My name is miles. Used to do policy in HS. Two years out so not as familiar as I used to be. Have not judged on this topic yet*

*I copy and pasted this tbh but it is mostly accurate*

Top Level Stuff:

Do what you want to do. I'm as happy to judge a K v K debate as I am a nuanced CP/DA debate. If you care about and feel confident in the shit you're reading, it will probably show in the debate and you'll be rewarded for it. This round is for you all, not me. Most of my opinions about the activity can be overcome by good debating so just be smart and you can probably win my ballot.

That being said, there are obviously the standard non-negotiables. For example, "racism good" or anything else of the sort gets you an L with 0 speaker points. I feel like shouldn't have to say much more here just please don't be a bad person.

A significant amount of the following stuff is taken from Tessa Harper. I think they articulated their thoughts on this stuff really well and it mirrors how I feel about these issues.

How I Evaluate Debates:

I'll evaluate arguments as per the execution on the line-by-line unless told otherwise. Dropped arguments are true but that doesn't mean it's the best argument or the winning one. Explain why concessions matter and why they should frame my ballot.

I'll have the speech doc open but I'll be following you and looking at cards if I really need to or if specific pieces of evidence are flagged.

Clash Debates:

1. You can get my ballot reading framework but I would love if you went for literally anything else. My biggest problem with these debates is that the negative usually sounds like a robot that spews the same stuff every debate regardless of the 2AC offense which is really frustrating to watch. That being said, there is a difference between T and framework. If you want to take the aff up on some other part of the topicality debate outside of focus on the USFG, I'm definitely down for that.

2. Critical affs should probably have a model of debate -- a 2AR that is impact turns alone without a vision for what we are doing in this activity or in a debate will be much harder for me to vote for than a warranted vision for debate that provides at least some defense/link turns to their standards. I find questions of stasis to be clear packages for this -- i.e. what controversial question do we center as a point of clash? Is it a question of praxis? Is it axiological? If you can provide a clear vision for how we construct affs and produce clash then all your impact turns will be a lot more persuasive to me.

If you chose to ground a model of debate outside interpretations of the resolutional language, good for you! Defend why that is a good method!

3. Examples/history matter to how I evaluate competing theories of power -- whether it is techy IR debate or a high theory discussion of psychoanalytic black feminism, I think that theories draw their explanatory power from material realities of the world and I tend to be be more easily convinced by debaters and scholars who tie their theory to that world. This doesn't mean I need you to be empiricists or defend a materialist conception of history, just that having a knowledge of how your theory is related to the world around you will make it far more persuasive to me than floating buzzwords.

This applies to framework too -- this activity has a long and thoroughly discussed history of how it has approached each resolution, practices like fiat, models of competition, etc. Use it!

4. TVAs and SSD -- you should explain to me what about the aff's offense is solved by them. I don't care if the aff could have used the same five McGowan Cards to advocate for a plan, the purpose of a TVA/SSD is to resolve or no link out of some point of offense against your interpretation. They are examples that prove that your interp doesn't cause bad subject formation, exclude critcisms of X, etc. Using them against the disads to your interp or the net benefits to theirs rather than against the 1AC in a vacuum will be more persuasive.

5. Critical affs should have a relationship to the topic that is inherent and significant. I will be far more persuaded by framework against affs that don't do anything or say anything about CJR after the first card than I will be against teams that spent the time to write an affirmative that answers a core question of the topic.

6. Critiques against policy affs -- the good ol' framework tricks like fiat bad are nice and works far too often (ehem affs) but I also enjoy in-depth link and alt work. The affirmative tends to lose these debates when it doesn't leverage the case beyond "we have a big impact" -- timeframe args, comparative arguments about alt solvency, etc. are all very helpful when adjudicating these debates and the negative should prepare for them beyond simply the frame out. These are the kind of debates I'm the most well versed in if that's something that's important to y'all.

K v K debates:

I love these -- they tend to be some of the most creative and meaningful debates I get to judge. Make arguments and care about what the other team has to say and I will probably be very happy to be in the back.

Perms -- I can be persuaded that critical affs should not get them but I don't think its a particularly phenomenal argument. Teams have to justify why opportunity cost/competition/forced choices should or should not apply to the arguments forwarded. The more that an aff's method defends, the less likely I am to deny them a perm. If an aff defends nothing but a theory of power or an individual, in-round survival strategy then I am more likely to think that they shouldn't get a perm.

Also, a sidenote about what I enjoy, I love critical affs that defend material praxis. Advocating for grounded praxis will always get me interested in a debate. Don't let this mean you abandon theory -- theory is extremely important for controlling the direction of politics, subject formation, praxis, etc. but when I have a soft spot for critical affs that are able to combine theory with praxis.

See above about using history.

CPs:

Advantage counterplans with impact turns as the net benefit are underutilized in the debates I judge.

I get annoyed when teams let counterplans absolve them of the need for good case debate. Solvency deficits to the aff matter as much as the aff's solvency deficits to the counterplan.

PICs -- I really like these. The more substantive the PIC's relationship to the aff, the less I will be persuaded by theory.

DAs:

I prefer to judge topic or case specific DAs more than agenda/midterms DAs.

That said, Politics/Midterms DAs -- these can actually be great. I love a midterms DA that is specific to which states are key and why the aff flips them enough to swing congress or a Politics DA that pulls out specific votes that will flip. Nuance on the LINK LEVEL is what is always missing from these debates in highschool, however, which is why I find them boring a lot.

The relative magnitude of the uniquness/links determine what the direction of things are. Be comparative.

2ACs/1ARs that impact turn disads strategically often come out ahead for me.

Topicality:

I'm not really familiar with the general T norms on this topic so do with that what you will.

But I enjoy T debates themselves. Creating distinctions between the kinds of ground/affs that are allowed or denied is the sort of comparative work that makes decisions easier.

Functional limits exist and are persuasive to me but you should be clear about why and how.

Evidence is either extremely important or largely irrelevant depending on how it is framed. You should control this framing. I tend to vote for evidentiary T args more often than normative ones in policy debates, and the opposite in K debates and I attribute that to the depth and quality of framing in each.

Reasonability is a super important argument but often debaters lack a clear vision of what they mean by it. Generally, I see reasonability as a question of interpretations and/or impact calculus -- it is hard to convince me that it is a question of your aff itself being reasonable itself. Your interp can also be reasonable untopical -- prove to me why it isn't. Debatability, aff predictability, moving goal posts, all of these are arguments that require more explanation later in the debate.

Pet Peeves in no particular order:

Don't call me "judge." Josh is fine.

Overadaptation to what you think I want to see.

Profoundly untopical policy affs written only to beat critical teams but never to be read against policy teams (ehem, "sabotage")

Bastardizing revolutionary history.

Teams that ignore arguments made in alternative kinds of evidence such as music, poetry, etc.

Being mean for no reason in cross ex.

Reading the cap K as a root cause/state good double whammy, rather than, ya know, a real argument.

please add me to the email chain - dorothyvdarden@gmail.com

I graduated from Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart and debated for 4 years.

I will vote on pretty much anything as long as you explain it and tell me why I should vote on it.

I read along with the speech doc during each speech and if you are caught repeatedly and intentionally clipping you will lose and your speaker point lowered.

Non-T affirmatives

I believe all affirmatives should defend the United States Federal Government reduce restrictions on immigration, you are welcome to defend how you define that individual terms.

I will more than likely vote in line with a standard definition of those terms (plan text!)

I do believe that reading an affirmative that is explicitly a K aff is cheating.

CP

They need solvency advocates that align with the CP text and the planks of the CP. Be clear about the net benefit in cross ex.

DA

I am a big fan of the politics DA, have a link that is legitimate and you can explain it. The impacts need to be fully explained and compared to the affirmatives impacts.

K

The links need to be clear. If you run a K make sure it has an alternative that you can clearly explain and it is not just "alternative is to reject the aff", that is not an alternative. Tell me what the role of the ballot is, why should I vote for the plan or for the alternative?

Topicality

It is a test of competing interpretations and I will vote on it if you prove the interpretation is predictable and the best for education, limits, etc.

Theory

Conditionality is good for debate but can be abusive, explain why it is bad in the specific round for it to matter. If the other team drops your theory argument and you can impact it out then capitalize on it!

NoBro 2020

Harvard 2024

Important Update: Since leaving the activity, I have come to the conclusion that spreading is detrimental to skills learned. I also haven't flowed spreading in over a year, so I would prefer debate at a conversational pace.

Please add me on the email chain: anna.farronay@gmail.com

I have a great appreciation for the preparation and effort that goes into each debate round. I understand debate has different meanings for each person but I do believe that competition is the center of the activity - we care about what we do because of a desire to win. I will do my best to understand your arguments even if they are not arguments I would normally be familiar with.

HS Topic Knowledge: none.

Non-Negotiables:

(1) I will only evaluate complete arguments: that means that every argument should have a claim and warrant. Incomplete arguments like a 10-second condo block will not be flowed and when you extend it I will allow the other team new answers.

(2) Be clear and give me pen time. If you are not, you will be dissatisfied with the decision and your speaker points.

(3) Every team consists of 2 speakers who will split their speech time equally. I will only allow one person to give every speech.

(4) The line-by-line is key. Answer arguments in the order that they are presented.

(5) I will not evaluate arguments that hinge on something that did not occur in the debate round I am adjudicating.

I believe it would be unfair to obscure any predispositions I have since a neutral judge rarely exists. That being said I have been persuaded to abandon my opinions in the past by speakers who use humor, charm, and smart, specific arguments. I also have a very expressive face so use that to your advantage. At some point, I had very different ideas about debate and I can be reminded of that.

Preferences:

(1) I believe that policy debate does encourage in-depth research practices. However, I will admit that I am a K debater who is definitely more proficient at judging k v. policy debates than a policy throwdown. This being said I do not want to judge silly positions like China Doesn't Exist so please be conscious what you run.

(2) Theory - I will do my best to understand your theory argument but I have never understood the debates (even something as simple as condo). If you choose to engage in these debates, have some caution and lean on the side of over-explanation.

(3) Framework (K v. Policy) - The aff gets to weigh their advantages (fiat) and the neg gets their K. The neg can't win fiat is an illusion but they can win it's a waste of time/bad idea to engage the state OR they can say we reject the representations of the 1AC/2AC.

(4) K affs - I will be the first to admit that former K debaters often dislike K Affs after they graduate/quit. I don't love them - I do believe there is less in-depth preparation, especially with new K affs, and I do have a high bar for how these debates end up. If you go for fairness, you'll likely win. But if you do insist on reading a K Aff, the easiest way to my ballot is going for the impact turn and cross-applying it to every standard from the negative team. I want to emphasize that I did love the K at one point but in recent years policy debaters have excelled at FW that has made it very difficult to vote for the K.

For Policy Debate:

I started my debate career probably long before your parents met, much less before you were born. I was a Prosecuting Attorney under Janet Reno and still practice occasionally when I'm not teaching or at debate tournaments. I prefer and my expertise is in policy round argumentation but I can be convinced to vote for critical argumentation when done correctly. Barring tournament rules, Flash time is not prep. Email speech docs. Points are between 28-30, barring bizzarro argumentation, presentation or decorum (This does not include personal narratives or performance arguments with a purpose - they are fine). If you speak (debate) worse than the other debaters in a Round, you will get lower points. Quick and clear is OK. Unclear is not. I will let you know at least once - then it's up to you. I will read evidence in a close debate when I think it is at issue because cards exceedingly often don't prove what they are being offered to prove. You have to point it out unless I think the claim is outlandish.

For LD:

See the above. I was a policy debater. So LD theory which deviates from policy may be lost on me. You've been warned. Critiks and CPs are ok. So are theory args against them. Standard frameworks which stifle all critical debate won't fly. Tell me why your framework should be applied in this debate.

nogreatpowerwar@gmail.com

When debaters walk in the room, they expect the judge to render a fair decision, not to rob them of years of hard work and dedication by substituting their personal biases for the arguments presented.