This makes me feel old to say, but I have been judging four years now, and competed for four years as well at Hillsdale doing both Parli and LD.

New - I am really starting to dislike PICs, do with that knowledge what you will. I highly value overviews or underviews in the 2AR and the NR.

Newish - I have an inbuilt bias against plan texts that rely on solvency authors for clarification about what plan does. Whatever your plan says is all that you get to FIAT, and you should not be able to rely on your solvency author to shift what the plan will be doing. Also am against Affs advocating resolution as their plantext (unless 100% necessary in a hyperspecific parli round). I will happily vote neg on FIAT theory about concrete plantexts, voting neg on vagueness based on this, or doing a rules oriented thing about plantext specificity.

Speed/Flowing: I am fine with whatever speed as long as it is equitable, if one side can not keep up they need to be extremely vocal about the issue instead of not commenting and just running a speed position. I do NOT flow card cites so don't tell me to extend Wolf in 14, tell me to extend the C card, or third inherency card.

K/Project Affs/CP's: I am not a kritical theory guru. I have a limited background, and am not ultra hip with the jargon. If you want to run / win these positions you need to explain it to me in your own words and not by repeating words that no one in the room really understand. I need a really clear articulation of how me voting for you solves the problem you identify, yes you can say the 'squo is terrible' but thats not a reason for me to vote against your opponent. I need to understand how a ballot for you is a vote to make the world better in a tangible way. I hold K's and CP's to the same burden of solvency as I would a policy based aff. Also, if you are reading me 15 year old backfile link cards, just don't.

Impact Stories/DA's: Quantifiable is good. The question of 'probability' really depends on the ink on the flow. If the aff never argues how an alien invasion will not happen on the Link/Internal Link/Impact level I will grant it 100% probability. Saying 'Its not probable' is not an argument.

T/Procedurals/Theory: My T threshold is probably lower then the average judge, mostly because I don’t buy that there has to be a fair division of ground between the aff and neg. If the resolution only allows two topical affs, I am not going to ignore T so that there are more affs that can be ran, instead people need to stop voting for terrible resolutions. I am completely ok voting on straight theory regarding say FIAT, if the neg says FIAT can’t do xyz things, I could totally vote on that even if its not mentioned in the rules.

Closing thoughts: I will vote neg on 100% terminal solvency takeouts. Tell me where to vote, you don’t want me thinking. You should be moderately pleasant, I can deal with someone that is sassy or whatever, but don’t devolve to being rude.

Logistics…

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com

3) If there is no email chain, I’m going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.

4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points.

5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I don’t want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.

** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and don’t argue about it. **

I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I've been coaching LD debate for the last 10 years, prior to that I was a CEDA/NDT coach and that is the event I competed in. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly. You can win my ballot with whatever. I don’t have to agree with your argument, I don’t have to be moved by your argument, I don’t even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I DO need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, I’m familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments…other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. It’s up to you. I’ll tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand – I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that’s on you.

The rules have changed for LD, however, that does not change my paradigm. The important change to the rules says this - "judges are also encouraged to develop a decision-making paradigm for adjudicatingcompetitive debate and provide that paradigm to students prior to the debate."

The paradigm I'm providing here should not be understood to contradict "the official decision making
paradigm of NFA-LD" provided in the rules.

Topicality is a voting issue. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I will vote neg. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any procedural/theory violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it. Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I don’t need “abuse” proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this.

Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you can’t find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. I’m pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so you’ll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVI’s are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.

History: I have debated for six years. Two years of high school policy and four years of LD at Lafayette College.

Delivery: I can handle speed, explained a little more below, but I do ask that if you are going to speed read please be clear on tags and authors. However, i do think that a debater should be sensitive to the speed threshold of their opponents. I think debaters should feel free to say "clear" or something like that to let the other debater know that they are too fast.

I approach a round being a blank slate, that means that the debaters can put me into a framework if they like (stock issues, policy maker, etc…) by default I will pick policy maker. I am able to keep up on the line-by-line debate however, in the rebuttals I like to see debaters identify the important arguments and attempt to win those rather than get bogged down by the line-by-line.

I do not have a preference for certain types of impacts, good ones are appreciated and encouraged. Debaters should strive to have good impact analysis, probability, timeframe, and magnitude. Discuss why you win or if you are losing one of the three points explain why your impact still matters.

Topicality debates that have competing interpretations are what I consider good topicality debates. Using the interpretations, the standards debate becomes much more interesting and meaningful. To win topicality, the negative must show clear violation of the interpretation and win that the interpretation is a good one. The affirmative must show that there is either no violation or that the interpretation is not a good one.

I competed in LD for Lafayette college for 3.5 years. I am very much into the stock issues debate. I expect debaters to tell me how to weigh what though because I won’t do the work for you. I will listen to pretty much any argument. I do expect Ks and critical affs to have impacts though. Giving me a clear reason to vote/weighing calculus is most important.

I am fine with speed as long as your opponent is fine with it. I will say speed/clearer if I don’t understand you. I do think debate should be inclusive and that your opponent should also be able to say clear/speed if they don’t understand. I will also listen to arguments against speed if one is purposely trying to exclude his/her opponent from the debate.

I don’t love Ks that have nothing to do with the topic area/are super generic and can apply to any case, but I’ll listen to anything.

Don’t be rude during cross-ex. This means let your opponent answer your question without cutting them off, but also don’t purposely waste your opponent’s cross-ex time if he/she has more questions.

Former GA at Missouri State in both NFA and NDT-CEDA

5 years of college debate

I have been out of debate for a while, but this is now current for Lafayette 2019.

I would prefer to be included on the Email thread so that I can rapidly check evidence AFTER the debate. I will not follow along during the debate. Please send the docs and emails to brenden.71@gmail.com

EDIT 2017: I have come to realize that my paradigm is extremely long and detailed(probably too much so) so I have inserted a TLDR version below:

you do you - Im most familiar with policy arguments, HOWEVER, I love watching a well done K debate. I have zero preference in terms of ideological "debate poles", but be warned that the more complex your argument (policy included) the greater the burden is on you to make sure that I am following you. I generally give strong facial cues (or at least so I'm told) when I do not understand the argument you are making. I also love smart T debates, and really enjoy a well developed limits debate. I do not enjoy shallow T debates or generic framework debates that are devoid of context/ boil down to "no k's in debate!". This extends to generic theory arguments. These debates should be about models of debate. In round abuse is not necessary, and the debaters should focus on articulating the advantages and disadvantages of the various interpretations of debate, even if that is mandatory disclosure or condo always bad.

For those of you looking for more detail on specific debate issues, I have endeavored to write out my views on those things below in an attempt to provide predictable judging and to help me understand my own positions on various aspects of debate.

Top level:

My main goal as a judge is to resolve arguments made by debaters to form a coherent decision about the issue that the debaters have decided to debate. I will attempt to do this, as much as possible, solely based on the arguments presented by the debaters in their speeches and transcribed onto my flow. I do not particularly enjoy having to read a lot of evidence because I feel that it can lead to too much intervention on my part. That said, I will most definitely read evidence that has been strongly contested, highlighted as being particularly important or accused of being "power-tagged". In this sense evidence comparison is very important to me. Remember, debate is a communicative activity and it is the debater’s job to make arguments that persuade me to vote for you. I will try to be vigilant about policing new arguments, though debaters are encouraged to assist in this task.

Now the issues:

Topicality

Topicality is a potentially relevant and important argument to every single affirmative. The length of time and number of teams reading an affirmative do not make an aff topical.

To me there has never really been a mutual exclusivity between competing interpretations and reasonability. Topicality is fundamentally about comparing interpretations, and naturally in a competitive format, those interpretations tend to have points of contention. Reasonability is kind of a "gut check" test of the impacts vis-a-vis the standards. A strong comparison between proposed models of debate and the impact of including various affs within those is essential to demonstrate the negs impact, and without that section of the debate I find reasonability to be more persuasive. That said, I have never found myself in a position where I voted based on reasonability. Rather, an aff will usually win my ballot with over-limits style arguments while the neg will usually win my ballot with a solid TVA and a limits DA.

Topicality debates are often very messy to flow. Extra speaker points to debaters who efficiently organize concepts in these debates rather than throwing debate catch phrases around willy nilly.

DA's

Debaters should recognize the strengths and weaknesses of different impacts in the traditional timeframe, magnitude, probability frames. Your warming impact is not fast so stop wasting your time trying to convince me of that and spend it instead arguing about why magnitude is more important. Feel free to use novel impact evaluation frames outside these golden oldies, just explain why your frame makes sense for the context of the decision at hand.

The link is usually very important to me in these debates. The strength of the link determines if uniqueness can overwhelm it. Rarely will a disad already be literally happening, i.e. totally non-unique, but previous examples of things that should have triggered the link raise the bar for proving the plan is enough to cause a negative impact, and thus raise the threshold for the link.

Remember, a good DA alone can (and should) outweigh and turn the case. Cards are good here but definitely not necessary. Affs should be saying the same thing but in reverse.

CP's

Debating CP competition forces debaters to think about essential economic concepts like opportunity costs and decision making at the core of policy debate. I will try to keep a very open mind in judging debates about questionably competitive CP's to foster some of these educational values. The affirmative still has a strong gripe about many of these CP's being wholly unfair debate creations, and I find myself aff leaning in instances of multiple layers of CP "cheating"

That said, PIC's are not cheating, they are awesome and should be utilized. The aff should be forced to defend the entirety of the plan as necessary and good.

My general feeling about presumption is that it remains with the team who makes less overall change from the status quo unless you tell me specifically why you think it flips to you.

My feels on conditionality have shifted towards an understanding that all condo is ok UNLESS there are explicit contradictions in the conditional worlds that force the aff to read solvency for one to answer the other IE free market CP and a cap k.

Case debate

Impact D is a minimum and those who invest time in at the uq, link and internal link levels of an advantage will find it beneficial.

2A's must actually make an attempt to be flowed while they are on the case in the 2AC. Preferably, this is done by responding to the arguments made by the 1NC in the order that they were read.

I love impact turn debates.

K’s

I am K literate (in that I read them and went for them on a semi-regular basis) but not K fluent (No I haven’t read every Nietzsche and Baudrillard book) – that means that you should really invest time in explaining

1. Your Link – I say link because going for too many will probably hurt you on the depth of explanation

2. Your impact – what does social death/ bio-power/ exhaustion mean in the context of both the debate and the world

3. Your alt and why it resolves the previous two things

You should also be wary of perms that go beyond “do both”

The K needs to be functionally competitive so writing “reject the aff” in the tag of the card does not mean that they are mutually exclusive. Also saying all the links are DA’s to the perm is probably not true. I tend to think that for most alts, including the alt action after a plan or advocacy is probably sufficient to solve any residual links to the aff OR that the alt is too weak to overcome the status quo (I mean I was a 2A) - the Neg needs specific theory or a well-crafted link story to deal with this.

Oddly, these are the debates I see turning on technical problems most often. I think this is related to both sides talking past each other in a lot of these debates. Aff teams should be sure to not drop the standard tricks

Framework arguments are often central to my decisions in these debates. These issues often implicate what impacts are relevant to my decision, what an alternative should have to accomplish, and what link arguments a perm can solve. I think that most compromise framework formulations make negative sense, but if debaters agree to them I will do my best to resolve the debate as they have told me to.

Role of the ballot is a vague buzz phrase used to frame impacts – it is an empty signifier unless you explain what it means and why it is good. “dropping” a role of the ballot is impossible unless the team doesn’t extend an impact or a reason why voting for them is good in which case there are bigger problems than line by line efficiency.

Critical Aff's

I think that these affs are generally really cool ESPECIALLY when they involve a criticism of/ related to the topic. That is not to say that USFG action is at all necessary for my decision but rather that the negative should be able to read DA's based in some predictable literature. Example - On the emission topic, K affs shouldn't have to answer politics or the reg-neg CP but should have to answer coal / warming good type arguments. That is to say, the aff should have some defense of an attitude for or against the resolution and should be willing to answer for the implications of that attitude.

This is not to say that USFG framework will not win in front of me but rather that I generally think that most indicts of the state are factually true making this a hard debate to win. in this world, a discussion of how a topical defense of the state operates in relation to those indicts is in order IE is the neg interpretation a call to defend the whole thing or just a subset etc. Generally I am more likely to be persuaded by violations other than USFG. In that world it should be treated more as T - see above T section

Framework is engagement with the aff over the meta-issue of how debate should function in relation to the evaluation of the aff – a topical version is important for this because it can function as a CP that captures all the aff offense and has your T impacts as a net benefit. Without a T version I will probably find it difficult to vote neg because the aff will probably win some risk of offense that is bigger than whatever framework stuff you have. That said, the aff should probably have a well developed counter interp - I find framework debates that are well developed in this direction to be very fascinating and fun to be a part of. I also think that it is foolish for a negative to not engage the substance of the aff as the majority of the offense against their framework argument will originate there.

Competition questions are very difficult to resolve in many of these debates for critiques and counterplans. The less clear it is to me what the aff will defend, the more likely I will be persuaded by negative arguments against permutations.

It is likely that I will think that arguments that link to methodologies and their application outside of debate are relevant considerations to 1AC's unless they are explicit that their criticism applies only to the debate community. This is especially true if the negative argument is something that is a core topic impact turn.

Speaker Points

Make debate an enjoyable experience. Seriously, these people are willing to fly across the country to argue with you on weekends. Debate has an awesome group of people that combine intelligence and competitiveness in a way that is unique and incredible. I will use any scale published by the tournament. Most of your speaker points will be determined by the quality of debating done (which includes both answering and asking cross-x questions).

Hostility hurts your ethos and makes the round less enjoyable to judge. For example, when CX becomes a shouting match or there is blatant rudeness that occurs while your opponent is speaking, I get frustrated. This extends to repeated mis-gendering after you have been corrected, explicitly bigoted language, generally being an ass-hole etc. I'm not saying we all have to be friends but debate is a better activity when you can feel comfortable grabbing a drink with each other when its all said and done.

Clipping is a fast way to make me angry, as is giving the other team an incorrect version of the speech doc / one filled with your entire neg file that you skip around through. They have a right to follow along and check your reading of evidence. You can do it too. I won't have the speech documents in front of me so challenges will have to come from the debaters. I will follow the NDT guidelines as related to determining intent and impact. My intent is to uphold academic honesty. Those caught clipping will lose and get zero speaker points. The same is true for those whose allegations are proven false. A recording is required as evidence of clipping so that I have something to evaluate. The debate panoptican has become ever present enough to where this technical hurdle isn't too large.

Analytics don't have to be in the doc but should be if there is a legit access issue that is presented before the round

Sending docs is not prep time unless it becomes

a. obvious you are prepping

b. a ludicrous amount of time / attempts to get the right doc

feel free to email me with any questions

This is my first tournament. I am new to judging and have no debating experience. I am open to listening to both sides of the argument. I am unfamiliar with debate jargon. Presence is important to me.

Jeremy Christensen

Davis and Elkins College

Background: Not sure if or how this helps, but people seem to ask. I competed in NDT and CEDA (pre-merger), have coached collegiate NDT, LD, NPDA, Worlds and IPDA programs on regional and national circuits for the past thirty years, as well as high school policy and LD. That said, I make mistakes, don’t know everything, and what I’ll provide is how I see things now. You can probably move me on certain things, but that will depend upon the particular circumstances.

Speed: Be clear. I’ll give you a warning if needs be, after the second warning I stop giving them for the round and will try to get down analytics as well as I can. As NFA has a rule regarding speed, I would say respect the other person and his/her limitations and needs. I'm not encouraging speed, but I'm not the law on it either.

Courtesy: Be nice. I know that things can get chippy, and that’s okay. Just respect the other person or zero speaker points are in your future.

Procedurals:

“T” is a high threshold issue for me on this year’s LD topic (2019-2020). The resolution is so loose that about anything kind of looks topical. “Substantial” and “Energy sectors” seem to be the exceptions to that. I’ll vote on competing interpretations, and I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on T.

Spec arguments for me are high threshold any time they are run and are preemptive strikes against intrinsicness or severance arguments from the AFF to no-link a disad, case turn, or solvency takeout. Articulated abuse should be present for the argument to win and must be run in conjunction with something else. That said: if an AFF cold concedes the argument, I guess I’ll vote on it.

Condo: AFFs should ask for CP status. Probably, out of most critics, I’m the most open to conditionality being okay. I think it is situational and depends upon the AFF. In short, the issue is a coin-flip. I'll listen to the condo good/bad debate for sure.

Critical arguments

Sounds great. I view all kritiks as personal policy advocacies containing inherency (link), alternative (solvency), and impacts (harms). That means all kritiks need to articulate solvency. PICS are great, Perms are delightful, and really, critical disadvantages to methods are fantastic.

Framework debates need to move past “I have to roleplay my oppressor” toward a sustained reimagining of the lens by which one interprets phenomeon. I expect the alt. to solve, and I rarely, if ever, vote on “Vote Neg/Aff to reject.” You need some positive alternative besides rejection to get a shot at the ballot.

Counterplans/Disadvantages:

The usual here. If I’m given the risk of a disad link versus the risk of solvency, someone needs to resolve how I make that decision. Beyond that, I’m fine with whatever strategy you have. I have no prejudices against or for certain disadvantages. Weigh out timeframe, magnitude, and probability, obviously important always, extraordinarily important this year.

Evidence

Given there is some discussion on this question in the community let me say two things: 1) it is in your interest to spotlight credentials of those being cited in the body of evidence attributed to someone else; 2) it is neither plagiarism nor a rules violation to fail to give that information (a fact that, if not true, would make credentialing infinitely regressive as debaters chased down citation and footnote references for all academic work); 3) it is, however, strategically unwise. If the credibility of the author is not articulated at some point in the speech, I do not see how I can backfill that argument for a debater. In short, if you want me to vote on the quality of your evidence, that debate needs to appear in a constructive and/or rebuttal.

Underview:

The older I get, the more holistically I view debate rounds. It’s not a choice, so much as an evolution in my thought. That said, I like line-by-line debates, expect debaters to apply arguments, and understand NR and 2ARs as writing the ballot for me. I do not like to intervene, but I will to adjudicate a question, and will likely do so unfavorably (from your view) if you do not take control of framing the round.

Have fun. Enjoy yourself. I’m sure you will do your best; I’ll do my best, and hopefully, that will be all we can ask of each other.

I will listen to any argument. Everything is debatable. Show me clear terminalized impacts.

Background:

I competed in HS policy for 3 years and NFA-LD for 4 years (graduating in 2010). For several years after my competitive career ended, I was very active in judging, coaching, etc. Since 2016, I've judge a few rounds a year, but on a sporadic basis.

I may or may not know the full text of the resolution by the time I judge you.

Overview:

I have no predispositions against any particular positions. I am probably more likely to vote on theory arguments then the average judge. I probably am more of a sucker for good framing arguments (of either the round or a position) than most judges. I probably am more likely than most judges to refrain from signing my ballot based on a single dropped argument in the line-by-line and consider it in the context of the round as a whole instead. I am willing to vote on almost any procedural, including but not limited to: Full Citations, Solvency Advocate, Vagueness, Specification args, Inherency Procedurals, etc. I won't vote for any of the above listed procedurals unless you win the in-round debate on the standards/voters. I am ok with most speeds. However, due to a lack of consistency in recording people talking very fast in my daily life, I can't promise with certainty I can flow every point at your top speed. It is safer for you to perhaps dial it back one notch, but I won't drop you out of spite if you go too fast for me, I just might miss something important! I am ok with whatever crazy nonsensical K you want to whip out (the sensible ones are also good!), but I am a judge who likes to read evidence so they better be well-evidenced claims and not just power tagged nonsense.

Topicality/ Procedurals:

If you are the Aff you probably are pretty worried right now based on that procedural-friendly overview. Well, perhaps you are right to be worried, but my judging of procedurals is pretty even-handed. I don't think a counter-interpretation is required to win a topicality argument as the Aff, you can defeat a procedural on its merits. If you do have a counter-interpretation, your theory arguments (in this context usually referred to as "standards") will be given equal consideration and you get to do comparative analysis twice instead of only once! A few other notes of relevance here:

a. I don't require proven in round abuse to vote on a position

b. The NFA-LD rules are a persuasive and valid support for a position being vote-worthy

c. Arguing the rules are wrong or dumb or should be ignored will be an uphill climb for you in front of me

d. I voted for an RVI only one time in my life (it was on a panel and I squirreled :) )

e. I am completely fine with your own interpretation of a word or any interp that is not a literal dictionary definition, as long as it makes sense and you can defend it

f. I don't know what the overall distribution or topic areas of most Affs are so if you point out some common Aff that to you sounds like an obvious counter-example to your opponents interp, I probably won't get it

Case/Disads:

My most preferred way to decide a round is on impact comparison and relative advantages / disadvantages. A straight up politics, global warming, or heg debate will be just dandy for me. I don't know if I have too many tips and tricks on my judging of these things. I probably am more likely to consider solvency defense arguments and weight them in my decision making than most judges. "That's just defense" is a valid answer to an argument, but it is not 100% of the time a winning answer if the defense is substantial. If you call out specific pieces of evidence or make an argument based on an interpretation of the card text, I will ask for the evidence and read it after the round. Even if I think it is unlikely to matter in the final decision - you took time out of your speech to call out a specific element of the submitted evidence, and I consider it a judicial obligation to take the time to consider it specifically (exception if you literally drop the argument later in the round).

I am ok with any and all non-body count impacts. I consider it an onus on both debaters to engage in the framing debate over how to compare body counts to non-body count considerations, but I have no predisposition towards one or the other.

I am ok with real-world impacts (i.e. the "people in this room" type impacts) however, I'd prefer they come attached with some-kind of framework for voting, otherwise they are unlikely to be very consequential in the hypothetical world of the affirmative/negative.

Counter-Plans:

Do what you want here, but a few warnings... When I debated topical CPs were not a thing that was done, so if you do one my initial reaction may be unfavorable, but I will do my best not to let that bias my adjudication. I kind of think given the time constraints and format of LD that conditional CPs are pretty BS. Also, they are a bad idea strategically in LD but that is a different discussion. Anyway, I won't drop you just for running a conditional CP, just know that my pre-disposition in LD specifically is in favor of the condo bad side of the theory debate.

The K:

I don't have any specific grievances against any particular popular K authors. My preference is to hear topic or aff-specific Ks. In my experience the K deployed as a case-specific strategy is far more effective then a generic backfile K that you pull out because that's the only strategy you've got in your bag, but hey, if that's your only strategy you gotta go with what you've got. The one thing I will say is, if you are reading a non-case relevant K, I really won't give much weight to the fact that your arguments are evidence-based vs. your opponent's analytics. So as the Neg I would advise you not to consider that a silver bullet response. You have to understand the philosophical argument and be able to APPLY it to the debate round at hand.

Ok I think that's it. Ask me questions before the round if I forgot something obvious!

When judging and watching debate I look for a few things. I do not have a background in debate so when judging I like to be able to enjoy the debate. With that in mind there are a few things that make the debate experience exciting and enjoyable for me.

I really like to see the educational factor that comes to a debate. We as the audience and judges get watch both negative and positive educate us on why their side is correct. Along with the debaters we are able to learn and be educated on the problems that are facing out world today.

The next thing I look for is understanding the words that each debater is saying. There is a strategy in debate that states, talking as fast as you can allows you to get more arguments. If I don’t understand your argument, I will not be able to count it for positive or negative.

The other thing that I enjoy seeing while judging debate is the respect for both sides. I do not like to see members of a team disrespect the other team they are competing against.

Here's the tl;dr

Specifics > Generics

Substance and T > Rules and fake procedurals

Competitive PICS > Everything

Defending what you do > Aff Framework and Nonsense Perms

Link > Uniqueness

Offense > Everything

Always a risk > Terminal defense

Doing what you do best > Over-adapting

Things to know when debating in front of me:

1) I’m highly suspicious of arguments that have been debunked by contemporary debate theory or demonstrate weakness in preparation or strategy. I’ll vote on these if you win them clearly but my threshold is relatively high. Some examples include: Inherency, vagueness or any other non-topicality procedural, one conditional position bad, PICs bad, Aff framework against the K, non-evidenced analytics, and random NFA LD rules violations (the last one basically never). Otherwise, any argument is fine.

2) That being said, I love a good T debate. Sometimes topicality is the strategy. I default to competing interpretations.

3) I flow carefully. Technical drops are considered true in a relative sense.

4) Go as fast as you want, I can keep up as long as you’re clear. Speed is never ‘exclusionary’, it’s part of the game. You can critique the game, but in the absence of a well developed critique of debate practice, you should be able to cover. Smart and slow beats fast and nonsensical.

5) I have a strong preference for specific arguments and stories. The K and DA might turn case, but how?

6) I decide policy debates in the following manner

a. Decide the relative probability of each position in the debate. This means that you need offense on the major positions in the debate because I will almost never assign 0% probability to either a disadvantage or advantage. This also means that you should never assume you’re winning 100% probability of an argument. “Even if” statements are your friend. The amount of time you spend on a position will help me determine its relative probability.

b. Weigh the relative probability and magnitude of each position. This can get complicated in CP and DA debates, but I consider the degree of CP solvency to determine the probability of the affirmative’s advantages.

c. Attempt to describe the world of my decision. In other words, if I have a hard time wrapping my head around the world that either side describes in the last rebuttal, that’s a problem. I have enough argument critic in me that making sense (in debate’s already skewed and open world) is important.

7) I’m pretty open to any argument style. Love the K if done well, I’m likely familiar with the literature base. In K debates, I'm usually not into the perm unless it makes sense. If you're reading big impacts, it's probably best to impact turn and debate the alternative.

I don’t expect the aff to have a plan, but they probably need to talk about the resolution. I do, however, expect planless affs to defend their practices. You can go for T/Framework in front of me on the neg but you need persuasive answers to the impact turns. In planless aff debates, and K debates more generally, controlling the framing of the ballot is really important. I need to know what’s going on and what voting for you does or means.

8) Hate speech and racist arguments are a no-go. I’m good with weird extinction good arguments, however. Just don’t exclude individuals from the debate because of their identities.

I debated LD and Parli for Hillsdale for 4 years.

I try to be as non-interventionist and tabula rasa as possible. I’m not going to give particular arguments/positions more or less weight or vote/not vote on them just based on my personal preferences. I have my defaults, but those are subject to change based on what’s argued in-round. If you want something extended, you better say to extend it. If you want something cross-applied, you better say to cross-apply it. If you want impacts weighed a certain way, you better do that impact calc.

One quick style note: I don't flow the cites of cards, so if you say, "Smith in '19." I won't know what card that is. If you do refer to a card that way, it's not the end of the world and I'll flow it as best I can and reference cards afterwards, but you're better off just saying, "The C card on Solvency" for clarity's sake.

Speed: I'm cool with speed. On the off-chance you're going too fast for me to write things down, I will say, "Speed." If I can't understand you, I'll say, "Clear."

Evidence: If you think your opponent's card is powertagged, you better make warranted analysis (it's not good enough to just say, "This card is powertagged") pointing that out. If you don’t, I will accept the tag as read in round. If your opponent says your card is powertagged, you better make a warranted response.

Procedurals: I don't think I have an abnormally low or high threshold on procedurals. My thresholds and ways of evaluating them are subject to change based on what gets argued on the flow. For example: My default is that I don't need proven abuse to vote on a procedural, but if the aff/neg wins on the flow that I need proven abuse, that becomes my new standard.

And yes, I will vote on RVIs.

Rules: I'll vote on them, but you need to explain why what your opponent does violates the rules and why that means they lose. I'll also vote on arguments that rules/specific rules are bad or ambiguous, or why they don't mean you should lose for violating them.

K arguments: I have or at least can get the SparkNotes version of most Ks. But make sure you give some sort of explanation in plain terminology so that everyone can understand what’s going on. I don’t need to know all the ins and outs of a particular philosopher’s thinking, but I need to get the general idea so that I can make an informed decision on the arguments in round rather than try to wade through a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand.

Also, be clear about how the ballot functions.

Impacts: I don't have any predisposition for or against any kind of impact. It's up to the debaters to tell me how to weigh them. Probability largely depends on what happens on the flow. If a DA or advantage gets dropped and extended, it has 100% probability. If there's a no link/no internal link that gets dropped and extended, it has 0% probability. But all of that needs to be done with clear, warranted, line-by-line analysis. Simply saying, “This isn’t probable” won’t help you much.

At the same time, simply saying, “I get a 1% risk” won’t do you much either. If you want to argue why your opponent’s argument is only mitigation, not a complete takeout, you’ll need to give me warrants as to why. Reading a plan text doesn’t mean you magically get a 1% risk of Solvency no matter what happens on the flow.

CPs: I’m fine with CPs. I’m fine with CP theory/procedurals. Just like anything else, it all depends on the flow.

Stock Issues: My default is that I will vote on terminal defense on Solvency or Impacts or for no Inherency. But again, it's all subject to what happens on the flow. What constitutes a complete Solvency/Impact/Inherency takeout and how much Solvency/Impact/Inherency you need is always subject to debate. And I will vote on net benefits or some other metric if that weighing mechanism wins on the flow.

I did NFA-LD debate for 4 years, and since then have judged occasionally.

I try to keep a careful flow and will weigh arguments based on how you tell me to prioritize them. Impact calculus is very important. When there is clash between evidence making competing claims, tell me why I should prefer your evidence.

I'll listen to / vote for anything, but if I had to express a preference it would be for policy focused debate and DAs and CPs rather than Ks, however if you want to read a K, it's totally fine. You're probably better off reading what makes you comfortable and plays to your strengths rather than trying to prioritize my preferences. For DAs and Ks I want to see a clear link, more specific to the case is better, and you should explain how I am weighting your impacts (impact calc or framework). For CPs and K alts I want to understand what you are advocating - I'm not a fan of ambiguous CP text or vague alts.

A note for the affirmative, when you only have 3 minutes for the 2AR you should make them count. You don't need to spend 1:30 reading a pre-written overview reminding me what your advantages were. Effective 2AR time allocation is one of the most important skills that separates top competitors. I vote on the flow, make sure you're covering key points and not dropping half the NR.

My educational background is in math, physics, and engineering rather than anything related to political science or philosophy, which I am mostly exposed to through debate. As such I am unlikely to be familiar with the thesis of some more abstract K arguments based on block titles or authors last name, so if you are going for such a position it is important that what you reading is clearly explaining the key ideas in round. On the other hand, if the topic lends itself to scientific discussions, I may be more familiar than most with scientific / technical arguments and evidence.

I'm fine with conditional arguments in general, but not if they are being used abusively. I don't really care if you kick a CP with a bunch of defense read against it and go for the status quo, but I might care if you read some contradictory positions which you intend to kick out of when collapsing latter in the round.

Any procedurals are ok. If the procedural is a rules violation, then I don't think showing abuse is necessary. For other types of procedurals my default position is also that showing abuse is not necessary, but I'll consider arguments to the contrary. The standards debate is how I evaluate these arguments. I like competing interpretations. I much prefer a few well developed standards with impacts over a bunch of blip taglines.

Having said that, your procedurals still have to be logical and persuasive. My default position is condo is generally fine, your opponent running weak arguments isn't an RVI for some reason, and poor time allocation on your part is not a form of time skew.

Speed is fine, as long as you are clear, but would prefer if you went at a pace where your opponent is able to keep up. When reading analytics (such as standards for theory arguments) you should go at a pace where I can flow your warrants and impacts, which may involve slowing down compared to when you read evidence. I do tend to follow along with your speech doc, so you can probably go a bit faster if you give me a well organized doc and roadmap, and go a bit slower if you're jumping all over the place or making analytics not in the document.

Evidence quality is important to me. I want your cards to clearly support the taglines you give them, and the language should be comprehensible to a general college educated audience. I tend to be skeptical of cards where what you are reading is a few disjointed sentence fragments spread out over pages of minimized text - make sure you are not changing the essence of the original or creating new arguments. I will look at key cards after the round, but I expect you to actually read the important parts, I'm not going to go hunting for your warrants if they're hiding in the middle of the page in size 6 font. When cards clash in the round, I will be really happy if you compare evidence quality and warrants.

PF/LD:

E-mail:Hrenj@trinityprep.org

If you are looking for my paradigm in a few words:

I will start by looking at theimpactsas articulated in your final speech.I will thencompare them the way I was told to in your final speech(ex. Prefer on Timeframe. Prioritize probability). If there are competing comparisons, I will choose the one that is best articulated. I will then checkthe link to the impact and see if, in the final speech and previous speech, the other team told me a reason not to give the you access to your impact.If they did, I will make sure that this reason was articulated, at least from the second speech of that team.

My flow can be best described as chaotic, so make sure that you have been really clear and not blippy- if you are blippy, I am liable to miss it.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have experience judging LD at the College and High School level (but it has been a little bit since I have consistently judged LD) and Public Forum at the High School level (fairly consistently). I would by no means say I am an expert. These are some things to keep in mind with me.

Assume that I know nothing. This includes shorthand, theory, or K literature. Even if I do know something, I will pretend I don't to avoid intervening in the round.

Speed Kills (your ability to win the round).I want to be able to flow everything.To this end, I will say “clear” two times and then I am able to flow what I can flow: if I miss something because you’re speeding then it won’t be considered.I do not want to look at cards unless you or your opponent have a tiff about what they actually say.

Additionally, I think that spreading should be a tool to allow for deeper and more specific arguments as opposed to allowing for more short, blippy responses.If you're speeding through a response and that response was only a sentence or two to begin with, it probably doesn't register as that important to me.

Tech over truth except in extreme cases.Tell me what to vote on, tell me what to care about. Clearly weigh your impacts against your opponents do not assume I prefer one over the other without you giving me a reason to prefer.

I care about dropped arguments- you need to extend and that means more than just saying “extend.”Functionally reiterate your arguments or at least summaries of them.

CX- I often will flow this, but it will not factor into my decisions unless you bring it up in your speech. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, DO use this time to clarify, NOT make new arguments.

I hate hate hate people being hyperbolic or lying about what their opponent said or did: Ex. “they dropped this point” when they clearly did not. Just know if you do it I will be inclined toward your opponent. If YOU misheard or misunderstood your opponent’s argument, I get that, but pretending they didn’t respond to something they did is as good as dropping the arg. Also- don't tell me what my paradigm said- I was there when it was written.

Congress:

-The most important things to me are delivery and content.

-If two people are very close on both these aspects content will be more important than delivery.

-I pay attention to questioning, but it is more of a tie breaker for me. If you ask a particularly good question I will note it and you will be ranked higher than someone with the same scores on speeches and no notes about questioning.

-Very important to my ranking of speeches is whether you are moving the round forward or introducing new ideas.

-I prefer evidence usage, though in some analytic cases it is not strictly needed.

-I very much like interaction with the other speeches that have gone (rebutting directly or adding more to a previous argument).

-Taking risks with content or delivery in ways which push the boundaries of the norms will certainly earn some bonus points in my head.

-I think that decorum is important- pay attention to what others are saying, don't engage in personal attacks or generally be rude.

Background:

I been involved in debate since my sophomore year of high school. I competed at Cameron University in undergrad and I am now the GA at Central Michigan.

I should also add that I am a very expressive judge. I will have several nonverbals that will tell you how I feel about an argument. Don't take it personally, I do it to everyone in basically every round and it might help you win a round.
Voting:

I will vote basically anywhere you tell me to. I like to keep an open mind about most things. The thing I love the most in debates is the impacts. I enjoy big impacts and I enjoy hearing them blown up (no nuke war pun intended) in the round. Small impacts are not immediately shot down, but I will say that it would be more persuasive to have evidence that tells me to prefer these impacts.

Topicality/Procedurals:

I have a moderately high threshold on T arguments. I would prefer in round abuse but I can be persuaded to vote on potential abuse. It is up to you as a competitor to impact out that potential abuse and explain why it is important especially if you have no ground loss in the round. This applies to all other procedural arguments. I have an extremely high threshold for disclosure theory. So high in fact I would recommend not running it in front of me.

Kritiks:

I'm open to K's. However there are two conditions: first that it's clear what the K is doing and how it functions in the round/with the topic. The second condition is for K AFFs: you must have a policy action. Not only is it in the rules, it's also a personal preference because I feel AFFs in NFA LD should have a policy action. If this is not the case for your K AFF then you will be very open to losing the round on a NEG procedural.

Speed:

I'm ok with most types of speed and I will let you know if I can't keep up. I will say that if you do speed, please be clear. Also, DO NOT USE SPEED AS AN EXCLUSIONARY WEAPON. That is the worst and your speaker points will reflect that.

Also: I hate it when people refer to cards by the author's name and year (EX: my Johnson in '18 evidence says....) I would much rather have it be that you say something like "they drop the third card that I read on their solvency." It makes for a less confused me and that is something that you want.

Disclosure:

I will disclose results based on tournament policy.

I am willing to discuss any specific questions you have in the round.

GLHF

Prepping outside of prep time and being disorganized is not okay.

Basic Overview:

I believe it's your burden to tell me how and WHY (very important part) I should vote. If you give me a reason to vote on an RVI, and it goes dropped (I have a very low threshold for beating an RVI), and you go for that warranted RVI in your last speech... I will vote for it, regardless of how icky it feels. If neither team does the work to tell me how and why I vote, and I have to do a lot of work for you, don't be mad if that vote doesn't swing your way.

On LD rules:

For the sake of consistency, you have to tell me if something is in the rules if you want me to vote on it. So if you're going for "that type of counterplan isn't allowed in LD," then you obviously (and inherently) tell me that it's in the rules. The same thing goes for T... I don't NEED other voters, but you do have to tell me it's the rules. Also, I guess you can tell me the rules are bad, but you have to warrant it well.

Speed is also addressed in the rules, but I think that "conversational rate" is an arbitrary term. I'm fine with speed but I prefer that you annunciate. If your speed costs you your clarity, then slow down.

On Theory:

Absent you telling me, I defer to competing interps and potential abuse. That's just how I see debate, and is how I find myself evaluating rounds where no one tells me how to vote but the round clearly comes down to theory.

On Stock Issues:

It's technically in the rules that you have to have these stock issues, so if you're going for "no inherency" or "no propensity to solve" all you really have to do is cite the rules. Refer to my take on the rules.

On the K:

I'm comfortable with critical arguments. I often find that the Alt isn't explained well, and it's a pretty important part of the K because absent the Alt, your K is a nonunique DA. I still think you can claim K turns case absent the Alt, but of course that can be refuted back and forth so it's better to try to win your alt.

On 1AR/1NR/ Theory:

I never see it debated well because of time constraints in LD but sure, I'm open to it. If you're going for it in the 2AR, I imagine you'd really have to go for it.

TL;DR: I'm a former policy debater and you can read basically whatever you want in front of me.

Debate Experience

High School: Debated for 4 years (2004-2008) in Policy and one tournament in LD

College: Debated for 2.5 years (2008-2011) in Policy at UT-Dallas

I've judged many rounds of high school policy, LD, and PF but I've been out of the activity almost entirely since 2012.

Educational Background

BA, Political Science; MA, Political Science & International Affairs; PhD Candidate in Politics (Major: Political Theory, Minor: Comparative Politics)

In short, though I'm not an expert on this topic area, you can assume a relatively high level of background knowledge. Because I'm trained in political science but my focus is in feminist theory, you can be confident that I'll be able to follow your arguments whether they're policy-oriented or critical/philosophical.

Debate Philosophy

I'm open to multiple styles of debate and types of argument, so you should go for whatever you feel most comfortable with. I went for both policy and critical arguments as a debater, though in my heart, I'm a K debater.

I strive to vote for whoever did the best debating and made the most persuasive (convincing warrants, strong evidence, clearly explained) arguments. For the most part, I try not to let my biases about the substantive issues in the debate influence my judgments about who did the better debating. However, if your arguments are truly heinous (e.g. genocide = good), there is probably no argument that exists that will convince me. If your arguments are truly absurd (e.g. aliens), I'm going to be skeptical but entertained.

If you control the framing of the debate, your odds of winning increase substantially. Tell me how I should vote, how I should weigh different impacts against each other, what to do if they win part of their argument but not all of it.

I'm fine with speed.

I will vote on theory (aff or neg) if you win the argument. My default is to assume everything is okay unless the other team challenges it, but if you do challenge the legitimacy of a certain type of argument, I can be convinced that it's bad. Vagueness, ASPEC, and other non-Topicality theory arguments are a tough sell. I'm fairly neutral about conditionality - I tend to think one or two conditional advocacies are fine, but there is a plausible case to be made that conditionality is bad, and that case grows more convincing as the number of conditional positions increases. I generally like PICs and I have no automatic problem with Consult, Floating PIKs, etc. but I will listen to aff arguments against them. If there's some specific theory question you want to ask me before the debate, I'm happy to answer.

I am unlikely to vote solely on defense or un-evidenced analytics, but I am willing to assign very low probability to positions that don't make logical sense or if there are strong defensive arguments in play.

I will only vote on inherency if the plan has literally been done already.

I neither know nor care about NFA rules.

A little rhetorical grandstanding or mockery is part of the game, but I reserve the right to vote against you if you use racial slurs to intimidate your opponents or otherwise behave in egregiously horrible ways that seem likely to make other people want to quit the activity.

I competed in debate during high school and college in India. I currently work as a GA and this is my second year coaching/judging. The most important part of the debate for me is clarity and structure. I love a constructive speech that is well organized and everything flows seamlessly. I will only consider your contentions if they're supported by some sort of evidence and/or examples. Time yourself and don't go overtime. I will take most arguments at face value unless reasonably challenged by the opponent during rebuttal. Good luck!

I'm autistic and strictly speaking have a lower audio processesing speed. This only ever really impacts me on theory arguments happening at speed and in especially background noise-ful online debates. Prioritize clarity please. Make it very clear where you're at and what you're doing. I've been doing just fine recently (I think I became accustomed to online debate) but it never hurts to disclose these sorts of things

An update on the above, I honestly have begun to beleive that the shift to speech docs has shifted students AWAY from emphasizing clarity.

I only vote on what I hear you say, not whats in the speech document. I also do not read cards for you unless there is debate on what a card says.

About Me and Debate: I have been doing competitive debate in some capacity since 2007. In terms of reading me: Generally if I look confused, I am. If I am holding my hands in the air and staring at you that means I think you're making a brand spanking new argument in the NR or 2AR that I have no idea what existing argument to put it on. So if that's happening, please make sure I understand why this isn't new (so why its an extension of an existing arg or in the NR's case a response to an Aff arg). Reading your judge is a good skill to have. Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but I will be unhappy about it.

Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says.

Speed: I am fine with speed, but (especially in this activity) clarity is KEY, if both your opponent and myself can understand then we're all good. I have judged too many rounds where debaters will try to go quickly not because they can do it clearly/efficiently, but because I'm fine with it so why not. That is a terrible reason to spread and I will dock speaks accordingly. Additionally please slow down on your theoretical positions, no one can write that fast. If I don't get all those sick T arguments you're making then my ballot will probably reflect it. Most important thing is everyone in the round understanding you, but don't be that person who says 'clear' just so slow someone down then go that speed yourself. No one should be winning rounds strictly because one person was much quicker than the other or because one debater can't understand the words another is saying.

I will say clear once, and that it all.

Ethos: For the most part, your ethos will only effect your speaker points and not whether or not you win the debate. Just because I think you're a jerk doesn't mean you're not a jerk who won. Though keep in mind that often the things that ruin your ethos ALSO lose you rounds (like assuming arguments are stupid and not explaining why or not finishing your argument because the implications are clear enough to you). I will usually let you know if you have done something that damaged your ethos.

There is another surefire way of damaging your speaks with me in the back of the room: I can get a bit angry when debaters I know are smart make stupid decisions.

General Theory: The voting issue "The NFA-LD rules say X" holds exactly no weight with me. I do not follow/enforce rules simply because they are rules. You should at least explain why that particular rule is good. In fact, if you wish for me to judge based on what the rules say, then I can. Please disregard the entirety of this paradigm, I am now a stock issues judge. If you want me to the follow the rules I will.

There are SO MANY other reasons T is an a priori issue and I never hear most of them.

Topicality: Topicality is my jam. It is quite possibly one of my favorite arguments in debate. I have fairly low threshold for voting on reasonability on marginally topical affs. I think debaters are the ones who set the realm of the topic. Tell me why your aff deserves to be topical. Tell me why your definition is the best one for this topic. Tell me about it. If your aff deserves to be considered topical, TELL ME WHY. For my negatives, remember to tell me why the Aff is taking the topic in the wrong direction. Make sure you think through your position and all of its implications. Make sure you tell me why this aff hurts you. Try to force them into showing their true colors. Run that DA you claim they will No Link out of, worst case is they don't make that argument but now you have a DA with a conceded link. My brain breaks when you refer to things as limits DAs or education DA. Say links.

Kritiks: The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong. In fact, there is a good chance you will lose the debate if you just pull an NDT/CEDA K out of some backfile and read it. Keep your implications tied to policy action and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence.View the K as if you are a lobbyist for X cause and you want to convince congress (me) to vote against a policy currently on the floor (the aff) due to a negative assumption that policy is making. Explain to me what happens when we keep making policies that make this bad assumption. Reject the Aff is a fine alt, just keep the above in mind. If you start reading a K and look at me and I look extremely annoyed, its probably because you aren't adapting to me. Not an auto loss, just a rough go. DO NOT RUN LINKS OF OMISSION. I am extremely partial to the 'we can't talk about all the things all of the time' argument.

To my K Affs: Kritikal affs are my favorite thing. I think they're a lot of fun and are super educational. If your K aff doesn't have a plan text that is relevent to the rez you will never get my ballot, preferably it should be fiated but I have softened on that issue. However, I do not listen to Topicality Bad. Consider my position on the K in the paragraph above this one. There are plenty of excellent examples of this. Once I read a position that changed the definition of torture to include mental anguish as a form of torture as a staunch rejection of Cartesian Dualism. This both helped the people we're doing terrible things to in Gitmo and other places, but also began the break down of dualistic rhetoric in the government (and yes, my card did say that. It was a sick card). What I'm trying to stress here is that we are a policy making role play activity. To defend a position you do not believe in is to become more educated on that position. Debates about the political are important and I think the way we do them is especially important.

Please note all of my personal views on competitive equity and having topical and preferably fiated affs can be ignored if your opponent should not even be at the tournament. See: Is a predator.

Roles of the Ballot: The role of the ballot functions as a round framing and a focus. If you think that a particular minority group is underrepresented within the topic and you'd like the debate to be solely about their betterment, make THAT the role of the ballot. Use it as offense on that generic nonsense test the neg didn't bother to make more specific to your position. We can have the debate on whether or not that framework is a productive one. Hell, the neg can agree that you're right about that minority group and tailor their position to operate within it. And isn't that what we should all want, assuming we truly care for said minority group and the role of the ballot is not simply to box the neg out of all of their ground?

Speaker Point Assignment: My speaker point assignment system is mostly gut based to be perfectly honest with you, but there are a couple tips and tricks I can provide to get your 30. Ultimately the assignment is a combination of debate style, organization, ethos, and clarity of speech. A perfectly clear speaker with poor organization won't get a 30, but neither will an unclear speaker with perfect organization. In terms of priority, I suppose, it goes Clarity, Ethos, Organization, Style.

My Flow and You: I would describe myself as a good flow. If you have any experience that statement should ring a few alarm bells and I get that. I have trouble getting cites at times, especially if you're of the 'full citation' mentality where the author and the date are 20 seconds apart. To be honest I prefer people actually extending their positions instead of "Cross apply XY in ## " and it definitely helps with my flowing. If you're flying through things like theory or don't clearly enunciate your tags I will miss things and you may lose because of it. You have been warned.

Things I think are dumb/Pet Peeves: Disease extinction impacts, "The rules say so", State links, Kritiks without impact D, "99% of species that ever existed are now extinct" logical fallacies, the rest of the logical fallacies, Putting the burden of proof on the negating position, blatantly asking your opponent how they'd respond to a potential argument you may make in your next speech (like come on, have some nuance), caring about white nationalists and their feelings. "Just read my evidence" in cross ex.

You'd have thought living through a global pandemic would have put the kabosh on disease extinction impacts. It has not. :(

Other Thoughts: Debate is my favorite thing and happy rounds full of debaters who also love debate is my other favorite thing. Remember, THIS IS A GAME. As the great Abe Lincoln once said in a fictional movie "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!"

If you're reading this before a PF round consider: skip to the bolded "this is a note for PF" which is about my views on evidence. Otherwise do what you want in round; have fun, go crazy. Read the rest of the paradigm if you have time, but it's mostly about LD/Policy.

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3.Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you shouldprobably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply toall the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea.

I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

History: This is my sixth year out from undergrad and my second year judging NFA-LD on the regular. 2 years of CEDA/NDT debating, 2 years of NFA-LD debating. High school; Congress and Mock Trial.

Dear Trans Debaters (and judges): Please feel free to approach me at any time over any medium for any reason. I am happy and honored to give any support you may need. Seriously, do not hesitate or think you are being a bother or a burden. You are important and deserve support.

NOW LETS TALK ABOUT DEBATE

New Thoughts: I feel in the last few years Ive gotten a better idea of where I lean on a few things.

In round: You should generally ignore faces I make, I make them a lot. The one thing you should not ignore is if I make a point to lean back in my chair, cross my arms, and frown at you. I am making it obvious that I am not flowing because you are either a)making a completely brand new argument when you shouldn't be b) repeating yourself or c)being offensive.

KRITIKS: Kritiks to me are about questioning and attacking the assumptions inherent in the 1AC and proving that those assumptions cause policy failure and/or significant harms. Note that this does not mean I think the K needs to solve for the case. In fact, most Kritiks that attempt to do so *usually* have terrible Alternatives. Your evidence probably turns case, takes out solvency, or outweighs on impact on its own. Your alternative should be well supported by your evidence. Reject Alts usually don't. I prefer Ks to be as focused on policy making as possible.I probably won't vote for Ks based on links of omission 99.99% of the time, they put an obscene burden on the aff.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are great for education and fairness in debate. Topical counterplans are BEST for these things. If you run a counterplan, you should probably go for it because they take a lot of time to just not go for in an LD structured round. That said, if you somehow have another viable position, you should be able to kick the counterplan as long as you don't use the affs own answers to it against them ? Thats abusive and the one thing I will vote you down for regardless of how poorly the aff explains the abuse.

THE AFFIRMATIVE: I love both traditional policy affs and kritikal affs. K Affs should keep my K section in mind as it applies to them. You should be topical and you MUST specify an actor within the resolution. Technically its not impossible to get me to vote for an untopical aff, but you should be relevant enough to be able to pretend you're topical, and defending yourself as such, or at least that the educational importance of your aff justifies the deviation from the topic. But it needs to at least incorporate some core aspect of the topic, like bare minimum. If you aren't relevant enough to do that, you shouldn't be running this. If you're not heavily involved in the topic, and/or you are refusing to use the USFG, you are blocking your opponent out of the round. Switch side debate is vital for fairness and education and rejecting the USFG cuz its evil is firmly neg ground. This is a game. Without fair rules it devolves into madness and national tournaments where Affs win 90% of their rounds (lookin at you CEDA (yeah that actually happened)). Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, there is always radical lit discussing these issues within the topic, and that radical lit does not preclude USFG usage/topicality as much as everyone thinks it does.

Ultimately running the same thing every round is only robbing yourself of the educational value of switch side debate and learning about the system we are stuck in right now (valuable knowledge for a radical as well). If your opponent does not want to go for the arguments Ive stated preference for here, or doesn't actually win that debate I will still vote for you. It is very easy though to get me to vote on switch side debate good, fairness k2 debate survival. The fairly low number of statism/reject usfg affs does not justify my intervention on this matter, but I will definitely re-evaluate that position if it starts to crowd out topical traditional affs.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT: Roles of the ballot can be used as a great way to open up debate about priorities and whats important. They can also be used to box the neg out of their fair share of ground. The neg should be able to critic it's productiveness and/or work within it. Forcing the neg to run a counterproposal probably means I hate your FW/Role of the Ballot

TOPICALITY: The best way to get my ballot on topicality is a really good brightline and a really good argument on the lost ground and why you should have it. You MUST talk about fairness and education and the topic as a whole. Refer back to General Theory below. If you are going to run it, you should probably mean it.

GENERAL THEORY/PROCEDURALS: In order to vote for a theory/procedural and treat it as a voter I need a clear description of what they did wrong, a brightline/what they should have done instead, and why it matters. It should detail exactly why it is abusive, and how it effects fair/equitable ground and education in this round and debate as a whole. I am not against voting on potential abuse and in fact, you should probably have some examples of it in your impacts. HOWEVER, it is more of an uphill battle.

If all you say is "its abusive and a voter" with no abuse story and no impact on debate as a whole I will not consider it a voter and you couldn't convince me to vote for it even if they drop it. If you can't make a full procedural for whatever reason, don't be afraid to use the word abusive though. It could still make me more likely to drop the arg if you do it right.

Don't rely on the Da Rules. It will eventually come back to haunt you because the rulebook does not distribute ground fairly and is outdated (#sorrynotsorry). Its also a lazy non argument that doesn't develop your critical thinking skills and will lose you speaks.

FLOWING: My flowing capability is decent. I will write everything you say down, and will *probably* put it in the place you want me to, but you should *definitely* be clear about where that is just to be sure. I do not always (or often) catch citations (ya'll mumble them...I did too tho) so you probably shouldn't use just the cite and assume I know exactly which card you are referring to. Tags/Parts of the argument are preferable.

SPEED: I will understand most of what you say no matter how fast you go, but don't push my mediocre flowing to the brink ESPECIALLY if I am flowing on paper. I can only type/write so fast. If I can not understand you its probably an issue of clarity not speed. If I say CLEAR you need to CLEAR. If that requires you to slow down so be it.
You have the right to ask your opponent to slow down, but do not abuse this. I expect you to be able to keep up with above average conversing speed at bare minimum. If you ask someone to slow down, do not dare go any faster than that.

SPEAKS: There is not a very consistent speaker points range in this community. I am probably a bit of a fairy in this regards. Good oration skills will get you higher speaks. Good clear fast talk will get you higher speaks. Making it easy to flow will get you VERY good speaks. Best way to get good speaks is debate well and show you read this paradigm (or at least skimmed it).

michels.browne@gmail.com

I competed in policy debate many years ago for Kansas and coached Lincoln Douglas debate for Penn State the past five years. This is my first year as a CEDA/NDT coach/judge. As an argumentation instructor, I value the quality of evidence and arguments. So, if challenged I will examine the evidence (all of it including the unhighlighted and minimized sections) in the round—best say what you claim it says. I also want to hear warranted arguments, not labels –i.e. just saying “education” on topicality is not sufficient. I, to the best of my ability, adopt the perspective of tabula rasa and will listen to any argument presented in the debate, EXCEPT I still retain common sense. If you tell me the sky is green with orange polka dots, I won’t buy it.

As mentioned, any types of arguments (Ks, counterplans, topicality, etc.) are accepted and can win you the debate, if you convince me why your position is best. I expect to hear an explanation for how you have won in your team’s final rebuttal. Plan-less affs are not my favorite, but I will listen. Not fond of PICs, but again I will listen.

I don’t view debate as a “game”. I perceive it to be an educational activity in which the participants demonstrate their acumen, analytical and argumentative abilities.

Be smart, be civil, have fun.

Affiliation: Lafayette College

Experience: 4 Years NFA-LD (judge 1-3 tournaments a year since graduating 5 years ago).

Happy to answer any questions pre-round, but below are my thoughts/answers on the common questions. If a debater and/or coach want to reach out to me to discuss an RFD or a round, I am all for that, and can be reached on facebook (Ryan Monahan; In NFA-LD community group) or by email monahanr435@gmail.com.

FAQs

Speed - I have been out of the activity for a bit now, so that certainly affects my ability to keep up in high wpm rounds - I'll yell speed if its real bad, but most often I will yell clear because that is commonly the real issue. Opponents (especially those who may have less experience in debate) are encouraged to also yell speed and clear if it is at a rate that is exclusionary to them.

Kritiks/Critical Affirmatives - I was a nonkritikal debater in my 4 years, which to a certain extent informs my willingness to vote for them. Ultimately, its an argument that I will view as any other in a round, but my two most common reasons for not voting for a kritik/ca are: (1) it fails to articulate why I should operate outside of Fiat (reading a framework card that says "we exist in this Framework now" is insufficient) and (2) assuming we are operating outside of fiat, the consequences of a W/L and why the ballot is relevant.

Proven Abuse: Not necessary on T, although helpful, a bit more necessary for a non-stock issue based procedural (Vagueness).

Dislikes: Card dumps; blocked out NR's that don't respond to the nuance of the round; aggression/rudeness; noncontextualized buzzwords (e.g., Biopower).

Likes: Case Specific CPs and DAs; Rebuttals that collapse; impact calc; Affs that actually solve; writing the ballot for me.

Final thoughts: The round is what you make of it; so don't take anything I say (except actively exclusionary strategies/bad arguments) to be an indication that you shouldn't debate in a way that is most likely to set you up to succeed.

I'm a tab judge, I'm never going to intervene or complete arguments for the debaters in front of me. What's made important in the round is what I'll make important on my ballot. I'm fine with speed, as long as the debaters articulate. I understand K and rhetorical arguments, and am willing to vote for whatever makes the most logical sense in the round, regardless of morals (i.e., I'll vote for an argument that kills more people if the debater can tell me why that makes the most sense).

I know debate theory and will always point out an error in link chain, though I won't vote there unless opponent also points it out.

I like voters, clash points, and world comparison.

Background: I competed in policy debate for four years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I coached policy debate for seven years, public forum for one year, and LD debate for five years.

Despite my policy background I am committed to the spirit of LD. This means that while you can speak quickly, you should be comprehensible and both debaters should be ok with going fast. I have seen too many debates where a varsity debater unnecessarily spreads out a novice debater.

Topicality is a voting issue. I am unlikely to vote on a reverse voting issue on topicality even if it is dropped. Arguments about why topicality is problematic may be reasons to include your affirmative, but are rarely reasons for you to win the debate. It is probably best in front of me to frame these as expanding the interpretation of what the topic can be, rather than rejecting a topic all together.

The citation rules are so widely disregarded that I would feel uncomfortable enforcing them, especially if there is no conversation between the debaters about reading them prior to the first speech.

Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate. This is not code for I do not vote on theory. I will vote on theory.

Negatives should narrow the debate in their second speech. Pick the arguments you are winning and go in-depth. I will give affirmative’s wide latitude in debate where the negative goes for everything in a messy way. Going for T and substance is usually a mistake, unless one or both are such a clear win that you have extra time (this happens rarely).

Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterplan presumption is up for debate). A negative can sometimes make a persuasive case that the affirmative has to prove solvency, which is a separate issue from presumption.

Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments. I wish I saw more of these types of arguments.

I don’t subscribe to an offense defense paradigm; good defense is in many cases enough, especially with theory debates.

I am increasingly willing to intervene in theory debates. Two speeches does not allow for proper theory development and gives both sides the ability to simply block out every speech. Counterplans like consultation and 50 state fiat require a very low threshold to defeat on theory. I am not a fan of conditional counterproposals in LD. Negative arguments like the affirmative doesn’t get permutations are generally nonstarters.

I will vote on kritiks but prefer them specific to the topic and with a hardy dose of explanation about why it relates to the specific claims of the 1AC. I am not a good judge for generic backfile checks with one card that is semi relevant to the topic area. Some additional clarification. Changes to how the round should be evaluated (moving from the question of the desirability of the policy) need to be made explicitly and early and should include substantive justification about why the change excludes or makes undesirable the aff.

Final speeches need to make choices and clearly identify their path to the ballot. One part of this is the order you present ideas in your speech.

Things that will get you lower speaker points/make it hard for you to win.

1. Be rude to the other team.
2. Not answer or be evasive when answering cross ex questions.
3. Be unclear in CX about the status of counter plans
4. Being unable or unwilling to explain your arguments in CX
5. Read unwarranted/unqualified evidence.

One way to get (perhaps unfairly) good speaker points from me is to be entertaining. Many debaters, who were not the best at debate, but nevertheless were pleasant to watch debate, (being funny, speaking passionately, being nice to their opponents) have received speaker points that would typically fall outside of their skill range.

Background:

I debated LD for Central Michigan University for four years. Wow !

Voting:

This is my first tournament judging so make sure you’re clear about your arguments and where they go on the flow. Speed should be used as a tool not a weapon, please respect your opponents and myself if speed or clear are called during a round.

Best senator wins yayy

For debate, I like to see well explained impact scenarios. I’m okay with speed, but will say clear once if I do not understand you. It is up to you to adjust. If you are running topicality arguments, make sure it is egregious and not just running them just to run them. Otherwise, I’ll listen to pretty much everything else.

General Information

Hey, everyone, my name is Joseph Rothschild. I was a varsity policy debater for Topeka High School in Kansas for 2 years and a 4-years LD debater for Lafayette College. I had a rewarding career that culminated in several deep runs at NFA and PKD national championship. I'm really excited to judge, and hope to have you in-round!

REGARDING KS: I was a product of a high school policy debate team that was traditionalist to a fault. My collegiate experience was radically different, but because new forms of argumentation haven't been as explored in LD and they have in Policy, stock issues are where I spent most of my time. Despite this, I was constantly challenging myself to engage with kritikal literature, and I implore you to help me continue my education into alternative styles of argumentation. I find performative argumentation incredibly compelling, but make sure you don't assume I've spent my whole life around it.

REGARDING THEORY: I have no problems voting for theory. If you're reading a position on its own sheet of paper (T, Specs, etc.) then I value clarity in the NC, potential abuse stories, and impacted-out voters. I do not need proven abuse to vote. I almost exclusively use the standards debate to determine theory flows, so make sure you're interacting with your opponent's standards, not just reading your own. For anything without its own sheet of paper (a condo bad block on top of a CP flow, a 15-second alt vagueness shell) I am not likely to vote unless it's completely conceded or there's massive proven abuse.

REGARDING PARADIGMS: I default to a stock issues paradigm, and I am willing to vote on terminal defense because I think there's an opportunity cost to passing the AC. However, I can be pretty easily convinced to change my paradigm as long as you explain why to me. If you think there's a reason I need to adopt a different perspective for the round, let me know in your speech.

REGARDING SPEAKER POINTS: Speaker points start at 27.5 for me, and will increase or decrease based on my perception of the round.

Specific Inquiries

1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?

I am fine with any speed, so long as it is reciprocal. I don't have any problems with competitors yelling “clear.” If you are deliberately spreading your opponent out, I will not drop you, but your speaker points will reflect it.

2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you don’t find yourself voting for very often?

I'm not particularly entertained by meme arguments. Things like Timecube or the WGLF file from 2005 or some position with “Harambe” in the header are fun to mess around with in cross-x, but please don't make me listen to an entire round about them. I don't care if you're a better debater and want to prove you can beat people with bad arguments.

3. Final Thoughts?

I like when debaters think of tricky ways to get out of positions. I like when people collapse to one position in their last speech. I like impact calculus. Most of all, I like when the debaters have fun. I think debate is at its best when it feels like a tight-knit community exchanging ideas, and I really appreciate when that happens in-round.

These will be my first rounds on this topic. Feel free to contact me at josephleerothschild@gmail.com if you have any questions.

I debated for a few years in college. While at college I performed in a variety of debate styles including IPDA, Lincoln Douglas and world style. Since graduating I have judged several tournaments in both the IPDA and world style formats.

As a judge, I would appreciate it if the debaters would explain very clearly why they think they have won the debate. If you want me to be a stock issues judge, be sure to explain what issue you want me to vote for. If you want me to be a policy-maker explain how I should interpret the debate from that perspective.

I find topicality to be a critical portion of a debate, however I also believe that the negative should explain very clearly why the affirmative should lose on this issue. I find kritiks to be very interesting, but the burden is on the team initiating the these kinds of arguments. The reasons for me to vote on these types of arguments must be very clear.

Background: Most of my training and experience has been in IE’s, primarily the oral interp events. My understanding of debate is only slightly more informed than the typical community judge. Therefore, I prefer IPDA and NPDA formats.

Preferences:

Your argument should be logically sound and so clear that a community judge, who knows nothing about the conventions of debate, should be able to discern a winner. Don’t depend on the gamesmanship of debate to win the round.

Spreading isn’t appropriate in professional presentation, so I don’t think it belongs in debate rounds. If I can’t understand what you’re saying, how can I be persuaded by your argument?

To quote another judge’s philosophy, “it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. Debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine.” I expect you to not only present your argument but to respond to what’s presented by your competition.

Competitors should treat each other, the judges, and spectators with respect. Sassiness is appreciated; rudeness is not. Let's have some competitive fun!

Years involved in collegiate debate: 35

Debated: NDT policy debate

Coached: NDT, NFA LD, Worlds style BP

I like NFA LD style debate because it relies on evidence and emphasizes the stock issues. I default to policy making but will adjust my paradigm if directed to do so by the debaters.

I will seriously consider nearly every argument - CP's are ok, procedural arguments (T, Vagueness, K's) need to be very clearly explained. I have voted for K's but don't find them super compelling - I think they are frequently vulnerable to perms.

Please be clear, number your arguments, explain why you are winning issues.

1. General Information.

Thank you for reading this over. Good luck to all of the competitors.

(a) I view the round as a policy maker. Generally, I vote for the debater who defends the better policy option through weighing out the pros and cons of the policy.

(b) Case-specific and generic arguments. I enjoy case-specific direct clash. As for generic arguments, the more they are directly applied to the case at hand, the more weight they will be given.

(c) Procedural arguments. For me, procedural arguments need to be specifically applied to the case at hand.

(d) The role of evidence. I value evidence, but I don’t think evidence alone is always the winner. Explaining the evidence and the issues in the round (which often comes from knowledge gained by reading about the topic), making good analytical arguments, and locating, impacting and interrelating arguments within the larger perspective of the whole round are the skills that usually determine the outcome of the round.

(e) Please include me on the email thread for the exchange of evidence. My email is dtrumble@anselm.edu

(f) Speed and comprehension. Judges should be able to understand what the debaters are saying. I feel that the judge should be able to understand what is being said and not have to read briefs after the round to know what was argued. I will look at evidence after the round, but I will not substitute what I learn there if the delivery is incomprehensible.

(g) My experience. I have been active in policy debate for 49 years - 8 years as a debater and 41 years as a coach. I enjoy seeing the changes in the activity and learn from new perspectives and arguments that are offered.

2. LD Rules.

This is NFA LD debate, so I respect the rules of this league.

Regarding sources, I realize that a name and date is becoming the norm. I won’t vote on that, but I think that providing qualifications and a source increases the credibility of any good evidence.

I will apply NFA theory rules (e.g. counterplans, inherency, solvency and topicality).

As for other rules, such as speed, I will not be able to give your evidence much credit in the round if you read it so fast that I don’t understand it.

3. Critiques.

In regards to critiques, for me, substantive critiques have a few burdens:

(a) be unique,

(b) have a direct link to the AFF plan/case (not generic),

(c) have an impact that outweighs the AFF case, and

(d) have a real-world policy alternative (an actual counter-plan) that has specific solvency for the problems outlined in the AFF case.

Separately, procedural critiques would function more as an apriori issue (e.g. – offensive language or offensive behavior).

4. Perspective. Please be polite and try to be helpful, especially to younger debaters who have less experience than you. If you want the judges to vote for you, try to understand their perspective. They don’t know your arguments as well as you do and therefore don’t know all of the nuances of your points. It is your job to explain your arguments and get the judges to see things from your point of view. Competition is a great experience. At the same time, I hope you enjoy your experience debating, traveling with your team, making friends and learning from the activity.

By far the most important thing is that I never debated. As such, I can’t keep up with speed as well as more experienced judges, and I haven’t judged any debate rounds so I don’t have any preferences on the general paradigms of debate. I'm okay with speed, and will try to be strict about maintaining rules. I will not be disclosing in room after the debate.

This is my first tournament so I am unfamiliar with debate jargon. However, I am willing to listen to both sides of the argument. For me, organization is most important.

I debated for 4 years for Lafayette College from 2005-2009. I will listen to any type of argument you want to run. I’m not crazy about Ks but I’ve voted on them in the past if they are well written and relevant to the case at hand and have an alternative I can vote for. I highly value structure and frameworks which give me a way to vote in the round. I don’t typically come in with a preconceived framework, so it’s up to the debaters to provide that for me and to tell me why theirs is the most important. I prefer to weigh the round based on impact analysis. Stock issues are cool, and you should have those, but tell me why your position matters and why it outweighs your opponent’s. Tell me if I should be a policy maker or whatever paradigm you want to throw my way. I’m typically pretty good at giving non-verbal responses to your arguments, so if I’m making a funny face, you may just want to move on to something better. I will vote on procedurals of any kind given the position is reasonable, and this can be not just T, but also vagueness, etc. Just give me the theory as to why I should vote and why I should care. I have voted on these things in the past. Proving moving target (in the case of vagueness) is critical.

The debate is about the debaters and not about me. I firmly believe this. I can understand speed and I don’t have a problem with it as long as you are clear. But it is vital that your opponent can understand you as well. I give the opponent the ability to speak up if they can’t understand. If I can’t understand you because you aren’t clear, I typically give one verbal warning and if it’s not resolved, I don’t flow. Procedurals on speed are ok if these boundaries are not respected.

I don’t have a typical preference for impacts. I like to hear the story of the position, whether it’s a DA or an advantage. I prefer believable stories – in the sense that your cards provide a logical story. I do like more reasonable/real world impacts, but I understand the role of more insane impacts in weighing the round. It’s probably a good thing if you have one of each, to give me something to prefer. The debaters need to weigh the round and explain to me why their impacts matter more or why their story is more believable. But there needs to be clash – compare your story to that of your opponent’s and make arguments on their positions.

Topicality is most persuasive when the Aff’s interpretation is blatantly out of scope. However, I listen to all means of T debates – whether that is abuse, jurisdiction or competing interpretations. I think competing interpretations is the most straight forward of the line-by-line T debates and I will probably do a better job adjudicating the position if that is the route you take. Often, these flows get so messy and so littered with ink, that you better have a damn good argument on the flow if you’re going to go for T. I usually err on the side of reasonability. I don’t like RVIs.