Notre Dame '21

University of Southern California (USC) '25

I have ran plenty of different things from reading the Horse-trading PTX DA and the Courts CP to a Moten K aff throughout my competitive career. (Notre Dame AK, Notre Dame AY). That being said the way I develop arguments has been heavily influenced by my coaches/judges that I have received feedback from, which includes Christina Phillips (Tallungan), Joshua Michael, Aron Berger, Raam Tambe, Nate Graziano, Maddie Pieropan, and many more.

I was a 2A

I prefer the pronouns: he/him/his

My email is: luka.debate@gmail.com

Online stuff

My internet is not the best so my camera may be off. That means it is your responsibility to ask for verbal confirmation that I can hear you and that I am ready to flow before you start speaking. This is good practice anyways.

Speak slower online. You already know this.

I will clear you twice, and if you still are mumbling at 67230864 words/min, I probably will not flow anything substantive and give a lot of leeway to the other teams answer.

T

I don't know the topic! At all.

Never my strong suit,

This is a huge topic that makes me very sympathetic to innovative T violations. This doesn't mean you can get away with reading bad definitions.

Caselists are important.

CP

Yes.

I like specifc/adv CPs.

If you know Brian Snitman you know how process CPs have been an essential part of my learning of debate. With that being said process counterplans are most likely cheating, you just have to do the work. 90% of teams don't do line by line on the theory debate which is frustrating for me to sort out, most of the time resulting in a negative ballot.

I will not judge kick unless instructed to do so.

DA

Also yes.

Specific links > Generic links -- sometimes that's not possible when politics sucks, but I will be more happy when your link is specific to algorithmic assessments of race or how Joe Manchin perceives native policy.

K

Lots of my neg rounds sophomore, junior, and the last half of senior year were critical arguments. A few that I have gone for are Settler Colonialism, Security, Marx, Agamben, Conquest (Tiffany King). That being said, don't presume I know what your specific theory of power means and how you articulate your specific kritik.

Explain your alt. If it changes too much I will be unhappy.

A dropped floating pik is game over, but I lean towards f-piks are bad.

I will not judge kick the alt unless instructed to.

K-Affs

I read one for a little bit. I feel they can be very strategic as long as you have robust defense to topicality. Again, don't assume I am versed in your lit-base.

FW vs K-Affs

Not my cup of tea. That being said read FW if you wanna read FW

Debate is a competitive activity in which teams strategically research and strategize in order to perform well in a competitive sense.

I presume fairness is an internal link unless and until you explain it as an impact -- what that means is it should be impacted out in a thorough enough way to where I feel comfortable feeling that the affirmative reading a non-topical aff is bad.

Do line by line always, but especially on FW -- If you lose me because you are jumping all over the place I most likely will not catch everything you say.

Theory/Procedurals

Condo is a debate to be had. Don't make your interp arbitrary, but I'm open to anything.

If ASPEC/whatever SPEC arg is an incomprehensible blur in the 1NC and/or you didn't ask for the actor in cross-x this is not a voter. If you have a shell with impacts and warrants, then I will be more sympathetic.

Most other theory arguments are reasons to reject the arg, not the team, but you can convince me of cross applications and what these theoretical violations justify for other aspects of the debate.

If you make an RVI (IDC what activity) I will be extremely unhappy.

Misc.

Be respectful of people's preferences in terms of gender/sexuality/identity/etc. If not your speaks will suffer.

Don't clip. Cheating is bad and makes debate worse for everyone. If you have evidence of clipping/if I catch it, I will take appropriate action.

Make fun/reference my friends if you know them. I will be disappointed if you try and fail. If you do a good job I will be happy.

2AR/2NR judge instruction is paramount. It makes the decision faster and I have to do way less work finding ways out for both teams, and will noticeably improve your speaks.

Events other than Policy:

*Clearly not my cup of tea, so do not expect me to know all of the niche protocol of your event. That being said, I feel a lot of my experience from Policy can transfer towards a fair adjudication of LD, PF, etc. My request is focus on the big picture and good debating, and not the technical nitty gritty stuff.

*To clarify, for Policy, do whatever you literally want

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Email: tjbdebate@gmail.com

I'd really appreciate a card doc at the end of the round.

About me

Debated in policy for four years at Damien High School in La Verne, CA. I placed pretty well at some national tournaments and received some speaker awards along the way. I have worked as a judge and staff member at the Cal National Debate Institute. I was a consultant/judge for College Prep, and this is my first year as an assistant coach for College Prep.

I mostly think about debate like her. If you like the way she thinks then I probably think the same way.

Top Level

**** I will try my hardest to flow without looking at my computer so I suggest debating as if I have no reference to what is being read. Clarity is much more important than unchecked speed ****

Debate is a competition, but education seems to be the most intrinsic benefit to the round taking place. I believe that debates centered around the resolution are the best, but that can mean many different things. Debate is also a communicative activity so the first thing that should be prioritized by all the substance is the ability to clearly convey an argument instead of relying on the structure and tricky nature of policy debate.

The most important thing for me as a judge is seeing line-by-line debating instead of relying upon pre-written blocks. Drops happen and that is debate, but what I most hate to see are students reading off their laptops instead of making compelling indicts of their opponents' arguments off the top of their heads. Debate requires some reaction to unexpected things but I think that it enhances critical thinking and research skills.

When it comes to content, I sincerely do not have any big leans toward any type of argument. Just come to the round with a well-researched strategy and I will be happy to hear it. My only non-starters are arguments that promote interpersonal violence, prejudice toward any group of people, or danger toward anyone in the round. If those arguments are made, the offending team will lose, receive a 0 for speaker points, and I will speak with their coach. The safety of students is the number one priority in an academic space such as debate.

Thoughts on Specific Arguments Below:

Disadvantages: Impact calculus and Turns case/Turns the DA at the top, please. These debates are won and lost with who is doing the most comparison. Don't just extend arguments and expect me to just clean it up for you. I like politics DAs, but I want more comparisons of whose evidence is better and more predictive instead of just dumping cards without any framing arguments. Go for the straight turn. I love bold decisions that are backed up by good cards.

Counter plans: I am all about good counterplan strategies that have great solvency evidence and finesse. I have grown tired of all the nonsense process, agent, and consult counter plans, and while I will vote for them, I prefer to hear one that is well-researched and actually has a solvency advocate for the aff. Regarding theory, most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or to lower thresholds for solvency deficits, not voters. Consult CPs are however the most sketchy for me, and I can be convinced to vote against them given good debating.

Topicality: Love these debates, but sometimes people get bogged down by the minutiae of the flow that they forget to extend an impact. Treating T like a disad is the best way to describe how I like teams to go for it. Please give a case list and/or examples of ground loss. Comparison of interpretations is important. I think that the intent to exclude is more important than the intent to define, but this is only marginal.

Kritiks: Over time I have become more understanding of critical arguments and I enjoy these debates a lot. The alternative is the hardest thing to wrap my head around, but I have voted for undercovered alternatives many times. I think that the more specific link should always be extended over something generic. Extending links is not enough in high-level rounds, you have to impact out the link in the context of the aff and why each piece of link offense outweighs the risk of the aff internal link. I prefer that the negative answer the aff in these rounds, but I do not think it is impossible to win without case defense. The only thing that matters is winning the right framework offense.

Planless Affs: Performance 1ACs are great but there has to be an offensive reason for the performance. I won't vote on a dropped performance if there is no reason why it mattered in the first place. I prefer that these affs are in the direction of the topic, but if there is a reason why only being responsive to the resolution matters, then I am fine with it not being so. Framework is a good strategy, but I don't like voting on fairness, because I don't believe that it is a terminal impact. I believe that having a fair division of labor is important, but not because debate is a game. Debate has intrinsic educational value and both teams should be debating over how they access a better model of the activity. For the negative, I like it when teams just answer the aff method and clash over the effectiveness of the 1AC.

Conditionality: I think that up to 3 advocacies are fine for me. Anything more and I am more sympathetic to the aff. Don't get it twisted, if the neg screws up debating condo, I will vote aff.

Feel free to ask me anything before the round. Most importantly compete, respect each other, and have fun.

Experience

Current Affiliation = Campbell Hall (Studio City, CA) & Notre Dame HS (Sherman Oaks, CA)

Prior Experience: Debated policy in HS at Notre Dame HS in Sherman Oaks, CA (1979-1983); Debated NDT in college at USC (1983-1987) competed in the NDT 1984,1985,1986,1987. Served as Director of Forensics at Notre Dame High School from 1991-1994; Served as the Director of Forensics at The University of Southern California Trojan Debate Squad from 1994-2007; Qualified teams to the NDT, CEDA National Championships; Teams participated in International Debates, and Individual Events. Qualified 27 teams to the National Debate Tournament with numerous "At Large" teams and top speakers.

General Note

I am an "old school" debate coach. Your arguments need to be at a reasonable speed with logic and evidence. I default to a policy-making paradigm if left to my own devices. I will follow whatever debaters paradigm they advocate so long as it has a logical connection to the topic in some way. I will follow my flow and your lead as best I can. I expect critical reasoning, real evidence and the goal of a debate is to find good clash and learn as much as possible. If you go to far I will not buy undreaonable positions. If you advocate that the world is "flat" I am out. My defaults go into effect when left to my own devices.

Major Notes

Topic familiarity

I am very familiar with the topic public forum topic M4A. I coached and debated similar topics in years past. I am well read in the literature as I have a personal interest in the topic. As a lawyer I have dealt with legal issues around this topic and have a deep background in the economics of the topic area. It is a great topic especially during this worldwide pandemic.

Positions: (more for policy / LD Debates I imagine) I like a good topicality argument when it is thoughtful and well developed. Topicality is an a-priori issue and a voting issue if you tell me it should be. One line topicality argument rarely wins...unless completely dropped I guess. Disadvantages with good links and impacts that outweigh the case or cut against it are great. Counter plans are fine and a kritic linked somehow to the topic area are interesting and fine too. I love good and reasonable theory that enhances the educational value of debate too. I love a great strategy. Try and be strategic and lets save lives or avoid a nuclear holocaust or save the environment together!

Delivery, Persuasion & Organization

You should have a strong, persuasive delivery and advocate for your positions in the debate. There is reasonable speed and bad speed. Bad speed is where you drop your head and read as fast as you can. I am pretty easy to "read" as a judge. I just stop flowing when you are incoherent. Be clear. If you are not a clear advocate, you are not debating. Delivery rate should be governed by your clarity; WARRANTS in the evidence should be clear, not just the tagline.

Organization is a place were many debates are won and lost. If you are not clear and organized, I will be lost. I like clear simple road maps. Unorganized debates get messy and the messages which are important are lost. That is the debaters job to watch the judge, make sure your arguments clash and explain those fine line distinctions why your positions/evidence are better.

Cross Examination: Cross examination is a great part of the debate where you can do so much good. Unfortunately, many cross examination periods are poor when debaters are rude, lack logic and become a series of constant interruptions. Poor behavior will be illustrated in poor speaker points. Be thoughtful and aware of triggers and other issues which may cloud a debate for all the wrong reasons. Respect all debates, their coaches and their school. Do not make personal and irresponsible comments about your opponents or society. You will be judged by your choices and behavior. Try to be smart and thoughtful and all participants will enjoy the cross examination periods.

Evidence: Evidence should enhance your positions and reflect what you say it reflects. Stretches and false inferences lead to bad evidence references. Be Clear with your author and the evidence, and why it is important. Logic at times can trump evidence. Just because some author said something in an article does not mean that assertion will always be better than good logic. This is where persuasion in debate can go a long way.

Rebuttals: This is where debates are won or lost. Help me write the ballot the way you see the world. Tell my why I should vote for your positions. Tell me if morals are more important than "lives" and why. If you leave it up to me, you have not really been a fierce advocate for your position. Persuade me based upon the arguments in the debate and your critical thinking skills. Be logical and organized.act comparison.

FINAL THOUGHTS: Offense wins debates, defensive positions come in second place. I do not want to have to call for all the evidence and positions of a team in a debate. This is an activity of oral persuasion. I do not want to have to piece together a debate from my flow and all your evidence. You need to weave the debate and your positions together to help we write a decision which reflects the total sum of your advocacy. Teams that do this well usually win my ballot. They have great logic, great evidence and advocate well.

Favorite Debaters: (All much older than you!)

I have seen some of the finest debater for decades. Some of my favorites (for fun and yes many/all Trojans) are Kate Schuster, Paul Skiermont, Lenny Gale (amazing) Armond Revelins, George Kuros, Greg Bevan, Roger Stetson, Adam and Jordan Hurder (of GBN fame), Lindsey Harrison, Christina Tallungan (Phillips), Jeff Leon, Matt Whipple, Andy Silverman, Corey Turoff, Chris MacFarlane, Alex Iftimy, Michael Smith, Aron Berger, Michael Klinger, Dan Shalmon, OMG...I could go on for pages...so many greats!

Favorite Coaches: Ted Belch, Linda Oddo, Matt Whipple, Jason Peterson, Paul Derby, Anne Marie Todd, Tom Hollihan, Gordon Stables, Jon Sharp, John Day, OK ALL Trojan Debate Coaches, Dallas Perkins, Jeff Parcher, Sam Nelson, David Smith, Jack Roper, Bill Southworth, Jay Bussee, Matt Frasier, Richard Sodako, Matt Conrad, Susan Foley, Mike Beatz, way too many friends to mention here too...but a dear friend whom I really miss Charles "Chuck" Ballingal...rest in peace pal.

email (yes, include both): lpgarcia19@damien-hs.edu; damiendebate47@gmail.com

LD: policy pls (below should still be applicable)

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

TL;DR Go for what you're most prepared for and can execute the best because that's what really makes debate fun and productive. I'm not very familiar with the topic.

My Beliefs:

Debate is good

Tech > Truth

Clarity above all else

Clipping is bad

My leanings:

Util good

I, as the judge, am a policymaker

Fiat is a good thing

A couple Great cards + explanation always beats 10 pieces of mediocre ev

There's not an excuse to avoid line by line

Topicality

I don't think fairness isn't an intrinsic impact, same as education. It can be an internal link to other things but simply ending your impact calculus with "They KILLED FAIRNESS" won't do it for me. Just treat your extensions and impact work like you would any DA. (I WON'T EVALUATE T AS A DA. TOPICALITY IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. RISK ANALYSIS FOR T IS ABSURD). I also lean heavily towards competing interpretations; the quality of your ev does matter.

Kritiks

If your entire strategy solely centers around the K, I'm not a great judge for you. I can certainly understand your generic Cap and Security K but any high theory requires a whole lot of explanation for me. Just because I might understand what you're saying doesn't mean you can weasel your way around with generic links if it's even somewhat contested. If you're aff I'd down to see an impact turn (obvious exceptions, of course, are: racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) I really do not want to hear Death Good, please do not do that in front of me.

K-Affs (Includes Framework)

I have written my disdain for K-Affs before. I am not going to just dismiss it; even as I maintain a reluctance to vote on them, I am not one you should just breeze through your blocks and force me to do work for you. I will be the first to admit that I need a lot of explanation as noted above in "Kritiks". Given all this said, framework is an uphill battle for the aff. I am not very sympathetic to generic "fairness bad/your education bad" impact turns; I think policy education is generally a good thing.

Theory

The only theory I feel even remotely comfortable voting aff (TO REJECT THE ARGUMENT) on are utopian fiat bad, object fiat bad, riders DA bad, delay cps bad, and floating piks bad. Condo is generally a good thing and I personally think you're better off not reading that 30 second shell if the neg is running just a single conditional advocacy but I understand time skew. Also, in principle, I judge-kick. I think that as I default to Condo being a good thing, and the status quo always being a logical option, it would be illogical for me to choose a plan of action when doing nothing would be better.

Also, I doubt I'll ever vote for Word Piks. This certainly doesn't excuse excessively disrespectful behavior.

Disads

I like politics a lot and I like engagement and clash at the link level even more so. Turns case analysis (vice versa for the aff) is always a good thing and should be a must have. Straight turns are fun.

Impacts

I love impact turns and my personal favorites are: Heg Good, Warming Good, Cap Good, Dedev, and CWG. It will take a lot for me to evaluate 0 risk of an impact. It can happen but your cards need to be far better.

Notre Dame High School

Hi! Please put me on the email chain - seamuskim09@g.ucla.edu

Read whatever - tech>truth

I was not very good at policy arguments; however, my partner, Brian Snitman, was. I try to emulate how he views and judges policy debate - please refer to his paradigm.

I do not have any strong thoughts about any particular argument (except for what's below) - just make sure you're not being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.

I primarily went for the K, so I probably have some idea of what your K is talking about. If your K revolves around some ontological, structural, or psychoanalytic thesis, then it is your responsibility to prove it. By the end of the debate, I should know through what means I should be able to come to that conclusion. If I don't think that it can be falsified, then I won't take it seriously.

If you are aff and debating against the K, you will be in a better spot if you have a substantive defense of liberalism, capitalism, realism, etc. instead of just retreating to the perm (unless your aff is really meant to win the perm). It will be very hard to convince me that the plan is the only thing that matters, but it will be very easy to convince me that all links should be filtered through the consequences of the plan.

Claire Park (she/they)

Email: claireparkdebate@gmail.com

Short Version

- Read whatever you want

- tech = truth

- I like good evidence, I like spins more

- "status quo is always an option" means judge kick

- Judge direction is always good

I prefer to evaluate the debate on what is said in the debate, and I can vote for any argument. I think slight judge intervention is inevitable, but l do my very best to limit it as much as I can.

Online debating

- If I can't hear you or if my wifi is bad, I'll verbally let you know

- My camera will be on, if it is off I am not ready

Background Info

- Georgetown '25: not debating

- Major: Science, Technology, and International Affairs concentrating in Security, especially with AI.

- Notre Dame ‘21: 2N/1A

Case

Please use your 1AC

Disadvantages

Turns case is good

Impact calculus is close to essential

Topicality

Case lists and TVAs are really persuasive to me

Usually, competing interpretations > reasonability

Counterplans

As a 2N, I love a good cheaty and tricky counterplan, so I'll consider it more than the average judge.

Kritiks

Honestly, you can read any K in front of me

Specific links can only help you

K affs

The aff

- I'm fine with them - the closer you are to the topic the better

- I'm more inclined to say that you get a perm

the neg [overview]

Framework [neg]

- Same thing as topicality portion

- I've voted for framework and I've voted against framework - as long as you debate it well I'm all for it

K v K

- My favorite debates to judge when done well, and my least favorite when done messily

Theory

- Similar to the topicality paradigm

- I don't really have a strong opinion on condo

- I'm inclined to think that perf con isn't a voting issue

Miscellaneous

*I'm fine with tag-team cross-x, as long as you give the person who's supposed to question and/or answer the chance to do so

*Also if an argument is dropped, I won't give it weight unless you extend the argument. Don't just point out it's dropped

- I don't really have that many strong opinions on debate that'll affect the decision. I prefer to be convinced of your argument despite my opinion.

SPEECH PARADIGM

wsd & extemp

I've judged only some wsd & speech, BUT I have done some debates in wsd and know a bit about speech and understand the structure. Honestly, just debate, argue, and convince well and I will judge to the best of my abilities.

Peninsula 22, UCLA 26 (not debating)

Email chain: lukasrhoades11@gmail.com

No rounds on topic, don't immediately jump into 3rd and 4th levels in cross-ex because I will need complete context to follow.

Tech>truth for arguments (claim, warrant, impact) that I flow. I won't look at the documents during your speech. I will only vote on arguments I've flowed in the final speeches that were extended in each previous speech since their introduction.

You can insert rehighlights for the portions that they read, but must read everything else. I won't vote on things that happened outside the round. If neither side says anything, I'll judgekick.

In my role as a judge, I adhere to a specific set of criteria to assess debates fairly and effectively. I value clear communication, respectful behavior, and strategic argumentation. Here are my guidelines:

1. Clarity and Accessibility:

   • I appreciate debaters who communicate their arguments clearly and concisely. Spreading, excessive speed, or reliance on dense debate jargon can hinder clarity and accessibility. Debaters should strive to make their points in a manner that is understandable to both judges and their opponents.

2. Respectful Behavior:

   • Respectful conduct is paramount. Interrupting a partner without their consent or engaging in disrespectful behavior towards opponents will not be tolerated. Debaters should maintain professionalism and courtesy throughout the debate.

3. Argumentation and Analysis:

   • I value well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and analysis. Debaters should focus on the quality of their arguments rather than the quantity. Logical reasoning, relevant evidence, and clear impacts are crucial in making a persuasive case.

4. Engagement with Opposing Arguments:

   • Debaters should engage substantively with their opponents' arguments. Ignoring or dismissing valid points made by the other side will be detrimental to their overall performance. Constructive engagement and refutation are key components of successful debating.

5. Organization and Structure:

   • A well-organized speech is more persuasive and easier to evaluate. Debaters should structure their speeches coherently, with clear signposting and a logical flow of arguments. A clear roadmap and organized rebuttals are essential components of effective speeches.

6. Flexibility and Adaptability:

   • Debaters should be able to adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to respond to unexpected arguments are indicative of skilled debaters.

7. Final Focus:

   • In the final focus speeches, debaters should crystallize the key issues of the debate. Clear voting issues and impacts should be emphasized. Debaters should prioritize their most compelling arguments and explain why they outweigh their opponents' case.

Debates will be evaluated based on these criteria. I encourage debaters to focus on clear communication, respectful behavior, and strategic argumentation to excel in my rounds. Remember, quality always supersedes quantity in constructing persuasive and impactful arguments.

USC '25 - Notre Dame '21 - add me to the email chain - [briansnitman at gmail.com]

TLDR: I view debate as a competitive activity which means that my argumentative preferences go out the window once I enter the room or the zoom call. For me, this has meant I have cut arguments ranging from SPARK to Set Col to H-Triv. For me it doesn't really matter, I don't think that any discussion can be objectively pedagogically harmful no matter the content. This means that to me Tech>Truth, and I can be convinced of anything if the other team does not contest it adequately. The only other important thing to know is that for me, the most effective ballot framing occurs when each team can paint a clear picture of what the world looks like after I submit an aff or neg ballot. This means going beyond just extending your impacts, and actually humanizing the whole aff, and almost explaining it in very simple terms. I am also not very card focused meaning: Smart Analytics > Bad cards or even good cards that aren't explained well.

K's - I'll be honest as a 2A my partner and I ran a one-off K strat every round, but I still don't understand all the buzzwords that people like to throw out. For the neg, I am more likely to just vote on just framework than other judges because the aff teams usually don't do any line-by-line. If the alt is just a framework argument then just say it, otherwise, I get confused. Links are usually mishandled and don't require a lot of evidence. K-tricks are cool and I think they should be employed, who cares if it's an easy way out. For the aff, perms make a lot of sense for soft-left aff's - you do need a net-benefit, but it seems pretty easy to win that the alt doesn't solve the aff so long as you answer the outlandish alt solves case arguments. Other than material net-benefits - I think that epistemological net-benefit also makes sense (ie practicality or particularity in policy analysis). The neg usually makes the mistake of not contextualizing the link to the perm - and DA's to perms usually don't have impacts that the alt can't resolve. For me, the perm doesn't need to avoid the links if it solves the impacts to said links. For extinction affs it makes a lot of sense to just go for util and impact turns, but you have to use util as a justification on the framework, otherwise it will be difficult to win.

PTX DA's - Let's be honest the politics card you are probably reading aren't about the aff, meaning that a blanket extension is not sufficient. I don't want to hear "X author says this"; instead take the opportunity to impress me with your civics knowledge and make logical arguments as to why the aff would derail the agenda. The one caveat to the you don't need cards rule is that if the aff has very specific link turn evidence you will be in a bad spot. I think that it is important for the negative to contextualize the link as much as possible. Too often the generic 1NC taglines make it seem like there are a million thumpers and anything can trigger it. What this means is, if your card says that water policy is controversial and thus derails the agenda, you should explain why every other contentious policy issue does not derail the agenda in similar ways. For the aff, you should obviously try to do the reverse and explain why, despite what their evidence says, other issues do have the potential to derail policy items. While the link debate is a little bit more about spin, I think that cards are very important on the internal link and uniqueness debate.

TOPIC DA's - These typically cause a lot of clash which makes them more fun to judge. Hats off to you if you go for a generic disad and just get really good at it. That being said, these disads usually require a little bit more evidence. For me, I think it is more important to contextualize all the warrants in the existing evidence, IE explains what the statistics and studies mean before you read another card that says basically the same thing as the one you already read.

CP's - I was a 2N my junior year and I almost exclusively went for the most abusive counterplan on the topic - thus have fun and feel free to terrorize the aff so long as you can defend it. Theory is great against these counterplans but affs get scared to go for it when the block read their 18 sub-point response. Condo - literally have no preference.

T - This is the one place where it is all about evidence. Intent to exclude is very important to me, otherwise IDK why the aff can't be topical.

Speaks - Technical debating is what gets you the ballot - ethos and pathos get you speaker points - To be honest I probably give higher speaks than other judges

brt.damiendebate@gmail.com

i don't know much about the topic

do whatever you'd like as long as your arguments have warrants

im expressive during debates so pay attention

Peninsula '21, Cal '25

Email chain: nathan2web@gmail.com

For online debate: if I'm not in frame of the camera, don't start your speech.

Top level, debate is a competitive research activity where two teams compete to win. So, I will strive to be agnostic as to what strategy you choose to read, whether that's 10 off, 1 off, or hiding ASPEC (though your speaks will probably suffer for the last one). Tech > truth, although you'll have a hard time convincing me that our oceans are yellow.

Even so, these preferences are a set of ideologies that I've loosely maintained as I've judged--

T: I find that evidence quality is quintessential - I will lean towards a legally precise definition that reflects consensus.

DA: Actually debate the DA if you read a soft left aff. Riders are probably not legitimate.

CP: Solvency advocates aren't necessary, but coherent explanations of solvency are. I will default to kicking the CP for the neg if equally debated.

K: Good if they disprove why I should vote affirmative. I tend to dislike Ks that have a focus on 20 subpoints of framework (but if you win you win).

Non-traditional affs: Fairness is an impact, you can also go for others. Probably not the best judge for the aff teams. A lot of the time, I find it difficult to see how the ballot resolves aff impacts.

Theory: Condo is generally good. Most CP theory is probably a reason to reject the argument.

Other things--

My ideologies have been influenced significantly by these people: Dhruv Sudesh, Kevin Sun, and Scott Wheeler. If any part of this philosophy is confusing, you should look at theirs.

Card quality matters, I will always value smart analytics over terrible evidence—although a claim has much more significance/credibility when tied to an academic work.

If I can't understand you, I won't flow.

Don't egregiously re-highlight then "re-insert" an entire card, read it.

I don't about things that happened outside the round.

Be nice.

From Kevin Sun's Evidence Ethics:

"I have judged a handful of high stakes debates this year that were decided on evidence ethics. I’ve found that these decisions are inevitably unsatisfying as they will rely on my own subjective assessment of the argument in question.

I can safely say that I am completely unqualified to judge these debates. I am not on Twitter or Facebook, and I do not interact with debate people regularly outside of tournaments. I do not know what the community consensus is on certain authors, and I will feel uncomfortable rendering a personal judgement an author’s character after hearing 10 minutes of spreading on the subject.

In hopes of giving debaters some foresight, I would like to clarify my perspective on this genre of theory argument. High stakes evidence ethics challenges (e.g. “reject the team because they included the wrong author qualifications”, “reject the team because [author] is problematic”) will require a high burden of proof and an egregious violation. I have a strong predisposition against positioning these ethics challenges as reasons to fully disregard the rest of your opponents arguments, and I would prefer to just reject the argument in question rather than to hinge my decision on it.

In these circumstances, I would suggest clearly explaining which of your opponents arguments I should throw out if I resolve this challenge in your favor.

Would rejecting this author evaporate your opponent’s framework argument? Should the negative even be allowed to substitute this author with another that makes a similar argument? You’re likely to get further with me by detailing the implications of this ethics challenge in terms of the rest of the debate rather than relying on me to assume that I should automatically make it a gateway issue.

I would suggest finding other ways outside of a competitive debate argument to navigate this ethical challenge rather than placing it in my hands as a judge."