MacLean Andrews—Gonzaga Prep

I debated policy in high school and NPDA/NPTE parli at Point Loma. I then coached NPDA/NPTE at PLNU. I am now the Director of Forensics at Gonzaga Prep in Spokane, WA. I mostly coach and judge high school CX and LD now. I see debate as an academic game and that’s how I will judge the round. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round or email me if you have questions while filling out pref sheets (first initial last name at gprep.com)

1.Speaker points

1. 28-29.9 usually.

2.Critical Arguments

1. I think there are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. I am more than willing to listen to any type/kind of arguments but nothing will make me cringe more than a bad K debate. In the end it is up to the debaters in the round to tell me what framework I am to use to evaluate the round.

3.Topicality.

1. I tend to see T through a competing interpretations framework unless told so otherwise. I used to say that I have a fairly high threshold for T but I am finding myself voting for it more and more. If it is the best strategy you have to win the round go for it.

4.Theory

1. I am willing to listen to all theory arguments as long as a team can give me a reason to vote on the position. Theory positions should have a framework/interp, arguments for your position, and voters/impacts. Simply stating fairness or education as voting issues usually isn’t enough to win. Impact out why fairness or education or (insert voter) is important.

5.Weighing Arguments

1. I will default to Net Bens…but if you want to use an alternative weighing mechanism please explain and provide justification for it.
2. I appreciate it when weighing is done in the speeches. The last thing you want is for me to have to weigh your arguments for you.

7.Random Thoughts

1. Speed is great if clear.
2. The round is for the debaters, do what you have to do to win. I will try to adapt to you instead of you adapting to me.
3. Impact calc wins debates
4. Debate should be fun.

I have a PuFo background, but I have spent the year judging policy rounds so I’m familiar with the topic and many of the arguments. A few things to know about me:

1. Critiques are fine with me.

2. Spreading is fine, but slow down on your tags. If your are going too fast I will raise my hand to let you know to slow down.

3. I like clash during CX, but don’t be rude. If you are rude, it will count against you.

Thats it!

Cheers!

Todd

Stock issues

8 minutes prep

Tag team cross-examination ok

Value quality over quantity

_________________________________

Hi! I'm Ausha

I competed in Policy 2017-2019 and LD 2019-2021 in Washington State, running stock and critical args in both. I finished top 50 at NSDA Nats in 2021 and was the WA state LD champion.

Put me on the email chain if you make one : ausha.L.curry@gmail.com

tldr -- Run whatever you want to run. I'll listen. I'll vote where you tell me to, that's your job in the rebuttals.

Don't do/say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamphobic, etc. It'll 100% result in an L20. If at any time during the debate you feel unsafe, feel free to email me and i'll end the round and deal with it accordingly

Prefs

Policy/LARP - 1

Basic Ks - 1

T - 1

Uncommon Ks - 2

Phil - 3/4

Other Theory - 3/4

Tricks - strike

General -

1. online - go maybe 80-90% max speed and definitely start a little bit slower in case the audio is shady. also plz locally record your speeches in case either of our internet cuts out !

2. disclosure - I won't vote on disclosure unless the violation is super egregious. i was literally the only circuit debater at my HS and i couldn't afford programs like debate drills, etc. so if you're in a similar boat i will def be empathetic towards you in these rounds. On the flip side if you're from a school that has a massive team and try to run the small school arg i won't buy it

3. tech > truth - please be super clear about signposting especially online. even if your opponent straight out concedes something, I still need extensions of a warrant and some weighing for me to vote on it

4. speed - speed is good, slow down on plan/cp texts, interps, etc. I'll yell clear or just ask for the doc post speech if I feel like I missed anything too significant (if it wasn't sent already). If your 1ar is entirely analytics please either slow down or send them in the doc

5. Ev ethics - if u suspect ur opponent is clipping cards, let me know after their most recent speech. it'll also require some sort of recording for proof. Yes stake the round on it, or you can run a theory violation on it and it'll be nicer for everyone

Argument Specific -

tricks - strike me. i won't go for any of the "neg doesn't get CPs" or "eval the debate after x speech". i think they're genuinely cheating, a bad model of debate, and incredibly exclusionary and i will die on that hill

t/theory - I love t, please run it. I spent a lot of my time in policy going for t in the 2nr so I'd say this is where I'm pretty comfy judging debates. I have a pretty high threshold for other theory, especially super friv theory like font size

LD specific: I didn't run a ton of grammatical stuff like Nebel in LD but if you run it well and explain the violation clearly, it's a pretty good shot I'll vote for it. i've come to the realization i don't particularly love theory 2ars if it's only introduced in the 1ar. I think it's made for some pretty shallow debates, but again, i will vote on it unhappily

Defaults: Competing interps, DTA, condo good, PICs good, yes RVIs (note: this doesn't mean i won't flip, you'll just have to debate it)

trad (LD) - will get through these rounds unhappily, but please spice it up a little bit. Make me not want to rip my ears off. Explain phil well, i've never ran one of these cases but i've won against them if that means anything to you. please do comparative work otherwise i will have no idea how to weigh. (Post GFC outrounds, please do not go top speed for kant I NEED you to slow down and explain how everything interacts with each other)

CPs - please make them competitive and have some sort of solvency evidence unless it's some a structural issue (ie taking an offensive word out of the plan text and replacing it). i use sufficiency framing for weighing the cp against the aff meaning you'll have to do more analysis than just "cp doesn't link to the net benefit" in the final rebuttal for me to vote on it. I think both internal and external net benefits are good.

DAs - I enjoy unique, nuanced das. I really like politics and i'll buy them pretty easily if there's a good link to the aff. Should have an overview in the final rebuttal and the block shouldn't be just reading new ev and not answering line by line.

ks - go for it! I like them if they're ran well but make sure you know that your own lit. I'm most familiar with generics (setcol, cap, security), Foucault, a little Edelman, and Baudrillard, any other high theory ones you should explain more though. open to pomo but never really ran it during high school and only hit it a couple times.

k affs - I like these, i ran more than a few. They don't have to be topical, but I think it's easier to win on t if they're in the direction of the topic. I mostly end up going for k v k against these affs but i also run fw in the 1nc, see the t section above if you have questions about that. tvas can be deadly so please blow it up if T/FW is your nr strat!

performance - never ran this, but always enjoyed watching these rounds. Tell me why the 1ac is important in the debate space and win T and it'll be a super easy aff ballot. negs be careful and please don't say anything offensive <3 but i feel like a different K or pik is always a better bet than fw against these

Speaks -

I think i tend to give relatively high speaks averaging between a 28-29. Things that'll boost your speaks: nice pics of aubrey plaza at the top of the speech doc, good organization, clear weighing, and strategic decisions

+.5 for flashing analytics

NOVICE LD

I am a traditional LD judge, so I expect traditional approaches, particularly in novice. No spreading. Please relate all of your arguments back to your Value/Criterion. This is philosophy debate, so I want you to use that framework throughout your round. Please stand for all speeches, including CX. Remember to stay on topic; relate your arguments explicitly to the resolution. Avoid definitions debates. I am a strong proponent of evidence; the more you use effectively in rebuttals, the more likely you are to win my vote. Please time yourselves, as I often write quite a bit on ballots and also flow.

OPEN LD

ALL OF THE ABOVE AND...know that I am more lenient on speed in open rounds. Spreading is acceptable. I expect strong clashes in CX, coherent and sustainable arguments and an exceptional display of philosophical prowess. I am less interested in plans/counterplans and kritiks. If you dig those arguments, policy is the place for you! Please no flex prep.

PUBLIC FORUM

This is an accessible form of debate, meaning it should be clear, concise and easy for any judge to understand. I expect debaters in this forum to be aware of that and adjust accordingly. Please avoid spreading, definitions-based debates and plan-oriented arguments. Do not read a pre-written rebuttal. If you don't have evidence, your argument carries little weight. Cite sources, time yourselves and be courteous.

I have been increasingly judging LD and occasionally judging Policy, but the comments below apply equally to both forms of debate. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! I am a Policy judge in the sense that I enjoy debating policy issues, but I have become increasingly more enamored with how LD deals with them as opposed to Policy. I enjoy a good framework debate, especially in LD.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention. By that, I mean things other than morality/util. If you’re using FW, it’s especially important to relate your case and your opponent's case back to your V/C to show me the best way to frame the argument. A really great debater can demonstrate that their case better meets both their V/C and their opponent’s VC and does so more effectively than their opponent. I am fine with plans and counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. But, beware: I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than arguments dealing with the theory of debate.

Whether we’re debating a prospective policy in LD or in Policy, I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the two primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy and inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems. I vote for presumption the way any good policy maker would in the public sector – if it hasn’t been proven to be broken, don’t fix it.

I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible. If you’re going to run a K aff, please be sure it has some dim unique link to the topic. Ditto for Ks run on the Neg. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

I am also a “policy” judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making.

I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND WINNING MY BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence will lose me. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated will bore me and it’s hard to take them seriously. Poor refutation organization is a killer - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself. In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. Please speak up and speak clearly, especially if it’s an online tournament.

my paradigm is just Adarsh Hiremath's lol.

Hey ✌????

My name is Justin Shaw (he/him/his). I did 4 years of high school policy at Gig Harbor. I am currently a student at the University of Washington (class of 2023). I also wrote the mobile debate app 'PrepTimer'. Thanks for reading my paradigm!

Ideally, I would enter each round tabula rasa (a 'blank slate') without bias or predispositions to certain things. But, alas, I am human and I do have biases and predispositions to certain things. I really don't like having to base my decision on things that were not said explicitly in the round but sometimes I have to. Therefore, I think it is only fair that I disclose what my personal 'defaults' are with respect to debate meta-theory. Everything you are about to read is up for debate.

Feel free to add me to the email chain: realjustinshaw@gmail.com

The Burden of Proof is on the affirmative to show why the plan should be adopted. To do that, they must prove (only if brought up by the negative) that their plan resolves all of the "Stock Issues":

1. Significance (Prove why the plan is important)

2. Harms (Prove there is a problem with the status quo)

3. Inherency (Prove that the plan is not happening now)

4. Topicality (Prove the plan is an example of the resolution)

5. Solvency (Prove that doing the plan will resolve at least some of the harms)

I think including all the stock issues in every 1AC is an antiquated way of structuring your first speech, especially when word counts and speech time is such a premium. But, if the negative contests these issues, I think the affirmative should be able to defend their S.H.I.T.S. If any of the above are proved false, and the neg does the necessary work in the rebuttals to turn this into a voter, that will almost always be sufficient reason for me to vote neg.

The Burden of Proof is still on the affirmative, but the standards have to change slightly. I think there are/will be times when defending the resolution may not be moral or provide tangible benefit to debaters. In these cases, I will borrow the rules of College Parliamentary Debate (where the praxis of debate changes from round to round). In this case, I believe that Kritical affirmatives still must prove (if brought up by the negative) that the affirmative is/has:

1. Significance (Prove why the plan is important)

2. Harms (Prove there is a problem with the status quo)

3. Kritical Inherency (Prove there is some societal barrier that prevents the harms from being solved)

4. Solvency (Prove that the aff will resolve at least some of the harms)

5. Not Tautological (Prove that the aff is NOT immediately and logically true by construction)

6. Not a Truism (Prove that the aff is not something that no moral person could possibly disagree with)

7. Not a Specific-Knowledge Case (Prove the aff is not something that would require the neg to know more about a topic than could reasonably be expected of them to know)

Negative teams may still argue topicality. If the negative proves that the world justified by the affirmative is net-worse than the world justified by the negative, then the negative will win. As before, if any of the above are proved true, that will always be sufficient reason for me to vote neg.

???? INTERPRETATION - I default to competing interpretations over reasonability but you can convince me otherwise (as always; it's debatable). Most teams who run reasonability as a standard never give substantive warrants as to what that amounts to. I find that really frustrating. So, to win reasonability in front of me you have to prove why competing interpretations is unreasonable AND why "good is good enough" is a better standard for debate.

VIOLATION - I value case-specific, carded evidence very highly here. I think of the violation a lot like the link of a disad/kritik, so those rules probably apply. Does this mean you can perm a violation? Yeah probably, but I don't know how that would work. Here are my thoughts on a few specific topicality arguments:

> I think 90% of SCOTUS affs are probably cheating, but I think there is a really interesting debate to be had about the educational benefits of fiat through different actors (ie. Is it better to analyze the outcomes of potential bills that pass through congress, or the outcomes of supreme court decisions in a world of increasing political gridlock? I would really enjoy that standards debate. )

> T-Substantial is probably the most interesting topicality debate when done right. The phrase "substantially reduce" is an adverb-verb collocation where the adverb 'substantially' modifies the verb 'reduce'. This is the same as the phrase "to reduce by a substantial amount" (ie. the amount by which you reduce (as a percent) has to be substantial - rather than the pre-fiat amount). But if you include just one more word, the tone of the phrase changes dramatically. In any case, you are reading a "must be X%" interpretation, I really think it should be from an author writing about policy related to the topic. But this is, as always, up for debate.

> I love topicality double binds. If you can structure a link to a disad or kritik such that the affirmative is either not-topical or they link to the other argument, that is almost always a silver bullet if prepared for well and articulated correctly.

> There is a distinct difference between topicality, framing and framework. Don't call them the same thing. They are all theory arguments about meta-debate, but that's like saying condo and T are the same thing. I think it can be very strategic for the negative team to run topicality arguments in addition to- or in the place of framework. This is especially true if you run it with standards that are not fairness and education (eg. participation, accessibility, etc.).

STANDARDS - If you can run a topicality shell that doesn't utilize fairness or education as standards, then I think that really gives you a leg up in the topicality debate because the vast majority of 2AC blocks are written to answer those two standards. Nobody really thinks about topicality as much as they should, and many of the larger programs just copy and paste their blocks from last year.

VOTERS - If you win that the model of debate your interpretation justifies is better than what your opponent justifies, then you will win topicality. I don't think you have to explicitly say the words "and thats a voter for x and y" unless your the opponent is making claims about why being un-topical is good or shouldn't be a reason to vote them down. So for me, topicality is a voter unless somebody tells me otherwise, at which point I will evaluate the voter debate before I evaluate topicality proper.

NEG - I really love topicality arguments. I think the warrants for the standards debate need to be fleshed out in the neg block. Theoretically, the structure of the block means that negative teams should always win on T. I think one of the main reasons they don't is because of inefficient extensions (repeating what you have already said, not grouping arguments, etc.). If you're going for T, the 2NR should be just T.

AFF - I think the key to beating topicality on the aff is having a good 2AC block and efficient 1AR extension. I find in-round examples (eg. "reading 8-off proves they have ground", "multiple topicality shells A and B are mutually exclusive" , etc.) to be very compelling. If you are a kritical team you should be weighing the educational benefits of the affirmative against their topicality violation arguments. If the 2NR is just T, I will allow the 2AR to drop case and just answer T.

COUNTERPLANS:

PERM - A permutation is a test of competition, if the affirmative wins the perm that is terminal defense to the counter-advocacy. It proves that the net-benefit is not an opportunity cost to doing the plan. It is not a way for the affirmative to claim to solve for the net-benefit as well.

COMPETITION - Severance is probably bad. Intrinsic is probably good.

NEG - The counter-plan has to be mutually exclusive with the affirmative such that the net benefit of the counter-plan is an opportunity cost of the plan. In many cases, this alone does not outweigh the 1AC. A good negative counter-plan strategy will make use of one or more "turns solvency" arguments to the affirmative which prevent me from weighing the affirmative against the counter-plan.

Kritiks- this is the fun part of debate

neg- pls have a very specific link to the aff, the only thing I hate more than a really bad alt is a really general link chain, go cut a card. If you can't explain your alt, you really shouldn't run it. Especially if you're going 1 off K, I need some overviews because the K can get really confusing throughout the long round if you don't, I also think it makes you prove to me you know the story of your K.

aff- I buy a well established perm argument, I think that in the case of a really bad link, the perm really solves. That being said you should be using theory against the alt along with other good arguments. Make the K team do more work than they want to.

Disads- I kind of hate generic disads, I think a lot of people do. Whatever, I will vote on them, if you are really good at telling the story and good on impact calc, go for it. That being said, I LOVE a super well researched ptx disads, if you do the work it will be worth it.

Theory- Debate is a game, so you can argue about the rules. Condo is legit for me, just have good in round abuse to point to. Most other theory is arguable, but do not use this as a last ditch effort to win, it should be established.

Case- I really don't like that the case debate has seemed to go away in favor of another off case position. The neg should really have on case arguments and the aff should be using their 8 minutes of 1AC offense to respond to off case positions.