Chris Birzer

Add me to the email chain: chrisbirzer [at] gmail [dot] com

Gonzaga 2018 Update:

This will be the first college debate tournament that I judge. I have zero idea what is happening on this topic but I did debate on the war powers topic 5 years ago. You should still assume that I know nothing, and that my flowing and debate judging skills are not at their peak.

I will work to resolve the arguments made in the debate in the most objective and impartial manner possible. I believe I am significantly more ideologically open than I was when I stopped debating a few years ago, and I am excited to listen to all strains of arguments. Still, you should know that I am more practiced in "policy" arguments than critical arguments.

I believe that theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument. I have an almost overwhelming inclination that conditionality is good in all instances, regardless of quantity.

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

Policy Paradigm - quick 20 seconds before round are in bullets:

•Prep ends when you hit send on a document or remove the flash drive from your machine.
•Ideologically agnostic, read t, fw, cp, da, k, whatever. I coached and did a breadth and depth of k literature (that was cutting edge back in the day) and am now working with a team that goes 1 off heg. Do you, and your best debating, and I will work my hardest to adjudicate and respect the debate before me.
•Look for strong offense comparison for me to resolve the debate in your favor.
•Email: austin.brittenham@gmail.com


I'm increasingly becoming flow oriented - I'll adjudicated under any framework that a team wins. For this to happen, there must be a portion of the debate where you positively delineate your vision of how I ought adjudicate a round. That said, my default is really about my flow, focusing on the line by line rather than embedded clash will really help me adjudicate in a way which will favor you. I also find myself using my flow to be clear about what the debaters in the round were putting into words for me, rather than would I thought debaters meant by an argument. I flow your words and warrants, if you phrase things defensively, I will think of it defensively, etc.

Optimizing your chance to win - Frame your offense and compare it to the other teams, generally. I think that's the core of debate no matter how you think about arguments in debate. The 2nr ought centralize out offense, compare that offense to the 1ar offense. The 2ar should win some remaining offense and compare it to the neg offense.

History - I debated for 3 years in high school and 4 years in college. I went to the NDT my junior and senior years debating arguments about embodiment, transness, and queerness. That being said my high school debate experience was primarily flex debating. I have a strong respect for the cp/ptx da combo .I've now coached middle school, high school policy, and college NPDA Parliamentary debate and NDT/CEDA policy debate.

I think kritik alternatives should solve the links & impacts they identify. If the critique says capitalism causes environmental destruction, I need to know either how the 1ac/plan being capitalist produces environmental destruction, or how the alternative solves all of capitalism producing environmental destruction. A simple rejection of bad epistemology probably doesn't solve Britain being a capitalist state, but a global violent revolution might. Similarly, why is it that encountering a capitalist in a debate round is bad if that debater doesn't have their hands on levers of power? For me, I just need a coherency among all portions of a critique. To be clear, do a discourse, reps, epistemology, whatever argument, but make sure there is congruence among the 3 parts.

I think that "methods" debates don't necessarily mean that the affirmative doesn't get a permutation. Methods seem permutable to me. Asserting "it's a methods debate so perms" is certainly not an argument because it is a claim without a warrant. To be clear no perms bc methods is a winnable argument in front of me, but my predisposition is the other way and brisk debating on the theory will not end favorably.

Messy debates will often have me resolve in favor of the negative--the 2ar has the chance to clean up the debate but didn't.

Msc Theory - I think that critical affs should either normatively defend something that isn't the squo or have defense of why their speech act/performance generates offense that is unix to each debate round.

I think try-or-die is really vote aff on presumption which seems silly. Like either the aff wins their impacts or they don't, try-or-die seems like a concession that you've lost the impact defense.

I think (logically limited) conditionality is fine and am not generally inclined to vote on conditionality unless there is an in round impact.

Fiat - is a normative question regarding whether or not the aff/plan/advocacy ought happen. This does not mean that it does happen or would happen, if something wouldn't happen in the status quo, that is inherency for the aff. Many fiat debates that I've seen seem to assume other interpretations of fiat. Please explain for me your version and how it operates for me to be on the same page as you, otherwise I will presume this interpretation.

**These are just how I enter into a debate. Please obviously debate and win the arg and I will vote against my feelings.

If this isn't helpful please ask me questions before the round.

I did policy debate in high school and college. I coached policy debate for several years and judged a bunch of debates on the western Washington and national circuits. I’m now in law school, I do some light LD coaching and judging for Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate, and I occasionally judge policy debates for the Chicago Debate League.

Here are some thoughts on how I judge. Where relevant, I’ve separated LD- and policy-specific comments.

1. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I think the best advice for debating in front of me is to be explicit about each of these things. I’m not afraid of saying that I didn’t understand the reasoning (warrant) or importance (impact) of an argument in my RFD.

a. Something that’s “dropped” only is presumed true, for the purposes of the debate, insofar as it was a complete argument to begin with. Suppose the negative doesn’t answer “states aren’t efficient” on the states CP, for example, and there’s no clear explanation (either in the 2AC’s explanation of the aff or in the 2AC’s CP arguments) for why efficiency matters in determining how well a CP solves. The 2NR doesn’t get to answer the claim that states aren’t efficient. But that argument won’t have weight in my decision without an explanation of why efficiency matters. If that explanation is in the 2AR, it’s new. If it’s in the 1AR, the 2NR gets to answer that particular part of the argument.

2. Clarity is king in normal debate times. On zoom, it’s a deity. I don’t read evidence in order to ascertain things I should’ve heard during the debate. I’ll usually yell “clear” twice—after that, I won’t flow what I can’t understand. Don’t read a bunch of analytics or theory arguments at full speed expecting me to flow them all. Make it clear when you’re reading a tag and when you’re reading a card.

3. Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.

a. (Policy-specific) I don’t think this means you have to read a plan. It does mean that you have to have some reason why whatever you’re advocating is an example of the resolution. I'm amenable to non-traditional - eg, identity-based - reasons why your advocacy is aligned with the topic.

4. I approach critical arguments technically. A rough approximation of how I think about K debate is: it’s a DA/CP to the affirmative’s rhetorical representations or ontological or epistemological underpinnings. A few thoughts on what makes me more likely to vote for a K:

a. Go beyond saying “all of our links are DAs to the perm.” Be specific—how does the inclusion of the aff’s plan trigger each link, notwithstanding the alternative also being enacted? I tend to think the perm solves many K links—so reading external disadvantages to the perm is useful in front of me.

b. Have a framework claim, even if the 2AC doesn’t make one. I find it difficult to weigh the policy effects of the plan against, for example, a bunch of epistemic-based impacts without some rationale being presented for why those impacts matter.

5. I think bad theory arguments are, well, bad. But I also sometimes am left wondering why a debater didn’t go for theory.

a. (Policy-specific). Conditionality and the proliferation of many abusive counterplans are getting out of control. If it steals the aff, go for theory and/or a perm argument rooted in competition theory (perm: do the aff).

b. (LD-specific). Most theory arguments in LD seem to basically foreclose any chance of the other side winning. Non-starters.

6. I tend to reward in-round debating over everything else. Spin and evidence comparison are both deferred to unless challenged. So make comparisons—comparisons win debates.

7. Debate should be inclusive. If you're debating a team that is significantly less experienced than you, try not to make the debate a technical arms race. Please slow down and endeavor to make the debate one of engagement. Technical arms races will get bad points, engaging debates get great points.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

Experience: 3 years of policy, one year of Congress lol. Four years out.

Speed: I’m fine with speed (rusty so bear with me), but if you don’t slow down for the tags and authors I will most likely have trouble flowing your evidence.

If you're going to be racist/sexist/ableist/etc. please save everyone the pain and just concede the round at the start.

PARADIGM:

Topicality – I have a very high threshold for topicality. Unless there is obvious abuse, I find it difficult to vote neg on T. That being said, if the aff does not handle topicality well, then I have no problem voting neg. I don't really buy RVIs.

Kritiks – Okay with Ks, I've run cap, fem, and orientalism, so I'm relatively familiar with the terminology. Otherwise, you need strong analysis/OVERVIEWS for me to really understand. If you use jargon without defining it, I may not understand what you're arguing.

Framework – Bottom line, I need you to tell me why to accept/reject FW, and how that affects my evaluation of the round. Without framework/without clash on competing frameworks, I default impact calc.

Counterplans – If you’ve got a net benefit and prove competition, I vote for the CP.

Theory – I usually won’t view theory as a reason to vote down a team; I will more likely reject an argument. You have to prove actual abuse (unless it's dropped).

Tl;dr – I don’t like judging debates that are super heavily evidence based. I need good analysis and argumentation in your own words why you should win the debate. USE OVERVIEWS!!! Also I'm rusty so bear with me.

@ Varsity CX (and really every team tbh): I really want to understand all of your super kritikal and advanced arguments, but honestly sometimes I struggle. So if you want me to evaluate your case accurately, you've gotta have some pretty sick overviews by your second constructive or you've probably lost me.

     I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

Competed in LD for four years in high school, did parli for four years in college (plus a handful of policy tournaments), so I am generally familiar with most arguments you are interested in running. I am generally of the view that the debate is yours and am open to hearing whatever it is that you want to make the debate.

If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

Hello!

I debated in Policy for 3 Years in high school on both the national and state circuits.

I am mostly a tab judge that listens to every argument you have to offer, however I am not the biggest fan of theory heavy debates. With that said, I do respect the fact the theory outweighs everything. I also have a higher threshold for topicality when it comes to the standards and impact it has in the round. To increase you chances of winning the debate I would like to see impact magnitudes, the aff team sticking to their story of the 1AC, and organized logical debates. Finally, try to have fun in the debate round and remember to be "critical not cynical" as in, attack the argument not the person. I do not want to see a debate round where both teams just yell at each other.

Neg: i am okay with everything, just make sure that the kritik you read, you also understand. DO NOT just pull a K off of open to read.

AFF: Kritik Affs are okay. However, your aff is a story, as you continue through the round do not lose the story of the 1ac

Policy

I'm okay with anything as long as you know what youre talking about

Run an untopical aff, run a plan, advocacy or no advocacy, run a k do whatever you want as long as you know what youre running and are prepared to win on theory/t. Make sure you can explain it to me bc im not gonna vote on something i dont understand and also dont assume I know your authors.

If you go for T or Theory you have to explain how it actually hurts you in the world of debate- don't just read a shell/shadow extend it. I want you to do a line by line on your standards and voters or I won't vote for it. Also if you read disclosure theory that's an isntant loss and no speaks. Sorry you're rich boohoo.

If you're gonna run a BS CP like a PIC or a consult you best have a DA and not just an INB.

Dont go for multiple world advocacies in the 2nr. pick one- you can run multiple advocacies throughout the round- but only go for one

If u go for theory, that better be the only thing u go for or i wont vote on it

LD/Pufo

more impacts based and please do weighing the last speech- i will defer to FW

Last updated 1/12/24:

I mostly judge policy, for other events, go to the bottom.

Please add me if you are starting an email chain: steve _at_ interlakedebate _dot_ org (i'm not at Interlake anymore, but still using this account).

CX / Policy Philosophy:

TL;DR:

Mt. Vernon will be my first tournament on this topic so don't make assumptions about what acronyms or specific knowledge. I do have a good public policy and economics background, but please explain things.

If you are a policy team, I am likely good for you. If you are a team that runs Ks on the neg or K/Soft left impacts on a policy aff, I am probably fine for you. If you run a K-aff, I may or may not, please read below.

First and foremost, I judge based on the flow. I will do my best to determine the winner based on what has been said. This makes line-by-line refutation and dropped arguments important. I will do my best not to impose my opinions and values into the round. That being said, I am not strictly tabula rasa. See below for exceptions. By default, I will take a utilitarian approach.

Style

I want to see clash. This means that negatives should not ignore the 1AC. Affirmatives need to respond to the negative positions as they are presented not just read a generic block that only sort-of applies. If you are merely extending your own cards and not responding to the other side’s arguments, your speaker points will be lower.

I am fine with speed, but you need to be clear. Remember that, as a judge, I often do not have a copy of the evidence and especially the analytics on my computer. If I can't hear the words as you read the cards, you are going too fast for your ability. If I am going to judge on the flow, you want to make sure my flow matches what you said. This is especially important when it comes to theory. Reading your theory block at full speed guarantees that I won’t be able to flow it all. Slow down on theory.

Be nice. I will react negatively if you are arrogant or rude to your opponents. This applies to your partner as well. I do not want to see the debate personalized. Feel free to attack and characterize your opponents’ arguments as you like, but refrain from attacking your opponents themselves. Their arguments may be *-ist. Your opponents are not.

My pet peeve is flowing. Rather, teams that don’t flow. If you have to ask about whether your opponents read each card or if you respond to positions and arguments that they didn’t read, your speaks will be docked.

Theory
I enjoy the occasional theory debate, but it must be developed well. Everything you say needs a warrant. Develop your arguments if you want me to consider them. I am unlikely to decide an entire round based on an issue explained or extended in less than five seconds.

I am unlikely to find *-spec persuasive unless there is in-round abuse. I do find vagueness more interesting each year as teams make their plans less and less specific.

Topicality

I will vote on topicality. I evaluate it as a technical argument, no more dominated by truth than any other type of argument. I find myself drawn to the definitional debate over other aspects of T. That means you should focus on standards, definitions, and the fallout from those. I’m more persuaded by limits than ground. I will be unlikely to vote for reasonability unless there is a standard to determine whether something is, or is not, reasonable. I am unlikely to be persuaded by arguments that tell me to ignore topicality.

Kritikal Affs

It is my belief that the resolution must play a critical role in scoping debate and allowing for clash. To that end, while I will vote for a critical aff, I expect it to be germane to the resolution. Affs which are anti-topical will lose if the negative carries a reasonable version of that argument through to the end.

Case/Disads/CPs

This is my home turf. I want to see clash. Spotting the affirmative their advantages and trying to outweigh them with disads is not a good strategy. Contest the internal links and/or impacts. Run solvency takeouts. These make your off-case much more persuasive.

Kritiks

I am happy to vote on kritiks. You need to explain how I should be evaluating the k versus the case. Teams should feel free to challenge the a-priori status of the kritik. There needs to be some kind of benefit to the world of the alt. At the end of the day, I will be weighing it against the case. A K without an alt is just a non-unique, linear disad.

I expect that critical arguments will be supported by the evidence. This should go without saying, but I have seen teams give entire 2NCs that are not based on anything but their own opinion. Analogies and extrapolations are fine, but the basis for the analogy or the extrapolation should be in found in evidence.

Running a kritik is not an excuse for sloppy debate. I see too many kritik debaters that rest on truth over technical and ignore the structure of the debate. Direct refutation and line-by-line are still important even in the kritik debate.

I was primarily a policy debater in my day. I have judged many critical rounds and read some of the authors. My knowledge of them is reasonable, but if you run something outside of the common ones, explain it clearly.

Rebuttals

I try not to impose my views on the debate, but that requires debaters do a good job in the last two rebuttals crystalizing the issues and telling the story of the round. "We win the entire flow" is not usually true and is not a good way to weigh the issues. Tell me why your winning of the disad overwhelms the advantage of case or why their rhetorical slight is more important than structural violence. Make sure there is a traceable lineage to your arguments. I am strict on new arguments from the 1NR onward. Tell me that it’s new and, if true, I’ll strike it. You must tell me though. If you don’t, it counts. I will do my best to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments.

Misc.

If you watch me, I tend to emote my opinions.

Many have asked: Tag-team CX is fine. I only request that the person who is “supposed” to be cross-examining be part of the conversation.

Background

I debated policy in high school and CEDA (policy) in college for a total of seven years, including four at Whitman College. I coached college policy for one year at the University of Puget Sound and have been coaching policy debate at Interlake High School since 2012.

----------------------------------------

Public Forum Judging Philosophy:

----------------------------------------

I don’t judge PF a lot so assume that I’m not deeply educated on the topic. That said, I read a lot of economics, politics, and philosophy so I am likely to be familiar with most arguments.

The best description of me is likely as a progressive, flow-oriented judge. I will be adjudicating the round based on who presents, and extends, the better arguments. I will try my best not to intervene. If you didn't say something, I won't make the argument for you. Sounding good making shallow arguments won’t earn you a win. In the end, I want to see clash. Don’t just tell me why you are right, you have to also tell me why they are wrong.

A few points that might matter to you:

1. Speed: Keep it easily comprehensible and you will be fine. In reality, I doubt you will exceed my threshold. If you do, I’ll yell clear.

2. Dropped arguments: There is no punishment for dropping your own arguments. Obviously, don’t drop something your opponent is turning.

3. I think definitions should be used strategically to define what interpretation of the resolution you will be defending.

4. I will reward clever debating. Show me how the arguments interact. Defend ground that avoids most of your opponent’s thrusts.

This is my 1st year judging policy and I am an assistant coach for Garfield High School. I've been solely judging novice rounds thus far. I'm open to different types of arguments and open to K's - as a straight, able-bodied, male of color, I find myself being particularly inclined toward K's but will judge a round based on how well the debaters make their arguments and will attempt to set personal biases aside. I will also recommend that links to nuclear war need to be STRONG... Nuke detonations on human populations has happened TWICE in human history and I don't find "this will lead to nuke war" arguments strong if the link is weak. I'm also open to tag team cross examination IF your supporting partner does not begin to dominate. Also, I WILL consider flashing prep time if flashing takes longer than a minute.

To win rounds with me, you need to have run a very technically sound round where you've addressed each argument made, have outlined a stronger impact calc, and made solid strategic decisions.

email: imeganwu@gmail.com

--

note for blue key '22: i haven't judged/coached consistently since the 2020-21 school year. please assume that i am unfamiliar with the topic, topic-specific jargon/knowledge, the current meta of debate, etc. when i judged frequently, a large majority (>~80%) of the rounds i judged involved phil fw, t/theory, or tricks to some extent. this is my wiki from senior year.

--

i debated on the national circuit for a couple years and qualified to the toc as a senior ('19). i taught at nsd flagship '19, nsd philadelphia '19, tdc '19 & '20, and legacy debate '20, and i coached hunter college high school in the '19-'20 season (see hunter sk, hunter nk). in the '20-'21 season, i coached hunter md and lindale pp. i currently attend swarthmore college ('23), where i study philosophy and math.

my coaches and biggest influences in debate: alisa liu, kris wright, katherine fennell, xavier roberts-gaal. as a debater, my favorite judges were sean fahey and mark gorthey.

in the interest of full disclosure, i am profoundly deaf in both ears and have bilateral cochlear implants. i do not believe that this significantly impacts my ability to judge, as i debated on the circuit and wasn’t horrible at it; you should be clear, give overviews, slow down for anything important, and explain to me how i should write your rfd—as you should with any judge. i will use speech docs in the 1ac/1nc, but will not in rebuttals for anything besides advocacy texts and interps. i will call clear or slow in your speech if i can’t understand you.

i do not have any preferences for style of debate; my only preference is that you debate in the way you choose, as opposed to what you think i’d like to see. i will vote for any argument so long as it is fully warranted, won, and implicated. i won’t vote on links/violations that i can’t verify. i am most familiar with philosophical framework and theory/t debates and least familiar with policy/k debate. i won’t supplement a debater’s explanation of arguments with things i know that weren’t on the flow, so it should not matter if i’m unfamiliar with literature that is read because it is the job of the debaters to fully explain and implicate their arguments—nor will i help you out even if you read a framework that i know well.

i will attempt to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters—e.g. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in the 2n/2a but forget to read voters, i will act as if a voter had been read rather than ignore theory and vote on a random substance extension. however, it will always be to your benefit to debate in a non-messy way: even if the 2n collapses to T, concedes substance, and it is assumed by both debaters that substance flows aff, the 2a should still quickly extend the ac. you should also attempt to extend interps & violations. the more i have to think about what the shared assumptions of the round are (and the less clear you are about your ballot story), the more your speaks will suffer.

if i am unable to determine what the shared assumption is, and if no argument has been made on the issue, i will assume the following defaults:

• theory is drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, fairness and education are voters, fairness > education
• strength of link to weigh between layers, and theory > t > k if strength of link is irresolvable
• epistemic confidence
• presumption and permissibility negate
• tech>truth

---

ethics issues:

• evidence ethics, clipping: you need to formally stake the round for me to call tab in & i will defer to tournament policy when that happens. otherwise, i will adjudicate this like any other theory debate.
• in-round safety: if you judge that the round needs to be stopped, please ask me to and i will call the equity ombudspurson or tab in & defer to tournament procedure/tab's judgment. i am highly unlikely to stop the round unprompted, or vote on an in-round conduct issue if it is not made into a voting issue by the other debater. my policy on this is intended to place the judgment of the affected debater in higher regard than my own.

---

speaker points: higher when you utilize judge direction, make creative strategic choices rather than spamming args, and are good at cx. lower when you clearly haven't read my paradigm, comport yourself in an uncompassionate way, and read largely prewritten args. i average around 28.6 and i don't disclose speaks.

important notes, especially for west coast debaters:

• if you read reasonability without a brightline, say only that “good is good enough,” or tell me to “gut check,” i will gut check competing interps. reasonability should have a brightline that tells me how to differentiate between abusive and nonabusive scenarios.
• i would really prefer it if you read and normatively justify a rob/standard/vc, even if it's short. i tend to think that normative ethic spec is a true argument, and if neither debater indicates a framework and there is not a clear shared assumption of a certain framework, i will be forced to default to my intuitions to frame offense—which you likely don’t want because i’m not a utilitarian.
• i will vote on an rvi if won.
• i will vote on framework preclusion of impacts if won.
• i don’t care if your theory shell is frivolous. "this is frivolous" is not an argument.
• i think epistemic modesty is weird and have never understood it. (if it means strength of link, just say that instead?)
• ethos is created through persuasion/passion/showing you have a ton of knowledge about the subject—not snarky taglines and personal jabs—and good ethos never comes at the expense of safety in the round.

ask me if you have any questions (especially if you're a small school debater). good luck and have fun debating!

I have coached policy at Garfield High School since 2014. I have yet to encounter an argument I'm not OK with in a round; it's really about you and how well you explain your arguments and why they should win you the round. I think it's important to be responsive to the specific arguments in the round - don't just read your prewritten overview and assume it works for every debate. I enjoy both policy and critical arguments and have some background knowledge in theory, but don't assume I know your literature. In my opinion, it's your job to tell me how to vote in the round and why. If you leave it up to me, I tend to buy the argument that moral thinking is a prereq to policy making (but I can be convinced otherwise).

I am generally ok with most speed, but make sure I'm flowing if you're blazing through a bunch of analytics you don't want me to miss.

I don't know what "judge kicking" means - are you asking me to decide your strategy for you? I won't do that. Either go for the argument, or don't.