If you're circuit LD, you'll like me, because I am most comfortable with Policy and Policy-like debate. If you're trad LD, don't try to become circuit style to appease me. Do what you like/are good at. That being said, I will remain a flow-oriented judge in LD, and so if you're trying to win on flowery rhetoric alone, I'm a poor judge for you.
My only argumentative preference is that both debaters put a little bit of thought into the Val/Crit debate. I see many debaters treat the V/C as if they are some mini-debate entirely separate from the rest. They aren't. The value and criterion are tools you should use to evaluate impacts in the rest of the debate, and if you're not using them as tools, why read them? Also, if a debater values something incredibly vague like "morality," I will roll my eyes. If a criterion doesn't provide a clear method I can use to weigh impacts and decide the round, it's not a criterion, and I won't know what to do with it.
Specific for Parli TOC:
Points of Order: Go ahead and call them, if the argument is actually new. I frown on frivolous POOs, but pointing out genuinely new arguments helps me as a judge and shows me that you're keeping track of the round. Use your better judgement
Prep: There is none. If you're whispering with your partner while the other team gets their flows ready to speak or whatever, you're cheating, and I'll probably tell you to stop. Avoid the embarrassing situation by not stealing prep.
Facts: Generally in debate, I think facts don't matter. However, if a debate comes down to two competing factual claims (which they rarely do), since there's no evidence, I have no choice but to intervene. In such a case, I will intervene on behalf of the team I believe to be closer to factually correct. This should only be a problem for you if you have a habit of saying things in round that are not true, so just don't do that and you'll be fine