Debated for University of Rochester for 6 years in Varsity Policy Debate and BP/Worlds Debate

Coached HS policy debate for 1.5 years

Currently a Clinical Psychology PhD student at Indiana University Bloomington

And yes, I would like to be on the email chain: oabubaka@u.rochester.edu

Borrowed from the Glass man himself: "If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible."

Honestly, just do what you want in front of me and just explain your arguments. I will vote on how you want me to vote (since how I see the debate may not be the same way you think you are articulating).

Also, if you can, I prefer debaters to slow down when in front of me. I am not the best judge for you if you decide to spread as fast as Harvard MS or Northwestern MV (although Arjun is very clear).

If you read high theory, do not pref me unless you are willing to explain your argument. My area of study is in psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, and disability studies so I am not hitting up the latest post-modern/structuralist/etc. papers.

DONT RUN ENACT EXCLUDES courts in front of me. It’s wrong and absurd. What would a topic excluding the Supreme Court look like on criminal justice topic. The resolution says USFG. Supreme Court part of USFG.

put me on the Email chain. Silvermdc1@gmail.com

IN MOST ROunds I’m not reading every card on the doc because it’s a communicative activity. I’ve learned that often some peoples explanation of their evidence doesn’t line up with what the text says. In a situation where I’m on a panel where the other judges are reading the cards I too will as well.

while you’re speaking I prefer you turn your camera on. Understand if you don’t have bandwidth to support it.

I evaluate disease based/ pandemic based impacts much more seriously now due to ongoing effects of COVID 19. I still believe that debate is a game, educational one however I want to fully acknowledge the serious situation of where we are in our country with policing. I’m sure we can have debates while being tactful and understanding for some folks the issue can be personal.

I'll shake your hand if it's like your last round of high school debate and I so happen to judge it. It's weird to me when a kid tries to shake my hand after a round though. I did it when I was debating and didn't realize how odd it was. Oops.

It's likely that I'll laugh some don't take it personally I laugh all the time and I'm not making fun of you. I'm a human being and have lots of beliefs and feelings about debate but I'm persuadable. I don't flow Cross X obviously but sometimes questions and or answers end up impacting my perception of the round.

Arguments that I like hearing

I love the politics disadvantage, I like strategic counterplans. relevant case arguments, specfic d/as to plans.

Non-traditional AFFs or teams.

I'll listen to K affs or teams that don't affirm the resolution. Honestly though it's not my cup of tea. Over the years debate has been changing and I guess I've changed in some ways with it.

Other stuff

NEW Counterplans in the 2NC I'm not cool with unless the 2AC reads an add on.

SPeaker points
I evaluate how well you answered your opponents arguments, ETHOs, persuasiveness, Humor, STRATEGIC DECISIONS. There are times when one team is clearly more dominant or one student is a superior speaker. That's GREAT!! I'm not going to reward you with speaker points for walloping a weaker team. You're not going to be penalized either but it's clear when you have a challenge and when you just get an easy draw in round.




IF I HAVE NEVER MET YOU BEFORE DON'T EMAIL ME ASKING FOR EVIDENCE FROM ROUNDS I JUDGED

ARGUMENTs I'd rather not hear.
SPARK
WIPEOUT

SCHLAG

Schopenhauer

Arguments I find offensive and refuse to flow
RACISM GOOD
PATRIARCHY GOOD

If we're talking about paradigm I view debate as a game. It's an educational game but a game still. I think most rules are debateable. I think speech times are consistent and not a breakable rule, ad-hominem attacks are not acceptable.

Even if your're not friends with your debate partner treat them respect and please no bickering with them.

I'd prefer if people do an e-mail stream instead of flashing or other methods of sharing evidence.

KRITIKS

I'll listen to your criticism. Few things. I think there needs to be a coherent link story with the affirmative, words or scholarship the affirtmative said in cross-x. Your K will not be a viable strategy in front of me without a link story. It's a very tough hill to win a K in front of me without an Alternative. Debaters have done it before but it's been less than 5 times.

• Explain and analyze what the alternative does.
• Who does it
  How does a world compare post alternative to pre-alternative?
  
  
  NEgative Framework
• Should interpt various words in the resolution
• Have clear brightline about why your view of debate is best for education
  Address proper forums for critical arguments people make
  
  
• Have voting issues that explain why your vision of debate is desirable.
• I prioritize role of the ballot issues.
  
  PERFORMANCE/POEMS/ Interpretive
• I'll entertain it I guess, I'm probaly not the most recceptive though. Explain how you want me to fairly evaluate these concerns. Also consider what type of ground you're leaving your opponent without making them go for reprehensible args like: Patriarchy Good or racism good.
  
  Counterplans
• Need to have a solvency advocate
• A text
• Literature
  Can be topical in my mind
• Net benefit or D/A to prefer CP to aff

Needs to be some breathing room between Counterplan and plan. PICS are fine however I don't think it's legit to jack someone elses aff and making a minute difference there isn't lit for.
Legitimate Competition

A reason the permutation can't work besides theory arguments.

Theory

DON'T JUST READ THEORY BLOCKS AGAINST Each other. Respond in a line by line fashion to opponents theory args. Dropped arguments are conceded arguments obviously. In a close debate don't assume because you have a blippy quick theory argument it's neccessarily going to win you a debate in front of me if you didn't invest much time in it.

Rebuttals
1. Engage with opponents evidence and arguments.
2. Make contextual differences.
3. Humor is fine but don't try to be funny if you're not.
4. Clarity is preferred over speed. Not telling you to go slow but if I can't coherently understand what you're saying we have a problem. Like if you're unclear or slurr a bunch of words while you're spreading.
5. HAVE FUN! Getting trophies and winning tournaments is cool but I'm more concerned what kind of person you're in the process of becoming. Winning isn't everything.

Topicality

Don't trivialize T. Burden is on the affirmative to prove they are topical. I'll listen to reasonablity or competing Interpretations framework. I don't believe in one more than other and can be persuaded either way. Standards by which to evaluate and voting issues are nice things to have in addition to an Interpretation.

Arguments I like on T that I find have been lost to the wayside.

Reasons to prefer source of dictionary, information about changing language norms and meaning, the usage of the word in soceity currently.

Grammar analysis pertaining to the resolution.

Framers Intent/ Resolution planning arguments

Voting issues you think someone who thinks debate is an educational game would like to hear.

Disadvantages

Link Story that is specific to AFFIRMATIVE.

Impacts that would make a worse world than aff.

Author qualifications matter to me, Sources of your evidence matter to me. How well you're able to explain your claims matter to me. Evidentiary comparison to your opponents authors are saying.

General stylistics things

Some kind of labelling for arguments like numbers or letters before the tags is preferrable. If you have questions feel free to e-mail me. silvermdc1@gmail.com

jorman.antigua@gmail.com

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)

Please add me to the email chain: kvaoki2000@gmail.com | kvaoki2000 AT gmail DOT com

Background + Top Level

West High School SLC '18

Harvard '22

Currently an assistant debate coach at Harvard

Have some background knowledge on the college topic through research + judging. Have a minimal background on the high school topic. Explanation in both, particularly at the beginning of the season, is always helpful.

I begin evaluating almost every debate by listing out all the impacts made in the 2NR and 2AR and then determine the degree to which each team gets access to the fullest extent of those impacts by parsing out the rest of the debate. After, I'll weigh these impacts by deciding what the implications of winning each of them are (defaulting to and prioritizing the comparative metrics forwarded by the debaters in the round) and then usually have a good idea of who I believe should win.

Line by line is appreciated and minimizes intervention I must make after the round. Further, the more granular the debate (like debates over particular terms of art, specific details, etc.) and/or the closer the debate is, the more I'll look to evidence to break ties. Please engage in evidence comparison to limit the degree of intervention I have to do in a debate.

Quality > Quantity of arguments particularly in rebuttals.

Ultimately, do what you do best because you shouldn’t have to sacrifice your style for any minor predisposition that I may have.

Topicality

Please unpack, apply, and compare, commonly used buzzwords as the rebuttals get closer, i.e. “vote neg because our interpretation sets a functional limit on the topic,” isn’t a complete argument until there is an explanation of why the parameters the neg sets up are better than the aff interpretation for xyz reason.

Impact + caselist comparisons are essential.

Reasonability needs to be connected to how it interacts with neg offense and not just a laundry list of reasons why it is better than competing interpretations.

I think cards and evidence comparison are often underutilized in these debates.

Counterplans + Counterplan Theory

Relatively straightforward. If you’re aff, tie your solvency deficits to a specific impact and explain why it outweighs the net benefit to the counterplan. Conversely, if you’re neg, explain why the deficits don’t apply or why the deficits are unimportant because the CP sufficiently solves.

Will presume judge kick

In terms of most theory issues: literature oftentimes determines how I evaluate the extent of abusiveness of a counterplan; the more specific the solvency advocate, the better. I default to reject the arg, not the team and am relatively unpersuaded by process cps, agent cps, etc. being a reason to reject the neg.

DAs

Strong analytical pushes are good and persuasive, but also not an excuse to not read cards

Turns case arguments on multiple levels of the aff (link level, impact level) are fantastic

Zero percent risk is possible, but not the most preferable strategy

Ks

This is where most of my debate experience is in

Contextualization > Explanation in every instance, which should reflect in the way you give an overview

My biggest thought about these arguments is that both neg teams running the K and aff teams answering the K should recognize where 1AC/NC strengths are. A heg aff is not built to perm the colonialism K and pivoting to that as your strategy in the 2AC is more detrimental than beneficial. In essence, when aff, know whether you will be going for an impact turn or a perm and work backward. When neg, know whether your links/framework/alt are strongest in relation to the aff and work backward.

I've found often that many neg framework interpretations don't generate a lot of offense in terms of grander strategy because they give the aff too much leeway. I've found that I'm most persuaded by framework strategies that do one of three things:

1. attempt to just exclude the aff and win substantial impact turns to their model of plan focus/consequentialism,
2. limit the scope of aff solvency while enhancing the scope of alt solvency, or
3. are ditched in favor of more particular engagements on the link/impact/alt level of the kritik

K Affs/Framework

Having a relationship to the topic is preferable, but that certainly doesn't require "topical action" which I think is up for debate both on what topical constitutes as well as whether being topical is desirable

K Affs probably get a perm, but

1. I'm extremely open to adjusting the parameters of how perms should function in these debates and
2. I think I have a higher threshold of aff explanation for how any permutation functions with a competing kritik/counterplan/advocacy.

Fairness can or can’t be an impact in front of me based on debating. The most persuasive fairness arguments I’ve heard are ones paired with a discussion of how it implicates debate as an educational activity/more education-related impacts as well as how fair norms are necessary and mutually beneficial for both teams. In these debates I typically view fairness as a tiebreaker for the negative but can be convinced that it is more important than that if heavy investment is done.

TVAs should have a substantive explanation as to how they provide a similar discussion of the aff's issues and internal links and framework DAs. Simply reading an alternative plan text is not sufficient. Further, TVAs and Read On Neg/Switch Side have varying degrees of value based on aff offense against T which should affect how you deploy them by the 2NR (if not earlier).

Performances are great, but they're greater when they have explanations and develop organically as the debate continues

Misc (but still important) things

If you have an issue with access in terms of debate, please feel free to send me an email before the round so that I can make the necessary accommodations.

Tech > Truth except arguments along the lines of “racism/sexism/antiqueerness/antiblackness/ableism good”

A dropped argument still needs an extension of a claim and a warrant for me to evaluate it.

I usually look grumpy/apathetic/tired during rounds; I promise it's not usually because of anyone's actions (if it is, I'll be explicit about it after the round), and is more just my face. I deeply appreciate people's commitment to this activity and want to emphasize that I'll do my absolute best to adjudicate. Further, I feel like most of the learning I've had in the activity can be attributed to the comments provided by judges after round. Following that, please know that no amount of questions is too much, and I'm happy to answer any and all of them to make your time in this activity more valuable.

Former policy debater at George Mason University, and current graduate student at UNC Chapel Hill. I did policy debate at the college level for over 1 year, and have been judging policy, LD, PF, and big questions debate for 4 years.

My educational background: B.A. in Government and International Politics. Dual Masters in City and Regional Planning (specialization: Housing) and Public Health (specialization: health equity) currently ongoing.

Email: japril@email.unc.edu. If you have questions about my decision that weren't answered during RFD, feel free to email me and I will hopefully be able to answer. I'll keep my flows and notes for up to two weeks after the tournament concludes, so then would be the best time to email me.

I'd like to be included on the email chain please and thanks! The japril@email.unc.edu email will be best for me, but if this doesn't work you can use jordanapril72@gmail.com.

My number one thing is that you should be respectful. No insults, slurs, or disrespecting the other team members. I also will not be pleased if the evidence you read is openly harmful (i.e. homophobic/racist/sexist/transphobic arguments, etc.).

I don't do the whole shaking hands thing. This is not a way to disrespect you - this is a very much "it's not you, it's me" thing. (This was written before COVID, RIP)

Open cross-ex is fine. If this is a virtual tournament though, use more discretion. I have a low tolerance for talking over each other.

Spreading is fine. I should be able to keep up with faster speeches just fine. However if it is during a virtual tournament, I may request slower speeches simply due to issues of audio quality/video buffering/etc.

I expect you and your partner to keep track of your prep time and speech times, and to keep the other team in check.

If you identify as a man and you have a female-identifying partner, you better have a good reason for cutting her off/interrupting her/talking over her during her speeches. If not, I will be very tempted to factor this into your speaker points, and definitely will if it becomes a recurring issue.

I am 100% fine with explaining my RFD and how I felt the debate went down. However after this, if you still don't agree with/like my decision, feel free to post-round me. But it won't change my decision, nor the fact that your arguments were wrong/outweighed/not clear enough. In your final speeches, the burden of proof is on you to make it clear just how your arguments resolve/outweigh/whatever. Don't make me have to do the work for you.

If u like music that isn't sung in English, pls let me know! I love hearing new music (I listen mostly to Russian indie/pop, French pop, Scandinavian metal, Arab indie, etc.)!!!!

Policy:

- If you drop an arg, I will definitely vote on that.

- Cross-ex is binding

- Genuinely extend your arguments, especially ones you intend to win on. Extend these arguments fully throughout the round - I won't vote on it if improperly extended or dropped in the last speeches.

- I am generally inexperienced in theory or topicality arguments and the like. So it's gotta be demonstrated to be pretty egregious or conceded entirely for it to matter much to me. It's not wise having solely an intricate theory vs. condo vs. whatever 2NR and 2AR with me as your judge. If that happens, you may not like my decision.

- You need to extend the warrants of your argument, not just the tags and author. I don't flow author, so I won't mark it as extended if you only mention the author name. And don't just say "cross-apply this author" to another argument - I will not know why it matters without you explaining how this card also answers whatever argument it's being applied to.

- Slow down when you read tags

- I'm a huge fan of analytics - feel free to use them. These can sometimes be far more effective than reading cards.

On Ks - I'm not a K debater so these are not my strong suit. If it is something beyond a more basic and familiar K, just make sure you explain how it links and its significance. I have no problem voting for a K if I can understand it. If it's high theory, be sure to explain it in full beyond the jargon from the specialty.

- Don't be cocky when reading a K. Don't think you're going to automatically win because you're reading a K that you're capable of reading blocks for. Don't just be one of those teams hoping that the big words and confusion will result in a win for you - that's a harmful means of debate. That will not bode well for you.

On DAs - Make sure you have clear impact calculus, and extend the essential arguments during the round. Use overviews! Don't merely rely on overviews to extend though, you still need to genuinely engage with any evidence read against it.

LD

- I'm okay with cards being read in round (with discretion of course)

- I'm more pro-traditional LD (focusing on morality) than I am the progressive/policy-oriented LD. I won't vote you down instantly because you decide to have big-stick impacts like nuclear war or read DAs or Ks on the negative, but use discretion. If one debater is using a traditional LD framework versus the extinction framing, it can be in the territory of abusive. So tl;dr: not the biggest fan but I won't penalize you for it unless there's a reason to.

- I can follow philosophical theory (such as Kant), but if you are referencing that basis, at least explain it throughout the round. What is the significance of this theory and concept?

- The personal views of the other debater don't really matter to me. So don't attack them on things like, say, them being okay with taxes. This is a waste of time, and I won't vote on any of the personal views of the debater unless they are openly racist, sexist, etc.

- I don't know fully all the rules of LD (i.e. what is considered a violation, is this stealing affirmative ground, etc.). If I'm your judge, then these are not your best strategies unless the opponent is being blatantly abusive in round.

PF

- Be clear, go in a logical order for line-by-line

- Please weigh! Make the decision easy for me and make sense! Don't make me have to do any of the work for you.

- If it's in your final focus, it should be in your summary. I won't evaluate any new arguments that appear in the final focus if they weren't found elsewhere in earlier speeches.

- Don't go for everything in the final focus and summary speeches. What are the best arguments you have, the arguments with the least offense, the arguments you feel most confident about? Go for those, prioritize those, and drop some of the other stuff that you feel less confident on. Concede non-uniqueness or other nullifying arguments from the con if you need to (like yeah we are solving miscalculation in the status quo or somethingggg).

- If you're extending a contention, extend all the key aspects of that contention. If for example you drop a link or you drop an impact, that makes it harder for me to evaluate and harder for you to win the round. You need all pieces of the pie to get there or else it'll taste like you forgot to add the sugar (bad metaphor - just roll with it).

- I weigh crossfire a little low on the hierarchy of important things coming from you or your partner's/opponent's mouths. If you think it's a big deal or the opponent concedes something big in crossfire or something, be sure to not only point it out in speeches but to explain why it matters.

- Don't be rude. I'll very much dock your speaks.

Big Questions

- If you even THINK about asking me about the time I've judged Big Questions, I will give you a maximum amount of 20 for your speaks.

My email: tk.asarpota@gmail.com

General Comments:

- Please signpost and emphasize tags

- Line by line is extremely helpful!

- To extend a card properly, must do more than just say tagline, analytics are expected

- Clear and convincing Impact Calc is extremely important.

Policy Affs: I like policy affs and am very comfortable judging them.

DA: I like DAs but should link to the aff and be well explained.

CP: I like CPS but need solvency advocates and should have a clearly articulated net benefit

K Affs: I am not extremely well versed in K’s but I am willing to listen to K affs as long as they are well explained in cross-x and in the speeches.

K: I do enjoy judging K’s as long as the alts are clear and well extended. I WILL NOT vote for a K if the world of the alt is unclear at the end of the 2NR.

T: I'm fine with voting on topicality, but I will often defer to reasonability unless neg makes a very strong case.

Theory: I am not very well-versed in theory so ensure that you explain any theory vocab well during the round. I do not have any aversions to a well-run theory argument.

Framework: I love to hear framework against K affs and K's. In order for me to vote on framework, I expect that you spend a significant amount of time on it throughout the rebuttals.

Kiyan Banuri

-- West High School '19 (Salt Lake City)

-- Tufts University '23 (Freshman, currently not debating)

-- I will do my absolute best in objectively evaluating arguments and remaining attentive during debates.

Add me to the email chain: kiyanbanuri@gmail.com

Top Level:

- I have some basic topic knowledge but not nearly as much as you all. Keep that in mind if you really want to go for T in front of me.

- I believe that if you lose to a "bad argument" then you're a "bad debater"; defend everything you say.

- Only complete arguments with a claim, warrant, and impact will be evaluated.

- Pretty non-ideological, I've run all types of arguments. Do what you do best.

- Wikis good

- Card quality > spin (but spin is important)

- Physically mark cards during your speech, and send the marked document after.

- I will not evaluate personal beef that occurred outside the round.

- Disclosure is good

- Substance > theory

- Tech > truth (95% of the time)

Qualifications

- In high school, I attended the TOC twice, going 4-3 both times but receiving a speaker award my senior year. I am okay with all forms of debate, but my research in high school gravitated toward the critical side.

- I have not judged this topic at a natcir tournament yet, and the research I have helped with has largely been critical.

- Studying IR and economics in college which means I am up-to-date with current events and IR/econ theories.

Topicality - I don't have much topic knowledge -- take that as you will. Be clear & concise. Impact and caselist comparison are a necessity. Aff predictability is good.

K affs - My jam. I ran K affs since Sophomore year in high school. However, I only appreciate creative ones with a few caveats:

- Framework arguments that are premised on arguments by analogy make me sad. For example, arguments like "pleading for predictability is impossible because the disabled body is unpredictable" is not convincing in the slightest bit. Be more creative than that.

- I like affs that relate to the topic, and unless you are great at defending it, framework/T seems much more convincing.

- I have literally no predisposition to perms being legitimate or not.

- Against T: arguing that T/Framework is violent policing is not convincing to me.

T-USFG/Framework

- I am pretty comfortable with these debates, I've been in too many of them.

- Fairness has always made more sense to me than skills impacts.

- Do not throw blocks at the aff's arguments; if they are more nuanced than "state bad" then you shouldn't read just your "state good" block.

Counterplans - I like neg fiat. I'll judge kick the CP if said so in the 2NR explicitly.

Disads - risk of a link is silly, but not if you are crushing the CP flow. Judge instruction is really important with regards to evaluating evidence, the link/uniqueness debate, etc.

Kritik - Definitely a common weapon in my arsenal. Despite my knowledge and familiarity, a couple of things to keep in mind:

- links to: the action of the plan > knowledge production > actor > fiat.

- Root cause is not reverse casual.

- Links should have an impact and there should be an explanation of how the alt solves the links.

- Keep the flow neat, I don't want to flow straight down.

Speaks

- Speed is not words per minute, its the amount of arguments delivered effectively per minute.

- I like bold decisions (if executed well).

- Do not try to negotiate speaks.

- I will yell clear once, so be flowable.

Overview:

Hey! I'm Jordan (he/him/his). I am a freshman at Harvard College planning to study Philosophy or Government. I did policy for 3 years in high school, 4 years of speech, and was on the CX team here at Harvard for a bit (planning on returning here soon). I am effectively tabula rasa (in debate, at least). I fundamentally believe in the doctrine of functional frameworks and counter-frameworks (this meaning the debate experience shapes the judge interpretation of the ballot, the round, or the debate space by introduction of, and rebuttal of, framework positions). In this, the debate experience is shaped uniquely only by the debaters in question. I hold no inherent value towards the resolution, debate structure, or meta-textual or metaphysical interpretations within the debate, such as the role of performance, language, or superstructure. This is not to suggest that I don't hold opinions/analytical perspectives on the issues raised in the debate, but as a judge, I open the debate space without my own subject-experiences. There are no fundamentals guaranteed in the debate other than those which are mutually accepted by, best articulated by, or debated by the two teams. In this, all voting issues are tangential to the substance of any single debate, so I vote on anything and everything so long as I have an implicit or direct framework which allows me to evaluate it in comparison to the debate as a whole and all rebuttals raised against it.

TL;DR: I am purely non-interventionist tabula rasa, meaning I uphold no rules or standards other than those brought into conversation by the debaters or those implicitly agreed upon by both teams (for instance, speaking time). I vote on anything as long as it wins the debate and I have a reason to believe it winning the debate is sufficient to capture the ballot.

Specific Things (work in progress):

Theory (ALL): In line with paradigm notes, theory is obviously fine in debate. I will not prefer any interpretation or meta-structuring innately, but will listen to theory args. Theory is a huge thing to hash out here, so if you have anything weird or need clarification, you can ask, and I'll answer as best as I can.

Coaching/Spectators/Scouting: Follow tournament rules, but in the blank spaces between those rules most of the time is difference between spectators and coaching/scouting. Difference between these two categories is big. Debaters have the right to object to any spectator in the room, and they will be asked to leave if any debater has a problem with any certain individual watching. Coaching is different matter. Debaters are always allowed to be coached before round. If you don't want coaching against you, which is fine, refuse to disclose. This is perfectly within your rights (as long as it is specifically not forbidden by tournament rules), and if you're the opponent, you can run Disclosure T, as you can run anything, but I won't for some reason give your argumentation more leniency if they don't disclose.

Topicality: In line with my paradigm notes above, T is fine and is not inherently a time-suck. Debate it sufficiently, and maybe it is. I will vote on it if I should (if it wins the debate and I have reason to think it deserves the ballot).

Performance: Same as my general paradigm, I don't care, but if you think you should debate it, do so and I'll weigh methods. However, I won't ask for clarification on performative purpose. All argumentation is assumed to be within the realm of the ballot unless otherwise stated, so if it is an aesthetic addition, say so. This also goes for Discourse Ks as DAs or the sort: I will assume it is on the flow unless you state it is aesthetic.

Addendum: someone asked if they can play music as a performance/before round. Two different issues, but before round is fine as long as no one is uncomfortable. In round, yes as a component of performance, obviously. Don't disturb other rounds.

Time: Keep it and don't cheat.

Card-Cutting: Be clear and state exactly where you stop reading. Reasonably, I won't evaluate card claims/warrants that aren't spoken.

Open CX: I am still being asked about this, so to put it simply: I don't care. If a team is uncomfortable with it, defer to me and I'll evaluate whether or not that discomfort is sufficient to cease Open CX. Otherwise, don't ask. Open CX is assumed in any sensible tabula rasa paradigm.

Disclosure: Follow tournament rules and be nice to each other. Otherwise, your choice.

Literature Debate: I am fine on critical literature, so don't hold back. But do it correctly; I study postmodernism and cultural theory, so "high" theory (Frankfurt School, Deleuze, post-colonial) is within my academic scope. I've probably read what you're cutting from or read something critiquing/reviewing it, so don't skip loose ends on the crit debate. I obviously don't expect the level of complication of theory as it would be in an academic setting, but don't be cheaty by obscuring links with buzz words that receives little to no sophistication based on the literature. It obviously isn't a voter unless implicated as such, but the weight your alts and links carry when they rest on a bed of skeptical theoretical sophistication is obviously harmed.

Resolutionality: See above, but I don't differ to resolutional cases because they are innately resolutional. Even if you're a policy buff, if a neg case brings resolutionality into question (be it in an operative mechanism, value-based mechanism, like a Kritik, or on theory), a rebuttal is not "this is the resolution we were given," or "but its the resolution!" However, defending aff ground, predictability, etc. as STANDARDS to why we should prefer resolutionality theoretically is a response. This is a callback to my emphasis on operative frameworks: nothing is guaranteed as an innate standard unless it is implicitly valued by both teams. Even the resolution is capable of criticism (and meta-criticsm) if a team has a reason to suggest we should critique it.

Framework/Framing: One thing I will say is that framework, both as an off-case or as a structural mechanism within an argument, requires an interpretation. If you want me to view the round/ballot/team in some way, you need to clearly define how that experience exists and how I should orient myself to it. IT IS CRITICAL to provide counter-frameworks as the opposing team, as I cannot assume how your arguments function in relationship to the framing of your opponent. As a tabula rasa judge, I have to definitionally prefer what framework I am given if it is not contested, tabula rasa being very literal in this sense (meaning I have only witnessed, and thus can only know, the given framework that exists in the world of the debate). Even if it is conceptually flawed, if it is the only framing that exists in that world, I have to prefer it. Give counter-frameworks with standards and clash. If no framing is provided, I implicitly differ to the flow and weigh arg versus arg (which should inevitably conclude in impact analysis and clash, which is sufficient to write a ballot as it gives me a lens to view the debate).

Arg Prefs: This is usually the point where judges will rank their prefs on distinct args. I will not do that. Every debate is unique and all issues have distinct context and related structuring as a component of that unique debate experience. Thus, I can't really holistically rank all Topicality issues, DA issues, or K issues in one ranking. I will listen to anything and everything, and it is ultimately your job to decide the value your arguments (and your opponents arguments) hold in the debate.

Happy debating, and if you have any questions, debate-related or not before/after round, talk to me or email me at jordanbarton@college.harvard.edu.

***Judging history is wrong here on NSDA - can't link to tournaments I've judged in West Texas as I didn't link to Tabroom, any questions lmk.***

add me to the email chain: abatema1@binghamton.edu

My "paradigm:" I try to judge

Here are the rules for debate: As a rule, unnecessary use of German never made an argument sound less insidious. If you don't know me - I'm Chris. I may not have been the best in the past, but like my school motto, ever better. The policydb8.com veg pledge is back now with a shiny new bifo file. I am no longer awarding points for people taking the veg pledge. The negative may choose to defend the status quo, or I can do the situational dropbox thing. Whatever. Regale me with your evidence.

2018 Update (Immigration):

I believe debate is valuable. I believe it teaches great critical thinking and research skills, but debate is MORE than that. Scientists always said there is no such thing as a soul. Now they are in a position to prove it. Also, my email and debate experience still stand... So I don't have any bias toward Aff or Neg-- in fact I'm the opposite, and enjoy plan-less debate immensely. I am very expressive, so take that into account, however sometimes I worry I'm too expressive. Does that mean I might vote on “warming good because it solves ice age” against a critical aff about object oriented ontology and the Anthropocene?

Hello there! I’m Ishan. I am excited to hear what y’all have to say!! For what it’s worth, I haven’t been involved in a couple of years, so please explain jargon and debate a little slower than you would otherwise.

Email for LD: ishanbhatt42@gmail.com. Could you make the subject line something like: “ Tournament -- Year -- Aff vs Neg”?

Updated for Harvard 2024

Form Preferences:

1. Read what you want if it is well-warranted and well-explained. This is theoretically a content-neutral preference, but I may be worse for very short arguments with very extreme implications. The size of an argument’s implication and its length should be inversely correlated.

2. Please be sure that every word you say is understandable. I’ll say clear. If I do, please go back, and say your argument again. I don’t open speech docs until after the round, so I do want to hear all the words of the card.

3. If an argument is dropped, you get the warrant, not the tag. The implication of a dropped argument can still be contested.

4. I’m more persuaded by specific arguments. It’s hard to win no progress if you drop aff solvency, threat inflation if you concede the China war scenario, “fairness always first” without some debating about the internal link, etc.

5. Please be transparent about your argument. Don't be coy about the function or content of the argument, or else I may not understand it either! And please don’t refuse to answer questions at all.

6. The 1NC must fully develop the argument. My sense of the meta is only based on judging twice in the last two years, but I thought many off-case positions I saw weren’t complete arguments and the 1AR could’ve briefly dismissed them.

Content Preferences:

Plans/CPs/DAs:

• I really don’t need everything to lead to extinction.
• For most “cheating” counterplans, a clear theory of “what should be competitive” is most compelling.
• A perm needs explanation in the speech in which it is introduced.

Theory:

• Predictably defining the words in the topic matters the most for topicality. Once you’ve defined a word, proving a good vision for the topic regarding research, ground, limits, etc. is great.
• I basically won’t vote on bad theory arguments, especially really contrived interpretations (e.g., “may not do exactly what you did”). A solid “this is arbitrary + reasonability + don’t drop the debater” push should do the trick for me.
• Reasonability, to me, makes most sense as “voting on theory means we lose out on a substantive debate, therefore defense is sufficient.” I’m often confused by reasonability “bright line” arguments.
• Please don’t claim that a debate practice (like a new case or conditionality) makes debate “unsafe.” I feel like safety is meaningful thing and is probably outside the realm of technical debating.

Ks:

• You need to explain a structural claim, not just say the claim.
• I likely won’t vote on an argument about personal stuff.
• I really don’t understand most arguments over fiat. “Fiat” makes most sense to me as shorthand for the “is-ought” fallacy.
• I might be stricter than the median judge for neg DA links – if you “destroy the system of capitalism,” the neg is probably right about the link to the econ DA.

See also: Andrew Garber's paradigm.

If there is an email chain please add me to it and please include analytics. My email is malenab.policydebate@gmail.com

I debated at Mamaroneck High School as a 1A/2N. I also debated at Wayne state university for a semester (fall of 2018).

Debate is and should continue to be a welcoming space for all involved in the activity. I will vote on any argument, just make sure to be clear and sum up the arguments in the rebuttals.

Take the obligation to be polite seriously, because not doing so will affect your speaks.

FOR NOVICES: PLEASE FLOW!!!

Most importantly have fun!

email me if you have any questions.

I do not have topic knowledge this year. Proceed accordingly.

You have < 10 seconds before the round:

a.) Tech > “truth” or ideological predispositions – although some level of judge intervention is inevitable, I will do my best to ensure that if you win the flow, you win the debate

b.) I will vote for both framework and k affs (see subpoint a)

c.) Rebuttals should frame why you win the debate (bolded because fewer and fewer teams seem to be doing this)

d.) In terms of qualifications, I did the whole TOC/speaker awards/late elims thing and I qualled to the NDT as a Harvard first-year, but I am a second year out – make of all of that what you will

e.) I love subpoints

Email Chain: yes

blatttaliaaspel@gmail.com

You have time:

As I debater, I am most frustrated by decisions in which I feel the judge voted in a way that doesn’t reflect the reality of the debate they judged. This could be because:

a.) The judge voted based on predetermined personal beliefs

b.) The judge heavily and somewhat arbitrarily intervened for one side

c.) The judge read all of the evidence at the end of the debate and reconstructed what could have happened, but didn’t

d.) The judge gave weight to new 1AR/2NR/2AR arguments

e.) The judge did other “work” for the debaters, making cross-applications or other analysis that the debaters themselves did not make in the debate

As a judge, I will attempt to NOT do these things, and to base my decision as much on the flow as I can.

Yes, I have biases. For example, I will generally assume that death and suffering are bad unless told otherwise. However, I will insist that debaters create clear metrics for evaluating impacts. My favorite thought experiment for this is the following:

If the 1AC presents all the ways their plan or advocacy CAUSES extinction, and the negative team makes purely “defensive” arguments about how the aff doesn’t cause extinction, and the aff wins in the 2AR that they do cause extinction, I will vote aff: Both teams implicitly agreed that extinction is a good we should try to reach. Obviously speaker points in this debate would be quite low, and I’d be frustrated with the decision, but I will do my best to work within the evaluative system the debaters have either explicitly or implicitly created.

Do I have thoughts about the way arguments should be deployed? Yes, and I will delineate them below, but they can almost always be reversed by good debating. What do I mean by good debating? Line-by-line, warranted analysis that clashes with the other team’s analysis, strategic use of evidence, organizational clarity, and impact and ballot framing are the most important things to me.

Framework and K Affs:

This is where all of the stuff I said about tech > truth and voting on the flow comes in – whoever does the best line-by-line and impact/ballot framing will win the debate. I debated and judge in the northeast. I would estimate that maybe 75% of my neg debates in high school were k aff v. framework rounds, so I like to think that I am familiar with how these debates go down, and I enjoy them.

If you are going for framework:

a.) Go for whatever impact you like going for – procedural fairness, clash, switch-side debate, et cetera. I disliked it when judges “liked T” but “didn’t believe” that fairness or clash was an impact. Tell me what I should think are impacts and why, and I’ll listen.

b.) Answer case or at the very least explain why you don’t have to answer case.

c.) Close doors in the 2NR. You know the 2AR will expand on case or a disad – try to cut that off.

d.) Line by line. Please. Messy and late-breaking clash rounds favor the aff.

e.) The TVA is your friend. The combination of the argument that deficits to the TVA are negative ground and the argument that reading stuff on the neg is good is very persuasive to me.

f.) Don’t be afraid to extend stuff on case in the 2NR, particularly presumption level claims that question their advocacy’s ability to solve stuff.

If you are going for a k aff:

a.) Please defend something. I love it when k affs defend some form of material action, but please advocate for something.

b.) A couple smart, powerful disads > laundry list of similar, poorly explained/differentiated disads to T

c.) Compare models of debate – what does your model of debate do? Why does it resolve the harms you say their model creates, and why does it limit their offense?

d.) Line by line, especially in the 1AR, is so important – don’t force your 2A to make new arguments

e.) Impact framing

f.) If you do cool non-traditional stuff, bring it back up after the 1AC. I am always a little disappointed when the 1AC includes some song or performance but it disappears immediately.

Disads:

I LOVE the politics disad. As such if you extend it well, I will be happy, and if you extend it poorly, I will be sad. Extending a politics disad well means reading a ton of uniqueness cards and subpointing multiple answers to every 2AC argument. If this is done in the 1NR, and extended in the 2NR, speaks will be bueno.

Topic or process disads are also cool. Impact calc and turns case arguments are the move, especially link turns case arguments.

I don't have fixed ideological positions on the more nitty-gritty stuff -- it's up to the debaters to prove whether uniqueness controls the direction of the link, or vice versa, for instance.

Counterplans:

EXPLAIN WHAT IT DOES! I don’t have a ton of experience judging on this topic; I won’t immediately know the agency or mechanism you are talking about.

Multi-actor fiat, delay, conditions, and some + process and consult = sketch; international fiat on an international topic I will probably be okay with if you have the evidence. Solvency advocates can basically make any counterplan legitimate to me, but I will listen to any theory debate, and the 2A in me may or may not pop out. Not to feed a fed horse, but all of these leanings can be reversed by good (read: clear) theory debating.

I probably won't judgekick unless I am explicitly instructed to.

Policy T:

EXPLAIN YOUR INTERP! I don’t have the topic knowledge to know if there is “consensus” about what certain terms in the resolution mean.

I may be more willing to listen to reasonability than other judges.

K's:

Most of my aff debates in high school were soft left aff versus the k. I like it when there are links to the plan, not to the status quo. I also like turns case analysis and when the alt does stuff.

Please don't assume that I am wholly unfamiliar with all k stuff because I ran mostly policy affs. I am pretty familiar with a lot of the anti-blackness and cap literature and I am very up for those throw-downs.

I have a medium level understanding of a lot of the other literature, but unless it's something super new or Frankensteined together, I will probably be able to follow you.

***PLEASE DO CASE DEBATING*** This is something that frustrates me ENDLESSLY. K teams -- you know that extinction outweighs is one of the most powerful answers policy affs will leverage. The solution to this is NOT to add subpoint W to your "Util Bad" block. The reason the aff gets extinction outweighs is because you aren't MOCKING their scenarios. Policy aff internal links are SO contrived, especially on domestic reform topics. Impact scenarios rarely assume COVID or a Biden administration, and they're written by think tanks funded by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The aff won't win on extinction outweighs if you EVISCERATE their extinction scenario. I think a block that was 8 minutes of the K and 5 minutes of ridiculing whatever nonsense the aff solves would be a killer. I know I am shouting into the void here, that case debating is a long lost art, but hopefully somebody reading this will invest some time on the case page.

Do I have any judging quirks?

a.) I find myself reading evidence after the round more and more. This is bad -- I hate being interventionist. That being said, I think a logical analytic still carries as much weight as a card.

b.) I have some but not a lot of topic knowledge. Please err on the side of explanation.

c.) Most of my debates in high school were against k teams, but I went to Michigan and helped at the Dartmouth debate camp. I like to think that means I have some amount of both policy and critical experience.

d.) I was a 2A for most of high school but I 2Ned or double two-ed for a few years. That means I may lean aff on theory surrounding questionable counterplans but I lean negative when it comes to holding a high bar for the 2AR.

e.) I am passionate about climate change. If you like going for warming good, I am the wrong judge for you. I will look for any way to vote for the other team and your speaks will suffer. I honestly have no idea why the debate community continues to treat this as a legitimate argument. (If this seems at odds with my tech>truth beliefs, I agree that I am not being wholly consistent, but the notion of breeding apathy among youth about climate change is frankly abhorrent to me. Just as tech over truth does not extend to arguments like racism is good, climate change is something I feel obligated to hold the line on.)

f.) I care a lot about the participation of women, especially WOC, in debate. I will be extremely sensitive to the way people who are not cis white men are treated in the debate space.

g.) I want to help debaters who don't receive a lot of formal coaching. I remember feeling intimidated and isolated in high school debate rounds when the other team had 3+ professional coaches in the room while my partner and I sat alone, desperately trying to figure out what we could do. A lot of my coaching in high school came from incredibly kind strangers in the debate community who were willing to help (take pity on) a panicked kid who didn't have the cards to answer a disad. If you ever have questions, whether they're about my decision or just arguments in general, email me: blatttaliaaspel@gmail.com or find me in the hallway, and I will do my best to help you out.

h.) Subpoints!

i.) I love, love, love topic education arguments, whether they're on framework/T or when you are aff going against a K or when you are going for a k and making arguments about what topic education SHOULD look like. As a policy 2A I loved making arguments about the way grassroots organizing can amalgamate careful policy research with novel or radical forms of praxis and pedagogy. Teams that do this will make me happy.

j.) References to Magi Ortiz, Debayan Sen, Rayhan Ahmed, Sydney Young, Samar Ahmad, or Ishan Bhatt = +0.2 speaks; references to any Lex debater / Lexington debate in general, including Sheryl Kaczmarek = +0.1 speaks

If either of my cats are present during the round and a debater compliments them, makes a reference to them in any way, or shows me their pet(s): +0.2 speaks

Novice paradigm

Hello novices!

Yes:

-flowing

-line by line

-impact calc

-using evidence

-using warrants

-splitting the block (if you don't know what this means, ask!)

-picking up on dropped arguments

-being assertive

-referencing Debayan Sen, Magi Ortiz, or Rayhan Ahmed (if you don't know who these scrubs are, no worries)

-frame my ballot (why do I vote for you? what impacts does voting for you ameliorate, and why do those impacts matter/matter more than the other team's impacts?)

-show me your flows after the round (+.1 speaks)

-asking questions!! email me ( blatttaliaaspel@gmail.com ) with any questions about my decision/debate in general

No:

-extending claims without warrants + impacts

-bullying your partner or the other team

-block repetition (see above)

-switching flows without telling me when you are switching (signposting)

-reading arguments/blocks you don't understand

I have competed in policy debate for four years and I currently attend Umass Amherst studying a double major in computer science and economics.

My email: Nbodich@gmail.com

Feel free to email me with any questions about the round or debate in general.

Personal Preference:

- Roadmaps and signposts are very helpful!

- When spreading, please emphasize the taglines—either by speaking louder, slowing down, or using a cue word ("and", numbers, etc.).

- I will keep time for all speeches but time your own prep!!!!,

- I will listen to cross-x, but it will not be flowed. Anything brought up in cross-x must be introduced in a speech for it to be factored in my evaluation.

- I'm generally open to most arguments. Do not run kritiks with out fully explaining what your kritik is!

Top-Level Notes:

- Clash with your opponent! If both teams simply present opposing evidence without explaining why I should prefer certain evidence, I won't know how to evaluate the argument, and it'll probably end up being a wash.

- Aff must extend case throughout the debate. Don't just say "extend the 1AC" and move on. Take some time to give me an overview of your case, especially your impacts.

- If you are neg, do not kick out of an off-case argument if aff runs a turn (link turn, impact turn, etc.). Otherwise, it becomes part of the aff's advantages.

- Impact calc is very important. Explain to me why your impacts outweigh your opponents' impacts. Impact calc should be clear and convincing. I recommend going for one aspect (timeframe/probability/magnitude) rather than trying to go for all three at the same time.

- The last speeches should basically be telling me a story. You've spent the constructives building your argument and introducing lots of evidence. The rebuttals is where everything comes together. Tell me where/how your evidence fits in your narrative. Tell me about the world of the aff vs. the world of the status quo/alt/CP/etc. Be persuasive. You don't have to spread in rebuttals.

- To close this section off, the most important part of debating is argument resolution. Winning rebuttals should focus on explaining what issues are important, identifying what to do with drops/kicks, answering "so what" questions, making "even if" statements, comparing arguments, etc.

Topicality: I'm fine with voting on topicality, but I will often defer to reasonability unless neg makes a very strong case. Make sure to clearly articulate the voting issue(s). Point to actual in-round abuse if you can, otherwise it's harder for me to justify voting neg on T.

K Affs: I'm definitely more of a policy guy, I despise K Affs I believe it is the downfall of policy debate. But if you are to run a K Aff make sure you explain it clearly to me. I can't guarantee that I'll know all the jargon in the taglines.

Kritiks: Every year I've debated, I've run the Cap K. I'm very open to Ks, but make sure to articulate a clear alt. Also, like I said above, I can't guarantee I know all the jargon, so explain the K to me. If you are aff, I often find perms convincing.

Theory: I've rarely debated theory before, so if you want me to vote for you on theory, make sure to explain it to me clearly.

Counterplans: I'm okay with neg kicking out of a CP unless aff makes a really good Unconditionality argument. I'm also good with consult CPs.

Disads: The uniqueness is often ignored after the 1NC shell, but it's just as important as the link and the impact. Thumpers are very powerful, especially on Politics/Base DAs. Also, go ahead and straight turn all those trash DAs.

Ethics Violations:

Card clipping- It seems like the number of card clipping incidents in debate is increasing, and this bothers me. Just don't do it.

Stealing Prep- Stealing prep has become more common. Please guys have some ethics just dont steal prep. Debate is suppose to be a learning experience for everybody do not take this away from anybody. If you are caught stealing prep I will doc speaker points.

Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

tl;dr:

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." -jon sharp

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -anonymous Chinese farmer

Lex 2020 Updates:

I don’t know shit about the topic. Don’t expect me to know shit about the topic. Also slow down a little. Can’t you see I’m getting old?

General notes:

I debated at Georgetown Day School in Washington, D.C., and for Polytechnic School in Pasadena, California.

Don't cheat.

Slow down on tags. Every word you say should be comprehensible, but obviously you can be faster and quieter (only a little) on the cards themselves. If you're unclear, I'll say clear.

As a judge, my face usually indicates whether I understand your argument or not. Respond accordingly.

Read whatever arguments you want. However, keep in mind that bad arguments are inherently weaker than good arguments (by definition).

Call me Your Honor. I will also accept His Excellency.

Tech>Truth.

What's a good argument?

A good argument is an argument that you think is true, or that you can convince me is true. You can convince me that Baudrillard, Lacan, Bataille, and Deleuze are all true. You can convince me that civil society is irreparably flawed and that it should be burned down. You can convince me that nuclear war is going to happen unless we pass a certain policy action. I tend to think that oppression is inherently bad.

Disadvantages:

Can be good. Can be bad. You'll figure out which one yours is by the look on my face.

Kritiks:

I obviously love kritiks. I will listen to all kritiks that fall into the category of "good arguments" outlined above. That said, you should know what literature I'm familiar with so you know how likely I am to make an informed decision on any given argument.

Very familiar: psychoanalysis, settlerism, postmodernism, capitalism.

Somewhat familiar: Most other arguments that have been read in debates regularly.

Keep in mind: If I'm familiar with your argument, you should do the same level of explanation that you would do otherwise. The only consequence of my familiarity with your argument is the likelihood of me making an informed decision. If you lose the K on tech, you'll lose the K no matter how much I agree/am familiar with it.

Also, don't run the kritik badly. I hate bad kritik debates. If neither you nor the aff knows what the kritik you are reading is, I'm 99 times out of 100 voting affirmative. A kritik should have multiple links to the aff, a good impact scenario, and an alt. The alt is usually the weakest part of the K, so I encourage affs to attack this first.

Counterplans:

I mean, I guess (if you win the neg gets fiat).

Topicality/Framework:

Yes, there's a difference. No, I don't know what that difference is.

I hold the neg to a fairly high standard on topicality. I think voting on T is by default a punishment (but I mean, if you're into that sort of stuff...). Again, convince me otherwise and I'm fine for you. I default to competing interpretations, but only barely. If the aff is reasonably topical (and, yes, the aff has to prove reasonability), then I think the neg loses a lot of their offense.

As for framework, I think if you sufficiently prove that your framework incorporates whatever the aff is doing in some way, shape, or form, you'll be in a good place with me. That means that if you're aff against framework, you can't just read your generic offense. You have to articulate your offense in "even if" terms if the neg makes a T version of the aff. And if you're neg, obviously make a T version of the aff argument.

One thing that I don't see enough of in these debates is impact calculus. Do it.

Affirmatives:

If you don't do anything, or at least nothing remotely related to the topic, to be honest, I hope you have your impact turns ready.

Theory:

Don't. (sort of kidding)

Not convinced? Fine.

Conditionality: If there are three or more conditional advocacies, I'd be entirely willing to vote on condo. Otherwise, I'll probably reject the argument unless you tell me otherwise.

The rest: do line-by-line, impacts, and framing, and you will like me as a judge.

I haven't had enough theory debates to really form an opinion on anything other than condo, so if you're reading theory, I'll try to let the best debater win.

Harvard 2020 Updates:

This is my first tournament on the topic. I’m excited to learn, but don’t expect me to be versed in any of the common lit being used this season.

General notes:

I participated in speech and debate for four years in Newton, Kansas.

As a judge, I am usually pretty responsive if I understand your argument or not.

Read whatever arguments you want.

What's a good argument?

If you can convince me that the argument you are making is the truth, then I will go along with it. This extends to terminal impacts. I draw the line on certain subjects, however, such as racism, oppression, sexism good, etc. If you resort to those, you probably don’t deserve to win.

Disadvantages:

Run whatever you want. Obviously, specific links are better than generic. Generic links still should be answered and can’t be dropped just for that reason.

Kritiks:

I’m fine with the K and will certainly vote on it. With that, it’s important you know that while I am familiar with most arguments read in debates recently, I’m not by any means a K hack. Articulate the argument, make the link clear, and we can go from there.

Now I’m quoting a paradigm I found online, because it almost perfectly sums up my opinion: “Also, don't run the kritik badly. I hate bad kritik debates. If neither you nor the aff knows what the kritik you are reading is, I'm 99 times out of 100 voting affirmative. A kritik should have multiple links to the aff, a good impact scenario, and an alt. The alt is usually the weakest part of the K, so I encourage affs to attack this first.”

Counterplans:

Nothing for or against the CP. Not a huge fan of PICs but will still listen to one.

Topicality/Framework:

Love T

I believe neg loses a lot of offense if the aff proves to be reasonably topical (yes, the aff has to prove this).

Affirmatives:

Once again, a quote: "If you don't do anything, or at least nothing remotely related to the topic, to be honest, I hope you have your impact turns ready."

I am a lay judge - make sense and I vote for you :).

Be kind and have a great debate.

Try not to spread because I won't be able to flow. If you don't see me flowing, you're probably going too fast.

I never debated policy myself, but have judged it extensively over the past 8+ years. I have also judged all other debate formats pretty extensively. I debated at the college level and have since been coaching at the college level, but again, in non-policy formats.

-I can handle most spreading, but please don’t be monotone.

-I will vote primarily on the flow, unless you do something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

-I thoroughly enjoy K debate.

-Fine with any kind of performance debate too.

-Unsurprisingly, I’m willing to vote on anything related to the structure of debate.

-All of that said, I am more than open to traditional policy debate, so don’t be afraid to engage in that.

-Don’t cut cards. Call out your opponent if they are. Don’t lie about it if they aren’t. I won’t look at cards unless you tell me I need to. Cutting cards or lying about opponents cutting cards is a major offense to me.

-Explicitly weigh arguments for me. If I have to weigh arguments myself, that is forcing me to intervene as a judge, which I don’t want to do.

-Anything else, just ask.

-Be nice, have fun, and good luck.

Email: timothyabyram@gmail.com

First off, do you. If my judging philosophy meant that you were put at a disadvantage for any particular style of debate, that would be indicative of a larger problem.

I am a Junior at Liberty University. I have done traditional policy, critical, and performative debate, though recent experience has drifted heavily toward the latter end of the spectrum. I am decently well-versed in most forms of critical literature. However, my level of familiarity with a topic should be largely irrelevant to the way you debate. I view debate generally as a format established for the clash of pedagogies. This clash can take place on the macro level or the micro, and applies to both policy and critical debate. The key is to explain which premises of your opponent’s arguments are in contestation and why. In other words, it can be as broad as a discussion on the merits or demerits of proximate state action, or as specific as the effectiveness of China deterrence to maintain US hegemony. This principle can be applied to virtually all arguments:

Ks: Isolate what the affirmative has done, explain how their particular methodology/epistemology perpetuates structural violence, and give me a clear explanation of how to avoid those harms. In debate-speak, spell out the link/s, draw a story between that link and a particular impact, and explain to me how your alternative avoids said link/impact story. The debaters who do this best are the ones who can relate the structural to the specific (ie, the aff’s use of x term/methodology/analysis leads to y structural impact writ large through z process). K affs function similarly: Tell me what systems of behavior or thought are perpetuated in the status quo, how this is done, why it is bad, and what you do about it.

FW: Framework can be run in many different ways, and should be contested in accordance to the specific argument run. For the team running it: Tell me the specific violation of the affirmative, and give me palpable reasons why the aff perpetuates a model that is harmful for debate/why your model is relatively better. Central to this argument is an explanation of why your version of debate is good, or at least better than that of the affirmative. Contestability is important, but it must ultimately be tied to the specific impacts of the model you are offering. For the team answering it: tell me in what ways you meet their interpretation, or in what ways that interpretation is bad. On both sides of the debate, blanket statements are insufficient. Tell me specific reasons why your opponents’ framing is bad. This involves an interplay of tech vs. truth that I will attempt to balance depending on the arguments made in the particular round.

DAs & CPs: My assessment of the risk of the DA happening as a result of the aff is dependent on the specific details offered as part of the negative strategy. Give me a clear line of reasoning between that link and the impact. Specificity is also important for Counter Plans, in that you must show me how the Counter Plan is competitive with the aff. Don’t assume I am familiar with the jargon.

T: I like T but I am not particularly well versed in the area. Be creative, slow down a bit, and give me well-reasoned applications to the aff.

adcandelario0422@gmail.com

Harvard 24'

6 years of Policy Experience - I know nothing about this years topic, do with that what you will.

I like K v K debates.

I think the most convincing internal links in framework debates is clash and impact is education.

I enjoy impact turns to framework.

All K arguments are fine w me - I am more familiar with identity arguments than the post-modern french existentialist.

I hate voting 1 sentence voting issues/ framing DAs but I will.

Dedev debates are fun!

Warming impact turns are not fun!

kicking the aff in the 1ar and impact turning a K or DA is fun!

I love when debaters can recognize how many arguments are interacting with eachother in a round and make smart cross applications.

Thoughts on the big things.

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy-----------------------------------X----------K

Tech------------X----------------------------------Truth

Judge Kick----------X-----------------------------No Judge Kick

Read no cards-----------------X------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good----------X--------------------Conditionality bad

Politics DA is a thing--------------------X--------Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL---------------------------------X------Sometimes VTL

UQ matters most------------------------------X--Link matters most

Fairness is a thing---------------------X----------You're racist/ The world doesn't actually exist

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------------X----------------------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: --x------------------------------------------------------ A2:

no alt---------X---------------------------------alt

turns case X---------------------------no turns case

shaking my hand-----------------------------------------X Don't touch me

P.S.

Debater Things -

- Yes Im good with speed.

- I flow you not your speech doc.

- speed is a tool not debate.

- Card Clipping/Stealing Prep - its a no-no. If your caught-I will talk to a coach. For novice debates, I give more lee-way with "end prep-to speech" time because I understand your all new at this but will say something.

- Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, etc. Is a D-Rule. I will legit drop you to 20's, vote you down, and not think twice.

- Death arguments are fine in front of me

-CW/TW is a must

I was a high school cross-examination (a.k.a. Policy) debater from 1987-1991 at Jesuit High School New Orleans. I am now an assistant coach for Debate at Phoenix Country Day School as well as the Physics teacher. In between, I earned a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and B.A. in Plan II from the University of Texas at Austin (1996), a PhD in Chemical Engineering from MIT (2001), post-doctoral research in Cell Biology at the Duke University Medical Center (2001-2002), and then was an Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Arizona State University (2003-2018).

For Public Forum debate rounds:

1) I do flow. Although I can flow at speed (see below for Policy debate), Public Forum rounds should be about convincing me that your overall argument and position on the resolution is correct. What does this mean? It means that, although dropping an argument is important, it doesn't mean that the argument that was dropped becomes absolute truth. It does mean that your opponent did not refute your original claim and warrant, but you still need to explain how that claim and warrant support your overall position in the round in summary and final focus to convince me that your overall position on the resolution is better than your opponent's. So, in PF rounds, I discourage speed. Speak at a normal pace and trust that I am keeping track of your arguments. Signpost (tell me what argument you're responding to or what overall contention you're talking about) so that I can put your responses where they should go.

2) Use cross-examination periods to ask questions you genuinely want your opponent to answer. Listen to their response respectfully. Don't use cross-examination periods to make arguments. And definitely do not use cross-examination periods to badger or bully your opponent.

3) In summaries and final focuses (foci?), make sure to write my ballot for me by telling me how I should view the various positions in the round. If you use frameworks, tell me how I should view the various positions in the round as if I accept your framework OR your opponent's framework -- do both because you don't know which framework I'm going to find more convincing. The more you can bring the various different individual claims into a holistic view on the resolution, the more you're writing my ballot for me. You still need to win those individual claims (so don't forget to spend some time doing that), but synthesizing those claims into a coherent view of the resolution will go a long way to helping me decide the round. And that's even better if you bring your opponent's claims into that synthesis. For example: "Even if you agree with my opponent's claim that _______, there are still ### million people who benefit because of ________ that we're proposing due to [warrant for that claim]."

4) Remember that clash is critical. Go beyond the taglines to debate the warrants (reasoning) behind the other team's arguments vs. the reasoning behind your own arguments. Then go one step further and help me understand how your argument fits into the larger context of the round to "write my ballot" during your rebuttal / summary / final focus speeches.

For Policy debate rounds:

1) I need to understand what you say. I am fine with spreading as long as you enunciate clearly. And, if a particular argument is critical to your strategy, slow down a bit on the tagline to make sure I flow it properly. I will not be on the evidence chain. I believe debate is a speaking event, so I need to hear you say things and understand them at the speed you deliver them. If a piece of evidence is argued in the round such that my reading what it says after the round may affect my decision, I will ask for a limited number of pieces of evidence after the round. If you want me to look at a particular piece of evidence, tell me that in your speech and explain why reading it should be important to deciding the round.

2) In rebuttals, make sure to write my ballot for me by telling me how I should view the various positions in the round as if I accept your framework OR your opponent's framework -- do both because you don't know which framework I'm going to find more convincing. Unless one or both teams argue to judge the round otherwise, I default to hypothesis testing of the resolution. But I'm certainly willing to be convinced to judge the round in other ways. For example, if you argue a K, just make sure to do a good job convincing me that it's important for me to judge based on the K rather than on the typical framework (i.e., hypothesis testing).

Specifically regarding Ks, if it seems to me that you're just running the K to score a win in the debate round rather than actually caring about the issue being Kritik-ed, you can convince me to vote on it; but you'll find it easier to convince me if you actual care about the issue and legitimately believe the other team is exacerbating the problem. Also, for both Aff and Neg, focus on the "Alt". The Alt should be concrete to the point where I can understand what happens in the world if we do the Alt.

Other argument types:

T - Of course. My default is hypothesis testing unless you tell me otherwise.

CP - A good counterplan debate is great fun. Although CPs are easiest when non-topical and competitive, I'm willing to hear theory arguments that I should allow an exception.

DAs - These are the meat of all good hypothesis testing rounds. Make sure to pay good attention to the internal links in the DA. Also, I'm happy to vote for DAs that don't cause nuclear war. When I debated, my favorite DA was "deficits" which often just led to economic collapse. I'm happy to vote for a DA that causes highly probably harms that are moderately bad, and I find those more convincing than DAs that cause unlikely but world-ending harm.

Case - Please argue case. If nothing more, if you're Neg, please at least make a few arguments against case's solvency and whatever their biggest harms are. If the Neg leaves case with 100% solvency and no doubt about the harms, I find it hard to vote down the Aff. Vice-versa when you're Aff.

Performance Affs/Negs - Your #1 goal in the round (sine qua non) will be to convince me that I should judge the round in a non-traditional way that matches your performance goal. For the Neg, I've found that taking the strategy that I shouldn't vote in that non-traditional way isn't always best -- good Affs are very prepared for that strategy (so this usually only wins against teams that aren't well prepared to run their Aff). So, as the Neg, consider the strategy of accepting the basic premise but do it better (e.g., more inclusive, etc.) than the Aff.

For all of these, remember that clash is critical. Go beyond the taglines to debate the warrants (reasoning) behind the other team's arguments vs. the reasoning behind your own arguments. Then go one step further and help me understand how your argument fits into the larger context of the round to "write my ballot" during your rebuttal speeches.

Experience-This will be my fifth year as the head coach at Northview High School. Before moving to Georgia, I coached for 7 years at Marquette High in Milwaukee, WI.

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is mcekanordebate@gmail.com

*As I have gained more coaching and judging experience, I find that I highly value teams who respect their opponents who might not have the same experience as them. This includes watching how you come across in CX, prep time, and your general comportment towards your opponent. In some local circuits, circuit-style policy debate is dwindling and we all have a responsibility to be respectful of the experience of everyone trying to be involved in policy debate.*

I recommend that you go to the bathroom and fill your water bottles before the debate rather than before a speech.

LD Folks please read the addendum at the end of my paradigm.

Meta-Level Strike Sheet Concerns

1. Debates are rarely won or lost on technical concessions or truth claims alone. In other words, I think the “tech vs. truth” distinction is a little silly. Technical concessions make it more complicated to win a debate, but rarely do they make wins impossible. Keeping your arguments closer to “truer” forms of an argument make it easier to overcome technical concessions because your arguments are easier to identify, and they’re more explicitly supported by your evidence (or at least should be). That being said, using truth alone as a metric of which of y’all to pick up incentivizes intervention and is not how I will evaluate the debate.

2. Evidence quality matters a bunch to me- it’s evidence that you have spent time and effort on your positions, it’s a way to determine the relative truth level of your claims, and it helps overcome some of the time constraints of the activity in a way that allows you to raise the level of complexity of your position in a shorter amount of time. I will read your evidence throughout the debate, especially if it is on a position with which I’m less familiar. I won’t vote on evidence comparison claims unless it becomes a question of the debate raised by either team, but I will think about how your evidence could have been used more effectively by the end of the debate. I enjoy rewarding teams for evidence quality.

3. Every debate could benefit from more comparative work particularly in terms of the relative quality of arguments/the interactions between arguments by the end of the round. Teams should ask "Why?", such as "If I win this argument, WHY is this important?", "If I lose this argument WHY does this matter?". Strategically explaining the implications of winning or losing an argument is the difference between being a middle of the road team and a team advancing to elims.

4. Some expectations for what should be present in arguments that seem to have disappeared in the last few years-

-For me to vote on a single argument, it must have a claim, warrant, impact, and impact comparison.

-A DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link and impact argument is presented.Too many teams are getting away with 2 card DA shells in the 1NC and then reading uniqueness walls in the block. I will generally allow for new 1AR answers.

Similarly, CP's should have a solvency advocate read in the 1NC. I'll be flexible on allowing 1AR arguments in a world where the aff makes an argument about the lack of a solvency advocate.

-Yes, terminal defense exists, however, I do not think that teams take enough advantage of this kind of argument in front of me. I will not always evaluate the round through a lens of offense-defense, but you still need to make arguments as to why I shouldn’t by at least explaining why your argument functions as terminal defense. Again this plays into evidence questions and the relative impacts of arguments claims made above.

Specifics

Case-Debates are won or lost in the case debate. By this, I mean that proving whether or not the aff successfully accesses all, some or none of the case advantages has implications on every flow of the debate and should be a fundamental question of most 2NRs and 2ARs. I think that blocks that are heavy in case defense or impact turns are incredibly advantageous for the neg because they enable you to win any CP (by proving the case defense as a response to the solvency deficit), K (see below) or DA (pretty obvious). I'm also more likely than others to write a presumption ballot or vote neg on inherency arguments. If the status quo solves your aff or you're not a big enough divergence, then you probably need to reconsider your approach to the topic.

Most affs can be divided into two categories: affs with a lot of impacts but poor internal links and affs with very solid internal links but questionable impacts. Acknowledging in which of these two categories the aff you are debating falls should shape how you approach the case debate. I find myself growing increasingly disappointed by negative teams that do not test weak affirmatives. Where's your internal link defense?? I also miss judging impact turn debates, but don't think that spark or wipeout are persuasive arguments. A high level de-dev debate or heg debate, on the other hand, love it.

DA-DAs are questions of probability. Your job as the aff team when debating a DA is to use your defensive arguments to question the probability of the internal links to the DA. Affirmative teams should take more advantage of terminal defense against disads. I'll probably also have a lower threshold for your theory arguments on the disad. Likewise, the neg should use turns case arguments as a reason why your DA calls into question the probability of the aff's internal links. Don't usually find "____ controls the direction of the link" arguments very persuasive. You need to warrant out that claim more if you're going to go for it. Make more rollback-style turns case arguments or more creative turns case arguments to lower the threshold for winning the debate on the disad alone.

CP-CP debates are about the relative weight of a solvency deficit versus the relative weight of the net benefit. The team that is more comparative when discussing the solvency level of these debates usually wins the debate. While, when it is a focus of the debate, I tend to err affirmative on questions of counterplan competiton, I have grown to be more persuaded by a well-executed counterplan strategy even if the counterplan is a process counterplan. The best counterplans have a solvency advocate who is, at least, specific to the topic, and, best, specific to the affirmative. I do not default to judge kicking the counterplan and will be easily persuaded by an affirmative argument about why I should not default to that kind of in-round conditionality. Not a huge fan of the NGA CP and I've voted three out of four times on intrinsic permutations against this counterplan so just be warned. Aff teams should take advantage of presumption arguments against the CP.

K-Used to have a bunch of thoughts spammed here that weren't too easy to navigate pre-round. I've left that section at the bottom of the paradigm for the historical record, but here's the cleaned up version:

What does the ballot do? What is the ballot absolutely incapable of doing? What does the ballot justify? No matter if you are on the aff or the neg, defending the topic or not, these are the kinds of questions that you need to answer by the end of the debate. As so much of K debating has become framework debates on the aff and the neg, I often find myself with a lot of floating pieces of offense that are not attached to a clear explanation of what a vote in either direction can/can't do.

T-Sitting through a bunch of framework debates has made me a better judge for topicality than I used to be. Comparative impact calculus alongside the use of strategic defensive arguments will make it easier for me to vote in a particular direction. Certain interps have a stronger internal link to limits claims and certain affs have better arguments for overlimiting. Being specific about what kind of offense you access, how it comes first, and the relative strength of your internal links in these debates will make it more likely that you win my ballot. I’m not a huge fan of tickytacky topicality claims but, if there’s substantial contestation in the literature, these can be good debates.

Theory- I debated on a team that engaged in a lot of theory debates in high school. There were multiple tournaments where most of our debates boiled down to theory questions, so I would like to think that I am a good judge for theory debates. I think that teams forget that theory debates are structured like a disadvantage. Again, comparative impact calculus is important to win my ballots in these debates. I will say that I tend to err aff on most theory questions. For example, I think that it is probably problematic for there to be more than one conditional advocacy in a round (and that it is equally problematic for your counter interpretation to be dispositionality) and I think that counterplans that compete off of certainty are bad for education and unfair to the aff. The biggest killer in a theory debate is when you just read down your blocks and don’t make specific claims. Debate like your

Notes for the Blue Key RR/Other LD Judging Obligations

Biggest shift for me in judging LD debates is the following: No tricks or intuitively false arguments. I'll vote on dropped arguments, but those arguments need a claim, data, warrant and an impact for me to vote on them. If I can't explain the argument back to you and the implications of that argument on the rest of the debate, I'm not voting for you.

I guess this wasn't clear enough the first time around- I don't flow off the document and your walls of framework and theory analytics are really hard to flow when you don't put any breaks in between them.

Similarly, phil debates are always difficult for me to analyze. I tend to think affirmative's should defend implementation particularly when the resolution specifies an actor. Outside of my general desire to see some debates about implementation, I don't have any kind of background in the phil literature bases and so will have a harder time picturing the implications of you winning specific arguments. If you want me to understand how your argumets interact, you will have to do a lot of explanation.

Theory debates- Yes, I said that I enjoy theory debates in my paradigm above and that is largely still true, but CX theory debates are a lot less technical than LD debates. I also think there are a lot of silly theory arguments in LD and I tend to have a higher threshold for those sorts of arguments. I also don't have much of a reference for norm setting in LD or what the norms actually are. Take that into account if you choose to go for theory and probably don't because I won't award you with high enough speaks for your liking.

K debates- Yes, I enjoy K debates but I tend to think that their LD variant is very shallow. You need to do more specific work in linking to the affirmative and developing the implications of your theory of power claims. While I enjoy good LD debates on the K, I always feel like I have to do a lot of work to justify a ballot in either direction. This is magnified by the limited amount of time that you have to develop your positions.

Old K Paradigm (2020-2022)

After y’all saw the school that I coach, I’m sure this is where you scrolled to first which is fair enough given how long it takes to fill out pref sheets. I will say, if you told me 10 years ago when I began coaching that I’d be coaching a team that primarily reads the K on the aff and on the neg, I probably would have found that absurd because that wasn’t my entry point into the activity so keep that in mind as you work with some of the thoughts below. That being said, I’ve now coached the K at a high level for the past two years which means that I have some semblance of a feeling for a good K debate. If the K is not something that you traditionally go for, you’re better off going for what you’re best at.

The best debates on the K are debates over the explanatory power of the negative’s theory of power relative to the affirmative’s specific example of liberalism, realism, etc. Put another way, the best K debaters are familiar enough with their theory of power AND the affirmative’s specific impact scenarios that they use their theory to explain the dangers of the aff. By the end of the 2NR I should have a very clear idea of what the affirmative does and how your theory explains why doing the affirmative won’t resolve the aff’s impacts or results in a bad thing. This does not necessarily mean that you need to have links to the affirmative’s mechanism (that’s probably a bit high of a research burden), but your link explanations need to be specific to the aff and should be bolstered by specific quotes from 1AC evidence or CX. The specificity of your link explanation should be sufficient to overcome questions of link-uniqueness or I’ll be comfortable voting on “your links only link to the status quo.”

On the flipside, aff teams need to explain why their contingency or specific example of policy action cannot be explained by the negative’s theory of power or that, even if some aspects can be, that the specificity of the aff’s claims justifies voting aff anyway because there’s some offense against the alternative or to the FW ballot. Affirmative teams that use the specificity of the affirmative to generate offense or push back against general link claims will win more debates than those that just default to generic “extinction is irreversible” ballots.

Case Page when going for the K- My biggest pet peeve with the current meta on the K is the role of the case page. Neither the affirmative nor the negative take enough advantage of this page to really stretch out their opponents on this question. For the negative, you need to be challenging the affirmative’s internal links with defense that can bolster some of your thesis level claims. Remember, you are trying to DISPROVE the affirmative’s contingent/specific policy which means that the more specificity you have the better off you will be. This means that just throwing your generic K links onto the case page probably isn’t the move. 9/10 the alternative doesn’t resolve them and you don’t have an explanation of how voting neg resolves the offense. K teams so frequently let policy affs get away with some really poor evidence quality and weak internal links. Please help the community and deter policy teams from reading one bad internal link to their heg aff against your [INSERT THEORY HERE] K. On that note, policy teams, why are you removing your best internal links when debating the K? Your generic framework cards are giving the neg more things to impact turn and your explanation of the internal link level of the aff is lowered when you do that. Read your normal aff against the K and just square up.

Framework debates (with the K on the neg) For better or worse, so much of contemporary K debate is resolved in the framework debate. The contemporary dependence on framework ballots means a couple of things:

1.) Both teams need to do more work here- treat this like a DA and a CP. Compare the relative strength of internal link claims and impact out the terminal impacts. Why does procedural fairness matter? What is the terminal impact to clash? How do we access your skills claims? What does/does not the ballot resolve? To what extent does the ballot resolve those things? The team that usually answers more of these questions usually wins these debates. K teams need to do more to push back against “ballot can solve procedural fairness” claims and aff teams need to do more than just “schools, family, culture, etc.” outweigh subject formation. Many of you all spend more time at debate tournaments or doing debate work than you do at school or doing schoolwork.

2.) I do think it’s possible for the aff to win education claims, but you need to do more comparative impact calculus. What does scenario planning do for subject formation that is more ethical than whatever the impact scenario is to the K? If you can’t explain your education claims at that level, just go for fairness and explain why the ballot can resolve it.

3.) Risk of the link- Explain what winning framework does for how much of a risk of a link that I need to justify a ballot either way. Usually, neg teams will want to say that winning framework means they get a very narrow risk of a link to outweigh. I don’t usually like defaulting to this but affirmative teams very rarely push back on this risk calculus in a world where they lose framework. If you don’t win that you can weigh the aff against the K, aff teams need to think about how they can use their scenarios as offense against the educational claims of the K. This can be done as answers to the link arguments as well, though you’ll probably need to win more pieces of defense elsewhere on the flow to make this viable.

Do I go for the alternative?

I don’t think that you need to go for the alternative if you have a solid enough framework push in the 2NR. However, few things to keep in mind here:

1.) I won’t judge kick the alternative for you unless you explicitly tell me to do it and include a theoretical justification for why that’s possible.

2.) The framework debate should include some arguments about how voting negative resolves the links- i.e. what is the kind of ethical subject position endorsed on the framework page that pushes us towards research projects that avoid the links to the critique? How does this position resolve those links?

3.) Depending on the alternative and the framework interpretation, some of your disads to the alternative will still link to the framework ballot. Smart teams will cross apply these arguments and explain why that complicates voting negative.

K affs (Generic)

Yes, I’m comfortable evaluating debates involving the K on the aff and think that I’ve reached a point where I’m pretty good for either side of this debate. Affirmative teams need to justify an affirmative ballot that beats presumption, especially if you’re defending status quo movements as examples of the aff’s method. Both teams benefit from clarifying early in the round whether or not the affirmative team spills up, whether or not in-round performances specific to this debate resolve any of the affirmative offense, and whatever the accumulation of ballots does or does not do for the aff. Affirmative teams that are not the Louisville project often get away with way too much by just reading a DSRB card and claiming their ballots function the same way. Aff teams should differentiate their ballot claims and negatives should make arguments about the aff’s homogenizing ballot claims. All that being said, like I discussed above, these debates are won and lost on the case page like any other debate. As the K becomes more normalized and standardized to a few specific schools of thought, I have a harder and harder time separating the case and framework pages on generic “we couldn’t truth test your arguments” because I think that shifts a bit too strongly to the negative. That said, I can be persuaded to separate the two if there’s decent time spent in the final rebuttals on this question.

Framework vs. the K Aff

Framework debates are best when both teams spend time comparing the realities of debate in the status quo and the idealized form of debate proposed in model v. model rounds. In that light, both teams need to be thinking about what proposing framework in a status quo where the K is probably going to stick around means for those teams that currently read the K and for those teams that prefer to directly engage the resolution. In a world where the affirmative defends the counter interpretation, the affirmative should have an explanation of what happens when team don’t read an affirmative that meets their model. Most of the counter interpretations are arbitrary or equivalent to “no counter interpretation”, but an interp being arbitrary is just defense that you can still outweigh depending on the offense you’re winning.

In impact turn debates, both teams need to be much clearer about the terminal impacts to their offense while providing an explanation as to why voting in either direction resolves them. After sitting in so many of these debates, I tend to think that the ballot doesn’t do much for either team but that means that teams who have a better explanation of what it means to win the ballot will usually pick up my decision. You can’t just assert that voting negative resolves procedural fairness without warranting that out just like you can’t assert that the aff resolves all forms of violence in debate through a single debate. Both teams need to grapple with how the competitive incentives for debate establish offense for either side. The competitive incentive to read the K is strong and might counteract some of the aff’s access to offense, but the competitive incentives towards framework also have their same issues. Neither sides hands are clean on that question and those that are willing to admit it are usually better off. I have a hard time setting aside clash as an external impact due to the fact that I’m just not sure what the terminal impact is. I like teams that go for clash and think that it usually is an important part of negative strategy vs. the K, but I think this strategy is best when the clash warrants are explained as internal link turns to the aff’s education claims. Some of this has to due with the competitive incentives arguments that I’ve explained above. Both teams need to do more work explaining whether or not fairness or education claims come first. It’s introductory-level impact analysis I find lacking in many of these debates.

Other things to think about-

1.) These debates are at their worst when either team is dependent on blocks. Framework teams should be particularly cautious about this because they’ve had less of these debates over the course of the season, however, K teams are just as bad at just reading their blocks through the 1AR. I will try to draw a clean line between the 1AR and the 2AR and will hold a pretty strict one in debates where the 1AR is just screaming through blocks. Live debating contextualized to this round far outweighs robots with pre-written everything.

2.) I have a hard time pulling the trigger on arguments with “quitting the activity” as a terminal impact. Any evidence on either side of this question is usually anecdotal and that’s not enough to justify a ballot in either direction. There are also a bunch of alternative causes to numbers decline like the lack of coaches, the increased technical rigor of high-level policy debate, budgets, the pandemic, etc. that I think thump most of these impacts for either side. More often than not, the people that are going to stick with debate are already here but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to the kinds of harms to the activity/teams as teams on either side of the clash question learn to coexist.

K vs. K Debates (Overview)

I’ll be perfectly honest, unless this is a K vs. Cap debate, these are the debates that I’m least comfortable evaluating because I feel like they end up being some of the messiest and “gooiest” debates possible. That being said, I think that high level K vs. K debates can be some of the most interesting to evaluate if both teams have a clear understanding of the distinctions between their positions, are able to base their theoretical distinctions in specific, grounded examples that demonstrate potential tradeoffs between each position, and can demonstrate mutual exclusivity outside of the artificial boundary of “no permutations in a method debate.” At their best, these debates require teams to meet a high research burden which is something that I like to reward so if your strat is specific or you can explain it in a nuanced way, go for it. That said, I’m not the greatest for teams whose generic position in these debates are to read “post-truth”/pomo arguments against identity positions and I feel uncomfortable resolving competing ontology claims in debates around identity unless they are specific and grounded. I feel like most debates are too time constrained to meaningfully resolve these positions. Similarly, teams that read framework should be cautious about reading conditional critiques with ontology claims- i.e. conditional pessimism with framework. I’m persuaded by theoretical arguments about conditional ontology claims regarding social death and cross apps to framework in these debates.

I won’t default to “no perms in a methods debate”, though I am sympathetic to the theoretical arguments about why affs not grounded in the resolution are too shifty if they are allowed to defend the permutation. What gets me in these debates is that I think that the affirmative will make the “test of competition”-style permutation arguments anyway like “no link” or the aff is a disad/prereq to the alt regardless of whether or not there’s a permutation. I can’t just magically wave a theory wand here and make those kinds of distinctions go away. It lowers the burden way too much for the negative and creates shallow debates. Let’s have a fleshed out theory argument and you can persuade me otherwise. The aff still needs to win access to the permutation, but if you lose the theory argument still make the same kinds of arguments if you had the permutation. Just do the defensive work to thump the links.

Cap vs. K- I get the strategic utility of these debates, but this debate is becoming pretty stale for me. Teams that go for state-good style capitalism arguments need to explain the process of organization, accountability measures, the kind of party leadership, etc. Aff teams should generate offense off of these questions. Teams that defend Dean should have to defend psychoanalysis answers. Teams that defend Escalante should have specific historical examples of dual power working or not in 1917 or in post-Bolshevik organization elsewhere. Aff teams should force Dean teams to defend psycho and force Escalante teams to defend historical examples of dual power. State crackdown arguments should be specific. I fear that state crackdown arguments will apply to both the alternative and the aff and the team that does a better job describing the comparative risk of crackdown ends up winning my argument. Either team should make more of a push about what it means to shift our research practices towards or away from communist organizing. There are so many debates where we have come to the conclusion that the arguments we make in debate don’t spill out or up and, yet, I find debates where we are talking about politically organizing communist parties are still stuck in some universe where we are doing the actual organizing in a debate round. Tell me what a step towards the party means for our research praxis or provide disads to shifting the resource praxis. All the thoughts on the permutation debate are above. I’m less likely to say no permutation in these debates because there is plenty of clash in the literature between, at least, anti-capitalism and postcapitalism that there can be a robust debate even if you don’t have specifics. That being said, the more you can make ground your theory in specific examples the better off you’ll be.

Put me on the chain with this email: chen.kent@husky.neu.edu

Did policy for 4 years in hs

I don't care if you run kritik or policy as an aff just make policy interesting if you are. I vote on the flow, Don't just read a card and don't explain why you win on an argument. Make sure you know what you're saying. Please clash and explain, it makes it easier for me to vote. Do the work for me on the flow.

I can't stress this enough, please explain why you win an argument and why you should win. It gives you so many advantages to just tell me what to do on the flow rather than assume that I'll know what your intent is.

Sign-post, makes it easier to flow.

Roadmap, makes it easier to flow.

I'm okay with whatever speed you read at, just make sure I can understand what you're saying.

Generally I give 28's. Please don't make me give anything below.

Generally you should pref me low if you a policy aff, if you do run policy make it interesting. I don't like the use of nuclear war as an impact for extinction, something like climate change as an impact is better.

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know:do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They givepoorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debateand try to find themost creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that,when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparisonis under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school.If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge onimpact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff.The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I amtowards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points givehighly organizedandstructuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, andemphasize key momentsin their speeches.
• Just like most judges,the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview anddo as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them.I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained.The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NCfor me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefercase-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kickthe CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possiblebut difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think thatI lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here.Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judgeintervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast,being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher pointsand never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards.It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

Here is my email for the email chain:

Williamc0402@gmail.com

Here is my short biography for you to know who I am:
Hi, my name is William. I finished a PhD in German at NYU. My focus was on literature, critical theory, and to some extent black studies.
As for debate experience, I used to debate for CUNY debate in college for 4 years, reading critical arguments in the Northeast. I won a handful of regional tournaments and broke at CEDA. I also coach for Brooklyn Technical High School (sometimes we sign up at Brooklyn Independent). I have been coaching there for 8 years and have had my debaters make it far in national tournaments as well as qualify for the TOC a bunch. Because I work with Brooklyn Tech (a UDL school), I am also connected to the NYCUDL.

Here is the start of my paradigm:
As everyone else says, rule of thumb: DO WHAT YOU’RE GOOD AT
Whether your go-to strat is to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks, a straight up disad/cp, or a one-off K; I will be more than happy to judge your round…
given that you:

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have some trouble adjudicating what you’ve said.
2) Properly explain your positions—don’t make an assumption that I know you the abbreviations you use, the specific DA scenario you're going for (perhaps fill me in on the internal link chains), or the K jargon you're using. Help me out!
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles between your own positions compared to those of the other team.

4) Frame things— tell me how I should prioritize impacts otherwise I will default to util (see section at the bottom)
5) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
6) Write the ballot for me in your 2nr/2ar, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Prioritize your best offense and tell me why that offense is critical to evaluating the round—force me to evaluate the debate through a prism that has you winning

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations and util unless an alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round are introduced

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise

3) I will avoid looking at evidence unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate though my own experience debating and coaching revolves around mostly K debate.

Grady High School 2016 - 4 years Policy

I've been out of the debate scene for the past 2ish years so haven't kept up to date about the 'K affs vs. framework' debate. I've read K affs and gone for framework so I'm open to either side as long as positions are clearly argued.

CP's - Great. Generic Consult/Process counterplans are an uphill battle though.

DA's/Case - Always a solid option. If you can prove there's no risk of the aff, then I'm willing to vote on presumption.

Kritiks - I'm pretty comfortable with kritik literature so feel free to read whatever.

Topicality - Always a voting issue & I'll evaluate it before I look at theory.

Theory - Should always be contextualized with examples of in-round abuse.

I'm Tanzil -- debated policy at Chandler High School and Arizona State University for a total of eight years, coached policy debate at Hamilton High School for four years. Currently a graduate student at Cal and help out here and there with ASU and HHS's debate teams. Policy paradigm follows from here, paradigm for other forms of debate continues below, follow the bolded headers.

2022 Update:

I have not judged debate at all this year and have basically no familiarity with the topic. If there are buzzwords or acronyms specific to this year's topic, please use the explain and/or use the full phrase at least once before reverting to the buzzword/acronym.

Quick Coronavirus/Virtual Update:

Main thing is that y'all should slow down in virtual debates -- speak at, say, 60-70% of your in-person speed. Obviously this is dependent on internet connection and all so this won't hurt your speaks or anything unless I call repeatedly for you to slow down (which I'll do verbally with a "CLEAR" or "SPEED"). Obviously virtual debating is still newfangled so let's all be patient with each other as we figure it out. Much love.

Send speech docs and questions to tanzil.chowdhury98@gmail.com -- please include me on the email chain.

Functional Tidbits: Prep time ends when the email is sent out or the flash drive leaves the computer, unless you are a novice, in which case please just do your best to be speedy with your technology. I will not disclose until your wiki is updated. My speaker point baseline is 28.7, which means that if you are somewhere between 3-3 and 4-2 and sounding pretty alright that's the sort of score you'll get. I won't look at your speech doc/cards during your speech, and will not look at them at all unless i am a) explicitly asked to and/or b) feel as though I cannot make my decision without looking at them because some unresolved question about the evidence remains at the end of the debate. I generally flow straight down an excel sheet on my computer and do the work of lining things up as I make the decision, unless something is very clearly flagged (which I do appreciate). I make decisions quite quickly in many situations, though this usually is not a signal that the debate was not close -- it's more that I am constantly evaluating the quality of arguments at every point in the debate, and usually things clear up re; argument quality well before the 2NR/2AR. Please do take notes as I give my RFD, there's not really a point in my spending time to explain my decision and give feedback if you won't write it down. I love to hear questions from the debaters afterwards.

Actual Paradigm: I don't think that I believe anything that is radically different from any other competent policy debate judge out there, so for the most part I'm good for you on most any strategy or style of argumentation -- everything except that which is outright offensive is equally valid in a vacuum. There are a few specific places where my opinion may differ from others, so I'll try to outline those for you below.

a) I have a very hard time voting for fairness as an intrinsic impact on Framework. Winning that debate is a game does not automatically make you win that fairness is an intrinsic good; "debate is a game" is a descriptive claim that very well may be true, but framework is a debate about competing models, meaning that the prescriptive claim "debate ought not be a game" will almost always beat that. Given that every (competent) 2AC to framework will say that, you're better off just defending why your model of debate is a good thing if you're the negative, usually meaning that it is a more educational model.

b) The thing I appreciate most during the rounds I judge is the ability for teams to make clear decisions and then communicate those decisions to me. It shows me that you have the ability to understand the debate as more than just a series of disconnected arguments and that you have considered the strategy of what you are saying before you say it. As such, I am very much against the concept of the judge-kick. This is usually a big problem during Kritik debates; I will never kick the alt "for you", and in a situation where the alternative is not explicitly kicked, I will evaluate the debate as Aff v. Alt. This means that even if you win a significant risk of a link and impact, I will still likely vote for the affirmative in the absence of an alternative which can resolve that link. The reasoning behind this is debate 101: the alternative exists to provide uniqueness for the link, and I cannot vote for a non-unique DA. To be clear, I'm totally for you kicking the alt and establishing the uniqueness in some other way, if you think that is the best strategic move.

c) For K debaters, being "wrong about the theory" is offense, assuming there's at least a bit of impact work done on the consequence of being wrong about the theory. What this means is that in debates where there is a high-level theoretical basis for your opponent's arguments (i.e. for certain flavors of afropessimism, "anti-blackness is ontological"), you ought draw clear lines of comparison between your theoretical disagreement with that claim (i.e., your analysis of anti-blackness concludes that it is not-ontological and is instead [insert position here]).

d) Ethos and Pathos matter in my decisionmaking, the former generally moreso than the latter, though not by much. I'm a big believer in the idea that the way you choose and execute your arguments at every point in the debate is constitutive of your "ethos" as debaters. To be clear, I don't mean this in the sense of a personal judgment of the debaters, but rather in the sense that your ethos and ethic(s) are inherently intertwined. It shouldn't be a controversial statement that judging is done based on the way the debaters formulate ethics, so obviously one's ethos must then also play a role in the decision.


For the other debates:

LD:
Having had to coach one lad in LD for the past year, I've developed some thoughts on the activity that may be relevant to you, if for some reason you have to deal with the perils of having me as a judge. For what it's worth, if both of the debaters have agreed to run the round as the mutated, gross, slug-like abomination you all refer to as "progressive" (it really means anything but! words mean things!) debate, then effectively everything in the above section applies to you. Everything in the "Other" section likely applies to your regardless of how you debate. If not, the following is what you should keep in mind: LD's value lies precisely in its form, and while that form may shift (I certainly am not some sort of reactionary that believes you ought to lose if you don't tell me your Value, your Value Criterion, and remember to say "Thus I affirm/negate" at the end of your speeches), we ought to understand why that form existed in the first place, and how such forms color the way we debate things. What this means for you LDers is that you should not shy away from the central question of your event: ethics. It is upon the question of ethics LD (and all debate, really) lies, and to act as if you don't have an ethic (you most certainly do), or to obscure your ethic (which you all seem to have a great penchant for doing), is to shy away from any of the value of this activity. And this is precisely why the form of LD has existed as such (it's my view that what we call "the K", or at least its central questions, has existed in LD since LD's inception), with defenses of the whole resolution, with the Values and Value Criterions, with every case beginning with a Framework etc. I know you may feel that it is strategic to treat this as a one-person policy debate, and it very well may be in many cases, but that is just because you decided to make the switch before truly getting a grasp on why the activity has been as it is for so long. Tell me, what is the value of reading the K as an "off-case" position when the traditional case-structure already has the in-built mechanisms for making the criticisms you want to make? Of course this is rhetorical, and the answer I believe to be true is that it is cowardice. Stop being cowards. Take a stand upon your ethics (even if they are the conventionally boring ethics of our Kants and our Humes and our Benthams, that purely English phenomenon himself [speaker point bonus if you know who called Bentham a purely english phenomenon]) and tell me why I as a judge should stand upon the same grounds you have chosen to stand on. And I bet (after a year of teching unsuspecting folks down on this very question when they did not expect it) that you will find competitive success in doing so.

PF:
I really don't understand this activity. I don't think it's possible for me to have any sort of stable, objective, or predictable method of judging PF because I'm not really sure if PF debate exists (I suppose I'll decide to explain what I mean by this as I'm writing the rest of this section, or maybe it will just become evident, though it likely does not mean what you think it means). To be fair, I don't think I have that for any form of debate really, but it's especially erratic when dealing with your lot. I suppose you should just do what you do, but I really have a low, low, LOW tolerance for inane stupidity, which is what I've had to deal with in the PF rounds I have had the displeasure of judging thus far (except one, which was surprisingly very good for a novice debate). If Policy and LD suffer from an over-reliance on the logical appeal, PF has the opposite problem where the logical appeal is so rarely used (and I know you all believe yourselves to be making such appeals, you just aren't actually doing so) that the debate is just nothing-speak for whatever ridiculously short amount of time (the only redeemable aspect of this activity) you all are allotted to torture me with. So, all I ask is that you speak of something, and when you speak of something, you are referring to something that is not totally positioned in a fantasy dreamt up in the empty space of your brain in that moment. As such, do not say things like: "Islamic Terrorism kills millions of people every day", or "THAT IS YOUR BURDEN TO ANSWER" when it is clearly not, or [insert overtly racist comment about Black people here that you, for some reason or another, do not believe to be racist]. Instead, make significant reference to the authors that supposedly (I write supposedly because more often than not, there is absolutely no care for evidence in this activity) provide the warrants and data for your arguments, and by reference I mean that in the direct, verbatim sense, because in all likelihood they know far more than you do about whatever it is you're talking about this month, and they can say it in a much better way than you can. There is a reason the other forms of debate are so reliant on the "card" (pieces of evidence cut as needed), and it is because they realized a long, long time ago that having vague name-drops and out-of-context quotes plopped into a poorly-written 10th grade English paper does not a good debate make. All forms of communication require a mutual intelligibility, some level of stable ground upon which those doing the communicating can stand upon and hurl their signs, and hopefully that which those signs signify, at one another in the hope of arriving at some new sign, which hopefully also signifies something that was previously not signified. And this is why I believe PF does not exist as the other debate forms do: I do not believe you all have such a ground. You all speak but the words are not meant to transcend themselves, they are words for the sake of words, and in this sense maybe it is best to call PF a form of collaborative literature rather than debate. Anyways, this is not a problem that cannot be fixed, and really the fix is quite easy: develop a common point to stand on (reference to evidence), and then draw out the consequences of such references. If you treat your "debates" like this, you stand the chance of having actual debates (and the chance to win my ballot, which is likely what you care about the most as you finish reading this unnecessarily long section about an activity I will probably a judge a total of 2 more times in the rest of my life, and I don't really blame you for wanting the ballot).

Congress: In the words of Rolling Stone's Greil Marcus, reviewing Bob Dylan's 1969 album Self-Portrait, "what is this s**t?"

Debate Round Non-negotiables:

-time yourselves for prep and speeches

-your prep still runs even when sending email chain/sharing evidence

-face judge and stand while speaking (spreading is okay just be sure to hit clear tag lines)

-Roadmaps and signposts

-No swearing unless purposeful to the case presented

Case Debates: Really enjoy good case debates. Smart analytics and close reading of aff evidence can get the neg far.

Aff: MUST read your solvency in the 1AC. Fine with K Aff's.

Neg team: Make sure your speeches are organized that paints a clear picture of how you're proving that the SQUO is better. Blended case filled with T, DA's, CP's or K's. You will not win with a sole impact of extinction. It doesn't convince me...ever.

CX: Can be open.

Rebuttals: Must include clear impact calc.

Hello! My name is Jonathan Collins, and if you're reading this you shouldn't pref me. I'm actually a terrible judge. If you are unfortunate enough to have me as your judge, then preferences, experience, and email are below.

Experience: Debated policy starting Sophomore year in High School (Currently an undergrad freshman). Was mostly on the Washington Urban Debate League Circuit but I went to a few National Circuit tournaments in high school. I currently debate policy at Harvard.

I will vote on any and all arguments. I enjoy both policy and criticisms. It is said a few times below but: Flow > my feelings

Spreading: Love it, just be clear. PLEASE slow down on theory debates and during rebuttals. I need to hear explanations for offense and defense. If I miss an argument on the flow it didn't happen.

Theory: Don't be afraid to go for theory, I will vote on it. Make sure to flesh out the impacts and be specific to the round. In order for me to vote on theory you need to explain why you're interp is the best model for debate. Bonus points if you can prove in-round impacts.

K: Explain the theory of your critique in the overview. I'm familiar with basic K literature but you should debate like I'm not. If you're reading blocks in the rebuttals on the K but can't answer basic Cx questions I know you don't understand your critique. Please understand your K if its gonna be in the 2NR.

-Don't underutilize the framework portion of the K. If you win the aff shouldn't be weighed + an impact I automatically vote neg.

-Make specific links. "They use the USFG" probably wont cut it

-I know its strategic to explain the alternative loosely, but it should defend some action, method, etc.

DA: You need to do impact calc and have taken a sizeable chunk out of the aff if a DA is your 2NR strat. "DA turns case" arguments are important too.

CP: Have a NB, solve the case, you win. If you don't solve 100% of case your NB needs to outweigh the impacts you don't solve for. I usually dont vote on perm theory but dont be afraid to go for it. Flow > my feelings.

T: Just prove the aff isn't topical and why that's bad. Nuanced topicality arguments have a special place in my heart so don't be afraid to define terms creatively. If the aff is explicitly non-topical it becomes a question of impacts and the best model for debate. Flow > my feelings

Affirmatives: Don't let the neg do the stuff above - and prove the aff is a good idea. Have 2AC and 2AR overviews and explain warrants. Make sure to use the case offensively against off-case positions. "Case solves a portion of the K", "Case link turns the DA", "Advantage 2 is a DA to the CP" are all arguments I like to hear.

To me, average speaker points is 28.

Please put me on the email chain: jonathancollins55@gmail.com

Please be courteous as well. I strongly dislike rude behavior, and that will affect speaker points. Most importantly have fun and learn something!

Debaters should speak clearly, especially the tag lines, if you want me to write it down on my flow.

If I cannot understand the debaters, nothing you say will be written down on my flow.

I like when debaters respect each other, and will take away speaker points if they are rude.

By the end of the round, be sure to tell me why you win and include impact calculus.

There is no reason for cursing or vulgar language in the debate space. If there is, speaker points will be taken away.

Tell me what you advocate.

tell me why it is not being done

tell me why it needs to be done

tell me why it is the best thing we should do

Lets make sure we are slowing down for analytics and tags because I sincerely need to be able to understand you to flow you.

Hi I'm Sunday! Nice to meet you! Here's my email: odeloss1@binghamton.edu i want to be on the email chain

I'm the coloring book person

I like Ks

But I'm not against policy arguments!

i think they are both viable strategies

all i really care about in the round is clash please engage with each other substantially i don't want to watch a debate where two teams are just talking at each other because thats boring and i dont want to be bored believe it or not. the point being anything is up for debate and i'm down to hear any of it as long as you arent being fucked up. dont think that if you say something antiblack or anti queer youre going to get away with it. i believe in people making mistakes and i believe that you can learn from them so if you say something that is blatantly violent and you know it is then don't double down on it. TLDR: don't spew out violent rhetoric but if you do then apologize

okay stuff yall care about:

i went back and looked at this and realized i have something to say beforehand so first first first of all. i think yall can tell me what to do. im here to facilitate the debate the way yall want and to deliberate. im not going to tell you that you cant play music or that i wont flow a poem. if you want me to try to a handstand while i listen to the 1ac i will try to do it. obviously im going to need to know why youre making me do things... but i think that debate isnt just about what you say but how you say it and how you present it. TLDR: sucker for judge instruction

onto the good stuff:

first of all yall need to actually explain your arguments to me. youre all very smart and youre all very persuasive but you can't just get up and start saying to extend every single card you read because that is not persuasive. you dont have to explain every single card but i need something to write down. a warrant perhaps :) if i dont understand something i wont vote for it. and you will know if i dont understand something because i probably wont be flowing it TLDR: make it make sense

T: i will vote for it. like seriously. you should have UQ links i/l and impacts. i dont think that going for just fairness as an impact will win you the round. i like clash, in depth debates, education, etc. as impacts and fairness can be an internal link. also i would like it if you had a persuasive TVA that actually tries to encapsulate some parts of the aff. I don't think you have to solve the entirety of the aff but you have to access their lit base. TLDR: win an impact

t against policy teams: cool

t against k teams: i like it better w a fw arg

for the aff: don't just say fw is bad and don't just say the state is bad. explain why doing the aff the way you want to do it is important for education for you for other debaters. you have to win your model of debate is good. or win that models of debate are bad (i went for that a lot :P) explain your counterinterp i don't think that you have to win that you solve the entire world. but you have to solve for something by reading the aff. read disads to their model. read disads to the TVA... answer the TVA. TLDR: actually answer t

the K! (im grouping the K and K affs together)

i don't know everything so don't expect me to know what you are talking about even if it seems likely that i would know what you are talking about. at some point in the debate just slow down and be like "here's the K/aff. here's what it does. here's why its good" i think that should be at the top of all your speeches but i just need one clear moment in the debate where you tell me what is going on. TLDR: i am lazy and do not want to do extra work so do it for me

For Ks I think that you don't need an alt but it doesn't hurt to have one either. You have to win your alt if you are going for it though I'm not going to kick it for you.

For K affs. win that you do something

misc: I love presumption. i love the case debate. neg teams: i will vote on the aff doesnt do anything the aff doesnt make any sense the aff is bad for debate. also you can read CP to K affs. shake it up. dance emoji

I am a student at New England School of Law Boston. I graduated from UMass Amherst with a degree in political science. I debated for 3 years at New Mission High School out of Boston. In a round, I look for confidence. I'm cool with any type of argument. I tend to vote on the flow. Please make sure your explanations are clear. Give me an impact calc!!

I want you to tell me why I should vote on certain arguments. Again, any type of argument is fine with me. Topicality, kritiks, Da's, CP's, and theory are all fine with me and I understand them when ran. Speaking wise, if you spread, make sure you at least go over your tag-lines slowly so that I can mark that down on the flow. Also, please stand during speeches and cross-ex. That's all. Let's all have a good time. Any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

To begin with: please be respectful to your partner and your opponents. This is of paramount importance. While we understand that this is a competition and situations, especially during cross examination, can reach high levels of intensity, that is no excuse for showing disrespect to any party involved.

ANY reference to an opponent with the use of a derogatory or racist term (even under the guise of a performance piece or simulation in the debate space) will NOT be tolerated.

As a general note, I greatly prefer topicality in the debate round. If you are running an AFF that is far away from the topic of the year (i.e. performance pieces, poetry, voluntary silence), you will have to work very hard in the round to show relation to the resolution. If either team is running a KRITIK, you will have a high threshold for proving that the topic as given by the NSDA is not worthy of being debated.

As for Topicality arguments, I believe that they usually do not hold up over the long haul of a round. After a certain point, they just become, for lack of a better term, a time waste. As long as the AFF team can prove that they are topical if the NEG team calls it into question, it will leave my flow sheet after the 2AC.

Speed reading DOES NOT impress me. If anything, I find it to be distracting from the debate. If you want me to have a clean flow, make sure that I can understand that information that you are trying to relay. I much prefer being "explained to" vs. "read at". There is a difference. If I can't make sense of your arguments, it will be hard to pick a side.

During the final two speeches (2NR & 2AR) I will be listening for you to tell me why YOU should win the round.

For the most part, we are all here as a learning experience, and to enjoy the clash of policy debate.
During your speeches, I will greatly appreciate clarity and slow-speaking, especially when reciting taglines and making important points. This will make it easier for me to analyze and flow what you are saying instead of struggling to keep up with what you are saying.

Please include me on all e-mail chain: adeluca@longbranch.k12.nj.us

email- dewhurst.benjamin2@gmail.com

Boston College '21. Currently I'm a law student, and I judge occasionally for BC, but I don't cut cards or work on the topic outside of tournaments, so my topic knowledge is limited.

Many of my thoughts below are related to kritik issues, since I debated and judge those debates a lot. When it comes to policy, I am generally agnostic on argument content but happy to answer specific questions if you have them.

Top Level

I'm no longer following along in the speech doc. I think it will make me a better judge, but it also means clarity is very important. Slow down on tags, take a brief pause in between cards.

By default, the role of the ballot is to decide a winner in the debate and the role of the judge is to vote for the team that does the better debating.

I start by answering prior questions like framework, rotb, etc. Then, I weigh each team's risk of offense. It's more likely that neither team has won their top level claims in a slam dunk fashion, so defensive arguments often influence my decision. To what extent can you access solvency in a world where the other team wins the top level issues?

Framework and K Aff Stuff

1. Affs should propose a method that has some relation to the topic.

2. I presume that something is good about debate because all of us are doing it. This means that arguments that talk about the function of debate have inherent weight and K affs need to impact turn the form of education endorsed by the neg. Alternatively, you can always impact turn debate but that's generally a harder argument to win.

3. Framework is most persuasive when you contextualize the abstract arguments about debate to the specific aff. "Their counterinterp explodes limits because it's not predictable" <<<< "Their counterinterp is not predictable because it specifically justifies doing x y and z on the aff which makes debate bad because of x y and z"

4. I often find myself voting for neg teams on framework because the aff hasnt contextualized their ontology claims to the function of debate itself. The world can be bad and "topical" debate can still be good within that context. Affs need an argument for how debate should be.

5. Affs impact turning framework should distinguish it from other types of arguments. Negs often beat that offense on characterizing it as just another form of negation.

Other General Thoughts

1. Quality of link explanation matters a lot, especially on this topic where a lot of the common internal links are closely related. Eg, what's unique about first use capability? Why is that specifically important to the link?

2. Perms need to be fleshed out, the earlier the better. I can't vote on a perm if I don't understand what it does.

3. Kritiks against a plan:

--- I almost always give the most weight to the link explanation. Pulling lines from the 1AC's evidence is always a great move.

--- Kritiks can impact turn the aff's method and never need an alternative, but they're usually better off with one.

--- Don't just read a 4 minute K overview and then cross apply it to everything on the line by line. I don't view that as persuasive.

4. I don't appreciate card dump neg blocks. By that I don't mean not to read cards, but extending and explaining your 1NC link evidence is better than reading 3 new link cards that argue the same thing. New cards should have a specific purpose.

5. I am open to any theory against counterplans, but I am unlikely to vote on any theory arguments that aren't contextualized to the round.

6. I have a hard time seeing something as an "independent voting issue" when you spend less than 10 seconds on it in the last rebuttal.

7. Right now, I think this topic is severely limited against the aff, which makes topicality a harder sell.

8. I think politics disads lead to fun and interesting debates. I do think the old school "politics is not germane" argument has some merit. I'll give extra speaks to anyone who actually goes for that argument.

.

Good luck, have fun, and feel free to ask any questions. I always aim to become a better judge, and I don't always phrase things perfectly so I'm happy to explain more on any issue.

Teams that do not solve under their role of the ballot are like teams that lose at home games..embarrassments jk but seriously. You must solve under your own role of the ballot.

Don’t spread I will yell CLEAR if you sound like a hummingbird. People don't spread at job interviews. This is a job interview make me hire you.

Impact calculous is the most important thing in debate.

Spend more time telling me why you should win instead of why your opponents should lose. My job is to pick a winner.

um impacts...nuclear war I need you to actually articulate the impact's story and explain why it matters. For some reason people don't try solving for things like hunger or creating jobs. As an adult I can tell you, these are things that really matter in life.

I am the Upper School Debate Coach at Sidwell Friends School. My email is downesc@sidwell.edu — please put me on the email chain if there is one.

CX

Some stuff you probably care about:

Ks, K affs, performance, and other, non-normative ways of engaging with debate and the resolution are fun and fine in my personal view, but I've voted for framework before and I have no doubt I will again. Even if I think you're being a little bit of a cop about it. I can be convinced of a lot in the space of the round about the proper purposes and form of the activity, but I think the traditional arguments for the virtues of topical, plan-focused, switch-side debate are substantial.

Speed is ok. Clarity is essential. Paperless debate has gotten debaters into some very bad habits, among which is thinking that they can rely on judges to read speech docs to reconstruct basically unintelligible 1ACs and 1NCs. I won't be doing that. This is an oral advocacy competition. It's basically impossible to articulate a brightline on this but them's the breaks. So consider being conservative on this front. That goes double if the debate is online: you're just flatly not as clear as if we were sitting in a room together and I need you to slow down to compensate for that.

Some stuff I care about:

Cross ex matters. It is a speech, it's binding, we named the event after it, I pay very close attention to it and I firmly believe rounds can be won and lost in cross. It's also just the most dynamic and fun part of the round for me. I have given up on trying to fight for closed cross but just know it's very embarrassing if your 1N can't answer basic questions about the K alt or your 1A can't answer basic questions about your solvency mechanism and if that's obvious it'll be reflected in speaks.

I will vote on defense. A well-articulated, warranted, and contextualized no link argument extended into the last rebuttal can absolutely get me to give zero weight to an impact where the link story is poorly articulated and badly warranted. Relatedly, I will vote on presumption and feel strongly that the aff has the initial burden of persuasion. I realize this all makes me sound a million years old. I don't care.

I care about being told a coherent story. Contradictory off-case neg positions turn me off for that reason, even if you collapse down to some kind of plausibly non-contradictory position in the 2NR and are feeding me a "testing the aff from multiple perspectives good" line. Performative contradiction arguments or clever cross applications between flows are attractive to me for similar reasons.

Presentation matters. A good presentation in a policy round often isn't the same thing as good presentation in other forms of oral advocacy. But you fundamentally want to make me like your debate persona, and if I do I will be looking for reasons to pick you up. If you come off as cruel or a bully, I'll be looking for reasons to drop you.

PF

I think evidence violations of various kinds are, unfortunately, pervasive in PF, as a consequence of bad disclosure and evidence exchange practices combined with the use of paraphrasing. In part as a response to this concerning state of affairs, I hold students to a high standard on evidence ethics and have a comparatively low threshold for voting on this stuff or signing a ballot on an evidence violation. I will ask for evidence I think sounds fake or misrepresented. I will take an evidence ethics issue to tab on my own initiative even if not raised by your opponents.

I try to evaluate PF according to its own standards rather than just being a transplanted policy hack (which is admittedly what I am). To my mind a good PF round should look not dissimilar from talking heads on a cable news show discussing current events. It should be intelligible and engaging to an educated and informed lay audience. And that means this is not an event that should privilege a fast, technical, evidence-driven style of debating. I'm perfectly capable of flowing and judging fast, technical rounds, but I am flatly not going to hold debaters to the same kind of standards on this stuff that I would in a policy round and will afford significantly more leeway to less technical presentations than I might in CX.

For related reasons, I have a very high threshold for voting on theory in PF. If you do not have a credible in-round abuse story or it looks like you are cynically using highly technical theory arguments to bully a less technical team I will be spending the entirety of the debate looking for any halfway justifiable excuse to drop you.

Courtesy and promptness in satisfying requests for cards are something that I will take into account in speaker points. As far as I am concerned (and per NSDA rules), your opponents are well within their rights to ask for every piece of evidence you read or paraphrase, which you must then promptly provide to them in a manner which clearly shows, through e.g. highlighting or underlining, what portions of the evidence you read or paraphrased.

Congress

If you are giving a speech that is not an authorship speech and it contains no clash, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech. If you are giving a speech that is not an authorship speech and you appear to be reading the speech in its entirety, with no extemporaneous elements at all, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech. If your speech is substantially repetitive of prior speeches, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech.

I will generally rank a PO who effectively manages the chamber at #3. Other than the PO, I rank largely based on my scoring of speeches.

LD

I never did this event, don't coach this event, and have judged it only a handful of times. I do have a background in philosophy; it's what I got my undergraduate degree in. You'll probably find some helpful things under my CX section. I'll do my best.

Who are you?

I debated CX at Scituate High School in the conventional stock issues focused style of the Southeastern Massachusetts Debate League, then at UMASS where I turned into a K debater while learning everything I actually know about debate from Jillian Marty. Following a hiatus from debate I was an assistant coach for policy debate at James Madison High School in Virginia from 2018 to 2022. I have been the debate coach for Sidwell Friends School since fall 2022.

In terms of my non-debate life, I am among other things a Christian, a socialist, and a practicing class action plaintiff's lawyer.

My introduction to debate started in College 2014 -2018 British Parliamentary. I taught BP debate at the College Of Staten Island Summer 2019.

I am not a Policy Debater. I do coach for SA middle school policy debate.

I will vote on framework if you tell me to vote on framework. I will vote on the stock issues if you tell me to vote on stock issues. I will not read evidence unless their is an issue of specific cards being read. I only flow what is said in your speech.

I am a huge fan of voters. Tell me exactly what you want me to know, the ROB and ROJ.

UPDATED FOR NEW TRIER 2020

Tim Edstrom
Edina High School, MN

Rounds on Topic: Around 20
Debate Experience: 16 Years
Coaching Experience: 10 Years
Judging Experience: 12 years

Masculine or gender neutral pronouns.

Chain? Yes. thegesture@gmail.com

STUFF FOR DIGITAL DEBATE

Overall I have found these to run smoothly for the most part. Everyone has to be willing to have the speech time stop and possibly give part of/the whole speech over depending on the level of lag or crash. Most tournaments have some tech time built in so don't worry if you drop the call- just patiently sign back in and we can figure it out as a room how to approach finishing your speech. If I can't hear you I will SAY SOMETHING as well as PUT IT IN THE CHAT.

The good news- I do flow and will probably have a very good idea of where I lost my ability to understand you. My internet has been pretty consistent but not perfect- hopefully I won't have many problems on my end but if I do drop out or lag badly PUT SOMETHING IN THE CHAT because I may not be able to hear it. This is also an important reason to pay attention to my video- if my head stops moving completely and I don't blink it probably means my signal cut.

Stylistically some changes are definitely necessary- in particular slowing down and being clear, especially on extremely dense blocks of analytics or wordy tags (some people are recommending a percentage of speed or something- it's really more you want to seek max clarity). Additionally, cross-x is tough when people talk over each other, and tag team cross-x is possible but more difficult. Sadly we may have to revert to some politeness norms of "Excuse me" etc to get our question/answer in and trust me, trying to orient towards a cross-x where I can actually hear what people are explaining makes the debate better for all.

OLD MEAT AND POTATOES PARADIGM- MICHIGAN 2019

I think the value of debate is in its incredible ability to help people learn not only about the world around them but also about themselves. Debate is not only what happens in the debate round, but also all of the attendant things that surround and go into the debates and the performance of the debaters: their work, their thoughts about their arguments, their partnerships, their coaches, personal relationships, stress of school, family life, upbringing, privilege, ethnic or racial identity, orientation etc etc etc. I mention this first and foremost because you should definitely understand that I connect to you in the difficulty of this activity and can appreciate that sometimes debate is so overly stressful, you might make a mistake, might say something wrong, or might be off your game. I will take into account the relative difficulty of the tournament and your place in it in my evaluation of speaks and the round.

Debate judges are not robots or argument calculators: we have feelings just like you. I do not believe that debate is merely a technostrategic forum for the comparison of cold and static policy ideals. Please know that I think beliefs like this are not only harmful, but seriously make me question people's actual grasp of what this activity is and can mean for people. The benefits of debate have been guarded by wealth, race, and heteronormative gender elitism for decades (and I am no exception to this rule- white masculine pronoun using individual here from a relatively privileged background) but I would like to think I can entertain the notion that we can use the space to examine some of the ideas that we have about the world around us and that actually effect us as people rather than pretending that the only importance of a debate is whether or not a policy would be successful. If we can't examine those questions in debate, I am of the opinion that debate can't really change. And it is, and it will, but it's slow and a long road and a hard fight. It's easy to lose hope.

Lest you turn away in anger because you want to just plain read a DA- that's awesome! I still very much enjoy and am compelled by what some call "traditional debate" and judge all sorts of rounds on the national circuit. I like politics DAs, cleverly researched case negatives, and impact turns. All arguments should strive to emphasize evidence quality and internal warrants, and comparison of these are one of the key ways to a ballot and good speaks for me.

I am generally a bit affirmative leaning on theory as many times process based counterplans stretch the definition of what could be called a solvency advocate and actively seek obscure terms on which to condition the plan. I do love PICs however, and think that they can lead to some of the most interesting debating. If it's going to be a theory debate, please slow down a bit- I want to be able to actually flow the reasons I should vote for you. Generally I find I am compelled to vote for the team that not only best explains their impact but also how it relates to the other impacts in the round, whether policy or critical.

I judge a lot of clash of civilization debates as well- just a note for these: a creatively explained TVA is much better than a generic text with little explanation of how it actually "solves the affirmative." I would like you to actually make an effort to interact with the warrants of the affirmative.

Please feel free to ask any questions you have. I'll do my best to accommodate your debating in any way I can. This activity is for the debaters and not the judges, and I will strive to make sure my decision reflects that philosophy. Have fun and good luck!

Conflicts: Desert Vista, Chandler Prep

Yes email chain: rsferdowsian@gmail.com

I debated at Chandler Prep for 3 years and currently debate for ASU

LD-specific section at the bottom

General:

- I don't care what types of arguments you read, as long as they're (a) well-explained and warranted and (b) well-impacted out (by which I broadly mean implication-work as to why winning your args wins you my ballot, not just straight impact-calc)

- Framing is key, especially in the last 2 rebuttals - you're not going to win everything, so tell me what's most important for my decision and deal with what the other team is saying is most important

- I default to an offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

- I won't judge kick unless 2nr says so. For both sides: don't let the 'judge kick good/bad' debate start in the 2nr/2ar, esp. if the status of the CP is clarified earlier. The neg should say 'status quo is always a logical option' or even something more explicit in the 2nc for 'judge kick good' not to be new in the 2nr; similarly, aff should say judge kick bad before the 2ar, even when not extending condo bad as such in the 1ar. If the first times I hear the words judge kick are in last two rebuttals, I'll be forced to actually evaluate all the new 2ar args, so don't let that happen neg

- I might not know as much as you about the intricate, technical aspects of the topic, so be clear and slow on topic-specific phrases/acronyms, especially with T

Case:

- 2acs are generally terrible on case, the block should point this out, exploit it, and protect itself from new 1ar stuff

- Good case debating by the neg (and aff) = good speaks

Topicality v policy affs:

- I default competing interps. I've personally never understood intuitively or theoretically how one would decide whether an aff is "reasonably" T or not, so if you're going for reasonability on the aff, make sure you are very clear on what that means/how judges would determine reasonability under that frame or I'll be persuaded by the neg saying reasonability is arbitrary

- I usually view the relative interpretations as 'advocacies' the provide uniqueness for/solve each side's offense and the standards on both sides as net benefits/advantages to that standard/disads to the other, like a CP+DA debate. (If you don't want me to view it that way you should tell me). This means that impact calc is super important, eg "aff ground outweighs limits", "precision outweighs", etc.

Theory:

- I'd love to hear a super in-depth "condo bad" debate, if the aff goes for this and does it well I'll probably give pretty good speaks

(Personal opinion: condo is good; being neg is hard; but I can be easily persuaded otherwise.)

- Everything else: I default to rejecting the argument, not the team; if you want me to reject the team, explain why it's justified/what the (preferably in-round, not just potential) abuse is

- The CP+DA thing from the Topicality section above applies here too, which means interpretations matter a lot (a good example of this is that the aff going for "states CPs with uniformity are not allowed, non-uniform states CPs are allowed" would solve a lot of neg offense while also allowing you to go for unique offense to uniformity being uneducational, cheating, etc.)

Disads:

- "DA turns case" is important and should be answered in the 1ar

- "DA solves case" is underutilized

-*Impact calc* - not just magnitude/probability/TF but also filtering arguments (e.g. 'heg solves everything'), filters for evidence-quality ('prefer our empirics over speculation'), etc.

- Again, I default offense-defense but I am ok with concluding that there is 0% risk of a DA. It's really important for the aff to be explicit when doing this (e.g. say something like "offense defense is bad for policymaking and decision-making")

Counterplans:

- I'm probably much more open to theoretically cheating CPs than most judges, just win the theory debate (for this, confer above on Topicality).

- Really techy CPs should be explained in the 2nc/1nr to a certain dumbed-down level

Ks v Policy Affs:

- FW matters a lot; the negative needs to set up a framing for the debate that shifts the question the ballot is answering away from whether the plan is better than the status quo/some competitive option, or at least provides a very specific set of criteria about how that question should be answered (e.g. ontological come first, reps first, etc.). Make sure to be clear about *what winning framework means for how I write my ballot*; i.e. does it mean I refuse to evaluate the consequences of the plan altogether? or just that the way in which I evaluate it changes? or something else?

- If you don't make FW args in the 2nc (at least implicitly), 2ac args like "Perm: double bind", "alt fails/is utopian", "state inevitable", or "extinction outweighs" become serious threats if extended well by the aff.

- The 2nc/2nr should explain your theory of how the world works and explain why I should think it's true relative to their policymaking stuff - isolating a specific section of the flow where you explain your theory (especially with high-theory kritiks), or just weaving it into the Line by Line, can go a long way

- Examples are always good for K debate, in all its different components

- Aff args I find true/persuasive: extinction outweighs, institutions matter, debate is a game, perm (if alt is explained as a CP instead of as a framework argument).

- I honestly don't care if you're going to read a long 2nc overview, but please be honest about it before the speech so I can get a new sheet of paper (I'll probably flow on paper, not laptop); I try hard to maintain the Line by line would prefer you just be up-front about it.

FW versus K affs:

- I have read K affs against FW, but I have also read FW against K affs, so I'd like to think I'm not too ideological when it comes to these debates. My voting record in these debates is probably ~60/40 in favor of the neg on FW, usually due to a lack of well-warranted arguments as to why the neg's model is bad (instead of buzzwords) as well as a lack of answer to significant defensive claims like TVA/SSD.

- Impact framing is paramount in these debates: the impacts the two teams are going for are often radically different -- e.g., how should I weigh a slight risk of unfairness against a risk of the neg's model of debate being a bit neoliberal/racist/X-ist? I'll probably end up voting for whoever does a better job answering these types of questions

- For the neg: TVA is important but Switch side is really underutilized as a defensive argument imo.

- Fairness can be an impact in and of itself if you explain why, although, all else being even, it's probably not the best 2nr impact in front of me since it begs the question of the value of the game it supports.

- Better neg impacts to FW for me: clash, dogmatism, truth-testing, even institutions good offense

- Limits and ground are (probably) just internal links, not impacts

- For the aff: *explain a clear vision of what your model of debate looks like under your interp*.

- I'm down for the extremist K strats that just impact turn every standard the neg goes for, but I'm also down for running more to the middle and explaining why your model is still topical/debatable 'enough' but with some significant net benefits over theirs. If you're doing the latter, your interp should be super well-explained in the context of their limits/predictability offense

K v K:

- These can be some of the best or some of the worst debates - worst when neither side gets beyond tagline extensions, best when each side speaks as if they were an actual scholar in whatever field they're deploying, doing comparative analysis of the other team's theories in relation to their own

- Impact calc and framing is crucial, esp. in rounds where both sides are discussing some identity-related oppression impacts. This doesn't mean saying certain lives or groups matter more than others, it's precisely to avoid that: you all should discuss your theories of the world in ways that don't put me in the position of having to 'pit' certain lives against one another, otherwise I'll have a rough time and so will you

- I'm down for not giving the aff a perm in these debates, BUT it's got to be explained much further than "no perms in a methods debate" - that's not a warranted argument. To win this, the neg should explain why perms in debates where no one advocates gov. action are uneducational, unfair, incoherent, bad for radical pedagogy, etc. and, ideally, also provide an alternate model for what the burden of rejoinder looks like if the neg doesn't have to win that the K is an opportunity cost to the aff.

- Cf. "K v Policy Aff" section above on long 2nc Overviews

***LD-Specific***

1. Fair warning: I tend to vote neg... a lot, seemingly too much, usually on technical concessions in the 2ar (damn speech structures).

To deal with this if you're aff:

- make sure you win your case - I've noticed I have a tendency to vote neg on presumption when the NR makes some circumvention args that the 2AR just straight-up drops in the last speech.

- also, make sure you frame the debate for me such that, even if there are some tech-y drops, I'm more likely to vote for you

2. Full disclosure: I don't get LD theory, like, at all. I don't really get RVI's, I don't know how they function, and I'm convinced most LD'ers don't either, so generally, if theory is your thing, just be very clear on these three components of theory debates: (a) interps, (b) violations, and (c) standards. As long as that basic template is there in some form, I can do my best.

Random things:

- I probably won't read that many cards unless it's brought up in the debate or I'm stealing your cites

- Flashing isn't prep but be quick

- Clipping means you lose and will get bad speaks; I'll try to follow whatever the tournament procedure is for this

- Extra speaks to anyone who brings me some flavored iced coffee beverage/bothered to read this far down.

Good luck!

Debate CV:

HS Debate- Cedar Cliff HS in Camp Hill, PA (2006-2009)
College Debate- George Mason (2009-2010)
Coaching- Currently at Sidwell Friends in Washington, DC. Previously at James Madison HS in Vienna, VA.

POLICY PARADIGM

Add me to the email chain plz: rfgarvey4@gmail.com
I promise I do not care where you sit in the room. Just make sure I can hear you

My positions on a lot these issues have changed dramatically in my time in this activity. I went from a HS circuit in Central PA that was solely Stock Issues, to coaching a team that relied pretty heavily on the K.

At the end of the day, I like to watch a round with a lot of clear and concise arguments. I don't have a lot of pre-dispositions about what constitutes "real" debate.

I truly believe that is an activity that you as debaters get to make your own. And as an Old, I don't think I get much of a say in the matter anymore.

My one caveat to this: I'd really rather see depth instead of breadth. I'm not a big fan of rounds that are 10-off with blippy nonsense args

Some other notes:

Speed: Millennial that I am, my hearing isn't great because of how much music I listened to at a loud volume when I was your age. If you can be clear when you spread, more power to you. But if I can't understand what you're saying, I can't flow it.

That being said, please don't spread through your tags.

K: I love 'em, I think they're fun and good for education. I'll vote on framework if you can make it a compelling argument though.
I also don't have as good of a grasp at the K lit as some judges, so you might have to do some explaining for me. Also, please make sure that your link story is good. K's that don't link or K's with a super generic link are a travesty.

K Affs: I think you should have some type of advocacy statement. I personally think it should have something to do with the Resolution, but I'll hear other things. You should also see the above under "K," about K lit. You're gonna need to explain it to me like I'm in the 4th Grade.

T: I love a good T debate, and I always think it's a voter/gateway issue. Just make sure that you understand the blocks you're reading. "Voter for fairness" and "clash checks abuse" aren't just buzzwords, they're actually arguments that mean something. I do think reasonability is trash though.

Theory: Same as T.

Meme Args: If you have to ask you should probably just strike me. I grew up in the age of the WGLF, none of you will ever compare.

2023-24 Update:

In my day job I work at a homeless shelter in Northern Virginia. I've worked in politics/non-profit human services for, well, let's just say, awhile. I also have my Masters in Public Administration, so you should just assume that I'm pretty well-versed on topic knowledge.

PF Paradigm

I gotta be honest here, I've never participated in PF. I have some experience coaching and judging, but significantly less than what I have in policy.

That being said, I also believe that PF is Policy's kid sibling that's trying really, really hard to copy what Policy does (but in like a cool and edgy way to be a little different). So I do think I can get the basics.

All I ask are the following:

1. Please don't let Crossfire devolve into a shouting match. I genuinely believe that the cable news show it was named after has done significant psychic damage to our nation, and I don't want to watch a live reenactment with children.
2. If you're gonna run policy-esque arguments, ask yourself, "Do I really understand how to do this in a way that articulates what I want it to say, or am I running this to sandbag my opponent and I'm hoping this judge is gonna do a lot of work on the flow for me?" If it's the former, go for it. If it's the latter, you're just gonna make me sad, and sad judges give lower speaks.

Email chain: cgilmerhill AT college.harvard.edu

Top Level:

Debated at Detroit Country Day for 4 years in HS; currently a 2N at Harvard (4th year). Mostly read policy/soft left affs in HS; on the neg, I went for a mix of stuff, but a lot of it ended up being Ks (usually Agamben and various versions of imperialism; recently buddhism). Likely fine for whatever you want to go for. I'll try to understand the point you're making, but please don't assume a ton of background knowledge on the HS topic or the literature of a specific K you want to go for.

Arg details:

PICs (and PIKs) are fine as long as they make sense and have a decent and specific justification; that said, I'm relatively sympathetic to aff args that the CP is a way the plan could be implemented. That said, if the round ends up a theory round then all bets are off, so don't be afraid to have that debate. Always been a fan of specifically tailored CPs that have explicit evidence/solvency advocates referencing the aff.

Granular case debate is great - a lot cases probably aren't actually a good idea, and a solid offensive block case press can totally win a round. Case turns are definitely underutilized. Also applies to K affs - I've found that a lot of K teams answer case presses by re-explaining the 1AC, and a lot of the time that doesn't really resolve things for them.

If you plan to go for framework, you'll need to spend a decent amount of time on the impact. My default framing is that debate is a game, and that I should focus on what the ballot can resolve (i.e. fairness), but the aff will be contesting both of those from the 1AC, and if the neg falls behind then things can go sideways for them very quickly.

2 condo advocacies is probably fine; more than 3 is definitely pushing it.

MBA '19
Harvard '23

Put me on the email chain: jhabermann@college.harvard.edu (email any questions here too)

Most Important:

1. I evaluate debates by identifying the central questions of the round and then adjudicating line-by-line. This system rewards judge instruction and top-level analysis; I make an active effort to make my RFD in the language in which the round was debated. Additionally, I am tech-oriented and prioritize warrants highly.

2. I have minimal topic knowledge and judge experience on the current topic. I am not coaching a high school team. You will do best in front of me by throwing out most background knowledge (especially any debate meta) but by still debating in a nuanced, technical manner.

3. I enjoy almost all types of debate rounds. I'll put as much effort into judging the round as the debaters did debating the round. I'm very easy to read visually.

Biases:

2A/1N

I reward risks. Please play scrappy.

Evidence quality and smart analytics make me happy.

My favorite affs that I have read are: a one-advantage China-war Cyber aff; a SetCol K aff with a plan; and a very technical asylum courts aff. Anything resembling these affs will be great.

My favorite neg strats were aff-specific Ks and CPs. Any neg team with both will get ridiculous speaks. I prefer diverse 1ncs in general.

I appreciate anything that debaters are passionate about, so don't try to adapt too much.

General thoughts:

K Affs / FW: I've read planless affs before; I've debated against many more. These debates are always decided in line-by-line not the overview for me speicifcally.
If you are aff, I prefer you to choose an impact turn or counterinterp strategy early in the debate. I am usually very skeptical of the aff c/i and do not understand the utility of how many teams read it, but a thought-out strategy prepared for the question of multiple rounds can convince me quite well. If you are impact turning, only go for at most two DAs in the 2ar or combine them.
If you are neg, I prefer you to compare the two models of debate. Most teams can explain why resolutional action and/or fairness is important but completely lack any engagement with the aff. The best way to prove your standards is by directly applying the aff's specific mechanism and what it justifies as examples of your internal link.

T: Without topic knowledge, I will be very lost in many of these debates if there is no adjustment. I will not know which model is more in line with a 'core of the topic' and what specific teams debate with the best/worst affs. Still, I will easily vote on T. In general, I find T to be a contrived time-sink rather than a thought-out strategy and am lenient on the aff for late-breaking responses, but with substantive engagement, a long T debate is one of my favorite neg strategies.

K: I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debating far, far more than FW. Aff-specific link explanation will be rewarded highly. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. If debated like a critical CP, DA, and case push, you will be rewarded.

CP: Generally good for condo, international fiat, states, and anything with specific ev. I never went for theory on the aff, so I appreciate solid aff theory debating especially with many lackluster neg strats.
Neg: explain CP solvency for every pertinent internal link. Aff: impact out solvency deficits, don't just talk about them.
I don't judge kick unless told, but lean neg on its theory.

DA: I'm generally dissatisfied with the state of disadvantages and will vote aff on smart analytic i/l take outs if your shell is garbage. Generic, core of the topic DAs do surprisingly well with me.

Speaker Points: Should range from 27.5-29.7. I try to follow community norms rather than artificially deflate or inflate points. I generally give points for direct clash and tech, but I have a soft-spot for persuasiveness and humor.

Paradigm

I vote on almost anything if you win the debate. I believe that debate should be an even competition of what happens in the round and how it affects the outside world instead of the other way around. Also don't do anything racist, homophobic, sexist, patriarchal, transphobic, heteronormative or simply disrespectful in round without expecting poor speaker points. It will also affect how I view your argumentation in this safe space.

Spreading

In regards to spreading I'm fine with it just don't start out at full speed I need time to adjust to voices. Also be clear and slow on tags so I can know what you are saying and what I should be voting on. I can't vote on something that I can't hear.

"ion like to fight until i'm fightin" ~ Chris Breaux

speech doc email go here: <jhanley@oprfhs.org>

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

TL;DR - aside from the generic 'dO wHaT u Do BeSt AnD i WiLl ChEcK mY bIaS' [revealing tangent: are blank slates kind of a scam? methinks yea] let me just say I am gonna need to see ****DEPTH OVER BREATH**** in your second rebuttals!!!!!

This applies in terms of both argumentative (a) category & (b) number:

-- (a) specific scenario > general condition

-- (b) a singular warranted + impacted claim > stuttered collage of blips

this is for the 2XR, regardless of if we are talking T, policy or Ks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some other significant biases that I most certainly will bring into the room:

* tech + truth = means + ends . . . offense/defense is my default means | ethical agonism is my one & only end

* grounding speeches in the resolution is V important to me but im super game for advocacies that dont fiat shit

* also here for nutty theory debates . . . do Topical cps meet the burden of rejoinder? i won't make assumptions

* off case positions are for cowards !!! >:( but if you must -- probably enjoy T or K most but love a good DA/CP

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Personal Philosophy and/or Proprietary Paradigm:

* SPEECH ACT >>> SPEECH DOC | I am of the pre-paperless age . . . One big change in this regard is that, today, there is a complete and total transparency/accessibility of cards & blocks. Not saying it is good or bad -- just that, when I debated, the judge was unable to read along (they could, if need be, call for cards after the round). And I do think there's something to be said for "just listening" !

* I VOTE FROM THE FLOW ALONE | [see above re: speech docs]. If you want a "line" on that flow to affect my decision, it MUST SATISFY all four of the following:

1. appear in >1/4 of your speeches . . . more air time = more weight generally

2. summarize your opponent's response and provide some counter-argument

3. fit into the larger story of what my ballot is doing in this round . . . another way to say this is that EVERYTHING needs to have an "impact" whether it be to establish the uniqueness of a situation, articulate the internal link between phenomena, or explicitly compare ethical priorities

4. have concrete warrant(s) drawing upon a form of history , science , or logic

~ [5.] & get extra speaker points for spinning a yarn and/or cracking a joke !!! ~

* DOCENDO DISCIMUS | Debate is this crazy place where the students profess while teachers pay attention -- a dramatic reversal of the situation that defines our educational system. In other words, this is an activity where the instructor takes instruction. You should make the most of this dynamic and, rather than worry about "if I will listen" to your case, simply move me to sign the ballot in your favor. Make me laugh, make me cry, make me think!

__________[[Experience & Education]]____________

** Debated four years on the midwest / nat'l circuits (2x TOC)

** been out the game since 2011 but I still got some love for it

** ask me about: Silicon Valley; Micronesia; South Side Chicago

Top Level - Only judge every once and a while now, debated for George Mason University.

I would like to be on the email chain - gerrit.hansen96 AT gmail.com

Go to the bottom for non-policy formats

What to read before the round, if you are interested.

This paradigm is too long - I like K debate, but also policy debate. I am not as experienced in the latter, and will likely over-compensate by reading cards if I get confused or lost. I will do my best to judge your debate fairly.

I am neither the best - nor the worst, hopefully - flow in the game. I have great auditory processing, handwriting not so much. I would encourage a lil pen time for important args.

If the other team brings up an accessibility issue about some portion of your speech, the impetus is on you to fix the problem. I am somewhat open to discussion of what is reasonable (or fair) but please don't make me punish you for being a jerk.

Exclusionary language - including misgendering anyone, racism, ableism, sexism, etc is a voting issue. Almost guaranteed your speaks suffer at least. I will usually leave it to the team that has been harmed to make an argument about it, because I don't want to decide for you when your debate should end.

Specific args

Topicality - I think this argument has many valuable uses in debate. Use it how you will. Evidence comparison and caselists are a MUST in these debates. Tell me what your vision of the topic looks like.

Reasonability, as a phrase, is not an argument. I'm open to any and all arguments about how T debates should be viewed, but the onus is on you to create a model for what judging debates in that way ought to look like. Default to competing interps.

Theory - Slow if you plan to go for it. High speed blocks are unpersuasive and are optically a cheap-shot. Potential abuse is probably not an impact I care about that much.

CP's - They can be cool, they can be contrived and silly. PIC's should be specific rather then general. Sympathetic with 2As on some counter-plan theory. Slow down on your CP text if you want me to catch its nuances. Word PIC's are usually silly.

DA - They're cool. The more creative the better. Politics is good. 1 good and well compared impact scenario is worth 3 with loose comparison or impact calculus.

K's - This is the style of debate I personally chose to do. I have a fairly extensive literature base, and am probably more then willing to listen to your stuff. If you argue your position well and prove that you have an understanding of your literature base I will probably want to vote for you. If you're good at what you do, do it.

Links are better when they are specific to the aff - I'm down for spin, but a generic state link or a security K with no impact defense is unlikely to make me want to vote for you

Line by line is important to me, and I have yet to hear a way to evaluate debates in a reasonably fair fashion except some version of the offense/defense paradigm. If you don't want me to flow or want to change the format of the debate, I support you in your efforts but I'm also probably not the judge for you

Debates about debate (The section is a bit of a tangent for K teams) - I grow increasingly tired of the "standard moves" in these debates. I feel many ballot commodification/currency arguments are very reductionist and very much resemble whiny debaters screaming about fiat being illusory. I will obviously vote on them, but I would say I have a higher threshold than most. I care a little bit less about what the ballot does for the aff/neg, and more about what strategies, tactics, methods, alternative world views etc my ballot ought to endorse.

K Aff's/Framework- This is a debate. Defending debate norms is cool, saying "Debate bad" is cool. Being creative on both sides is more likely to get me on your side.

Topical Versions of the Aff are a good way to mitigate offense against framework. Explain to me why it solves their impact turns, not why it is similar to the aff

The Affirmative is much more likely to win if they have a counter interpretation - I find it hard to evaluate defensive "rez already exploded" or "rez poorly written" arguments without one. Rez +1 is not an argument

Arguments about jurisdiction and authority are not good ones, so long as they are answered.

Fairness is an impact. I have the inclination that debates should be fair. That being said, I don't particularly care about procedural fairness in my heart of hearts, and it's rather easy to convince me that a host of things might outweigh the need for debates to be fair.

Speaker Points: I used to have a convoluted scale of sorts here. To be honest, as I judge more often, I usually give pretty high speaker points. I think I tend to presume the best of debaters, and I often find it hard to judge their relative qualities against other debaters I have seen in a bad light. That being said, I have found that I punish very vindictively if you use exclusionary language or are a jerk.

NON-POLICY FORMATS

I mainly participated in and judge policy. I will be upfront and say that while I am familiar with the rules and some of the norms of non-policy formats, but it is probably not as second nature to me as it is to you. I would not say that I judge more then 1 tournament in either LD or PF a year, and speech is even more uncommon. These are some helpful thoughts:

PLEASE CLASH. Compare impacts. Compare frameworks. Acknowledge that your opponent made arguments, and tell me why I should care about your arguments more.

"Progressive" debate styles are cool. Theory is way too common in LD, but I don't plan to be the activist judge that stops it.

There is not a single thing that will matter to me LESS then if you stand up whenl you speak, where you speak from, etc. Accommodate yourself in the room, and I will choose my place in relation to that. It is strange how common this question is in public forum.

I'm pretty good at flowing, and the flow is how I will decide the debate. Logic over persuasion. Good policy over good personality. Tech over truth.

"Off-time" Roadmaps are helpful

Don't spread if you can't be clear. PLEASE.

Sam Heller

he/him/his or they/them/their

I haven't been heavily involved in debate since 2016, so don't expect me to up to date on trends in the activity or on this year's topic.

Be clear - I flow from your speech, not your speech doc.

I'm not a fan of ridiculous and contrived internal link chains. I think that the way debate as an activity values high-impact, low-probability risks over lower-impact, high-probability risks is fundamentally flawed and bad for the activity. You don't need a nuclear war/extinction impact for me to care about what you're saying. That being said, this doesn't mean if you make a nuke war claim I'm going to ignore everything else you say. It just means my default impact framing is not going to be "any risk of extinction outweighs everything else" like it is for most judges.

Debate is about arguments, not cards. You can make a good argument without reading a card, and you cannot use reading a card as a substitute for articulating an argument. Also, a card that simply states a claim without providing a warrant is useless.

If I don't know what the aff does after the 1AC, then the neg has a lot of leniency in their ground. You don't get to wait until the 2AC/1AR/2AR to explain the aff.

Framework/Topicality - K affs and T/Framework were the fastest-changing parts of debate when I left the activity, so I assume I'm behind the times a bit on these debates. That being said, I don't think I judge them fundamentally different than other args in debate. The neg needs to answer case, and the aff can't only extend case - they also need DAs to the neg's interpretation.

Reading cards after the round - I do it, but primarily only to verify the claims made in the debate when there's a disagreement between the two teams (i.e. aff: "our card says x", neg: "no it actually says y"). I will not give you credit for arguments in a card that are not articulated during the round.

I have a soft spot for arguments older than I am (inherency, T-Vagueness, voting net on presumption) - I know these args died for a reason but if you find a way to make them I'd be excited!

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan

Head Debate Coach, University of Chicago Lab Schools

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23)

Last updated: April, 2024 (new FR thoughts in the Topicality section, random updates throughout)

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college nuclear forces topic and the HS fiscal redistribution topic. For fiscal redistribution, I gave the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp and I wrote both the Topicality and Job Guarantee Aff/Neg files for their starter pack

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow: I will take Casey Harrigan up on his flowing gauntlet/challenge any day (he might be able to take me if we were both restricted to paper, but on our computers, it's a wrap).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure precious few allegedly "dropped" arguments really are accurately described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

For Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is extremely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and in truth if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a relatively workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing.

That being said, "functional-only" is a very defensible model as well, and I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you.

I don't default to the status quo unless you explicitly flag it at some point during the debate (the cross-x or the 2nc is sufficient if the aff never contests it). I don't know why affs ask this question every cross-x and then never make a theory argument about it. It only hurts you, because it lets the neg get away with something they otherwise wouldn't have.

All that said, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. Nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know... debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would). Second, "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

Updated 2/7/24

Add me to the chain: christopherjpjackson at gmail

Background:

Ames High School (’14)-qualified to the TOC and then-NFL Nationals

University of Iowa (’17)-Dr. Dave once called my extension of topicality “lucid and succinct”

Wake Forest University ('20)-M.A. in Communication

Genealogy:

I've spent over a decade (yikes) in this activity as either a debater, judge, or coach. Just some of the people who have influenced how I think about debate include: David Hingstman, Brian Rubaie, Kyle Vint, Brooke Kimbrough, Jason Regnier.

Overview:

Existence precedes essence. Or, to use the phrase I see littered across numerous paradigms, you do you. My default setting as a judge is nonprescriptivist, and this is reflected in my voting record. Partially from years of playing baseball, I conceptualize the role of the judge as akin to that of an umpire calling balls and strikes, though that itself can be contested by the participants.

Specifics:

K: I am primarily versed in the cap and so-called high theory set of arguments. I likely have a passing understanding/have previously judged whatever K you are thinking about reading. I am not sufficiently predisposed for or against any position to the extent that it becomes expedient to read something other than what you're best at. While in my day "job" I work mostly as a quantitative social scientist, I still enjoy reading philosophy pieces, including those more critical in nature. I prefer, in a strictly relative sense, more systematic criticisms to individual/subject-centered ones. So, for example, I tend to be a better judge for Afropessimism compared to those focused on embodied performance.

CP: I'm probably about one standard deviation more willing than the average judge to err aff on counterplan theory PROVIDED the affirmative does the work throughout the rebuttals beyond just reading extensions. The theoretical validity of some of the jankier counterplans (cc: Lopez) strikes me as seriously questionable, but again, the aff needs to do the work. Incidentally….

Theory: I don't presume to reject the argument and not the team unless prompted.

T: Yes, please. I am very drawn to arguments about grammar and syntax. Like all judges I do think demonstrating actual impacts to debatability are good and well but am quite fine with the point that words mean things.

DA: <3. While I do broadly accept the standard model of debate (and offense/defense more specifically), I can be convinced that there is functionally zero risk of a link or impact. That the chance of something happening is so low as to be the equivalent of statistical white noise=terminal defense.

A pet peeve: "fiat is an illusion". Absent specific contextualization to the round or an on-the-nose card, please, no. I have yet to hear a round where this argument was deployed in a manner that made me think “I’m really glad we had a discussion of how nothing happens when the judge votes aff” at the end of the day. Note: in the years since I first put this in my paradigm I have continued to hear and vote off of this line of argument. So it certainly is viable in front of me-though I don't like it.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I have judged plenty of both national-circuit and old-school LD rounds and am comfortable with either. Value/criterion is useful but not necessary.

Public Forum:

You will find I have high expectations for evidence quality and am quite flow-oriented. Doing well in front of me in PF involves:

-directly answering your opponent's arguments. Directly refute what they said. I'm not going to spot you a link

-explicit impact calculus

-being attuned to the flow

1. Conflicts [as of 10/04/2020]

• No Univ of Chicago Lab
• No Iowa City

2. Short Version

• tech over truth
• strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
• prioritize your impacts
• have fun!

3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes

• Please slow down 5-10%. Emphasize your warrants. Without a microphone stem, your quality fluctuates. Keep in mind that I still flow on paper.
• Please get explicit visual or audio confirmation from everyone in the debate before beginning your speech. I may use a thumbs up to indicate I am ready.
• If my camera is off, unless I explicitly have told you otherwise, assume I'm not at the computer.
• If the current speaker has significant tech problems, I'll try to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument and timestamp.

4. Some Detail

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.

Nearing a decade ago, during would would have been the h.s. space topic. I started at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated NDT/CEDA Middle East/North Africa while judging a few debate rounds across the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.

Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.

I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.

I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.

I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.

I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.

karl.joyner@saschools.org. He/him/his.

Spreading is fine. If you’re unclear I’ll let you know. Or add me to the email chain. Take time on your tags so I can flow them.

I don’t flow authors unless you want to draw attention to the quality of evidence, credibility of author, etc. Point it out to me. Otherwise, extend your arguments, don’t just mention the author’s name. And extend/add warrants, even if it’s just important that the other team provided no response. (Again, it helps if I’m on the email chain if you want to draw attention to authors later).

I probably won't flow cx - add it to your speech.

I’ll vote on anything - just tell me what you’re argument is/role of the ballot/what’s important for my vote.

On Ks - make sure you’re clear on all parts of the argument. I enjoy them greatly, but I’m not familiar with anything but the basics (cap K, Abolition K), so articulate the argument clearly please.

Give me an impact calc. On every argument. Especially T. I’m not going to vote on a predetermined sense of abuse. Let me know in round how the argument is affecting you. Or what the significance is for debate going forward.

Never debated policy, 3 years of coaching experience.

-- Update 1/14 --

Tech issues:

Please slow down a bit - for my sake and the competition.

Tbh, I'm very lenient on tech issues - I'll be assuming the best out of everyone. If you're concerned with the other team's actions, please bring them up, because I won't.

I feel the need to emphasize again, and more strongly this time, that I vote on impacts. You'll see in my decisions that I list all of the impacts as presented to me and use that to determine which issue I should vote for in the round. Impact calc is the most important part of the round to me. Spend time on it.

Add me to the email chain: addison.kane00@gmail.com

Pronouns They/Them or She/Her

Northside CP Class of 2018

University of Michigan Class of 2021

Currently Grad School @ University College London, doing a dissertation on queer geopolitics

Assistant Coach at Niles North (2020-2022)
-> Now a Remote Coach (2022-)

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

If I am judging you it means it is online and I am judging you from the United Kingdom. If it is past 10 P.M. where I am (I'm 5 hours ahead of EST - do the math), I'd prefer it if you debate at a slower speed.

I've judged multiple hundreds of high school debates at this point, in literally every medium, so I don't give any care about what style of debate you prefer. Just make creative, unique, and captivating arguments and defend those arguments well.

On framework:

I vote for framework quite a lot. It would be neat to do something creative with it and/or actually describe to me what your model of debate tangibly looks like outside of 'our model = fairness = inherent good'. Fairness to what end? What kind of scholarship does your model produce? What does it prioritize? What does it exclude? What community effect does it have? What skills do debaters gain that they can't gain elsewhere? Framework teams I've judged have hid behind these questions just to say "rules be rules, stop being unfair", which is only an argument if you win your ruleset has value in the first place.

It is also impossible to make me believe that debate does not shape individual subjectivity. It absolutely does. Anyone who genuinely believes otherwise needs to seriously look inwards on themselves and the rest of the community.

I also think debate is simultaneously a great activity and a very dangerous one as well - debate trains you to be a better reader/writer/researcher, it enables you to critically think about two sides of any argument, it allows students to make extremely valuable friendships, and its community can provide an insulated support system which can be an important safe haven for certain individuals. On the other side of things, I also believe and have witnessed the hypercompetitive nature of debate produce quite toxic and problematic personal characteristics in debaters as well, which has devastating mental health effects across the community. In framework debates, its both teams' job to convince me that your model of debate actively produces better/worse forms of these givens and/or other good/bad things outside of these givens. You can also try and convince me that some of these givens are more or less important than others, but you cannot convince me any of these givens are untrue.

Debate like people...please:

I think that debate is first and foremost a performative activity. I am increasingly frustrated by the ways in which online debate has produced a lot of ethos-less debate drones. Obviously I evaluate technical concessions and line by line, but the way in which I evaluate those speeches is filtered through the quality of your speech performance. What this means in a practical sense is, for example, if you're making an argument and sound like you have no idea if what you're saying is actually correct, or you are unable to hold the warrants up in cross-ex, I'm unlikely to vote for that argument, even if I could possibly justify it as a concession on the flow. Additionally, a convincing well-warranted analytic can beat pretty much any card, good and smart off-the-cuff rebuttals will usually beat out blocked out analytics.

Please read this:

Debate isn't life or death. Take breaks often, breathe, and relax. This activity can and will break you if you don't care for your mental health and wellbeing. If you're reading this doing prefs the night before the tournament or something, go do something nice for yourself that isn't debate.

Old Paradigm (use to determine your prefs at your own risk): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lL8SwemB064RuWAg6HB_aJzitSJaE8U7GDib6NxW2l0/edit?usp=sharing

Midway '17 / Harvard '21 / For email chains: edward71299@gmail.com

I am not debating in college. Assume I know nothing about topic specifics. Tech over truth. Less is more.

T/FW - I will evaluate T/FW based on the line-by-line. Examples, examples, examples: I am impressed by well articulated internal links and examples on this flow.

DA/CP - The more case specific, the better.

K - Good quality links and some sort of alternative. My familiarity with K topics are a 3 from 1 to 5.

case debate - often reveals how much topic-based research you've actually done. Highly encouraged (but fine if you articulate that off-topic ideas matter more)

Reference paradigms: Brian Rubaie & Jacob Bell

For e-mail chains and questions/concerns: lianne.lk@gmail.com

Arguments:

I don't really prefer certain types of arguments. I would like to see you run whatever you think you can argue best. That being said, I do prefer clear, substantive debate with good clash. Listen to your opponents and make sure you are actually responding to what they run. I am most interested in judging debates where the two teams are actually listening and responding to each other. Keep it organized. FLOW and respond to arguments based on your flow.

Kritiks: If you are running a complicated K at full speed that is heavy on rhetoric and clearly meant to confuse rather than educate, I am not the right judge for you. I am not impressed by use of buzzwords and highly complicated literature that you refuse to help your opponents understand during cross-ex. This seems to be trending more and more prevalent in policy debate and it is a real turn-off for me. If you are reading in any complex critical argument, you need to slow down during speeches and work to clarify the complex argument in cross-ex when opponents are asking you clear questions.

Topicality: If the affirmative is reasonably topical (as in not a K-aff), and responds to T efficiently in the 2AC with we meet and/or counter-definition/interp, etc... then you should assume that I will not be voting on T. I will favor reasonability in cases like this, and don't particularly enjoy judging rounds arguing rules and technicalities through to rebuttals if we can avoid it. So, my advice to neg would be: if your opponents adequately respond to T in the 2AC, you should kick the argument by the 2NR.

General Note: Ultimately, I judge the round based on the evidence and analysis explicitly provided by both teams. I will not make arguments for teams under any circumstance. If the aff says the sky is purple, the sky is purple on my flow until the neg states otherwise. You should also explicitly tell me why you win the round in your rebuttals. The only time I would make an exception in my "tabula rasa" approach to judging is if something stated is blatantly offensive and/or discriminatory. This is as a means to ensure student safety and equity within the round.

Flashing Evidence/E-mail Chains/Sharing Speech Docs:

This is probably sounding outdated in the world of post 2020 debate, but I'm leaving it in for now just in case: Your prep time stops only when you pull out your flash drive to hand to the other team. Saving, attaching, compiling, etc. is all part of your prep.

Now for the more technologically relevant: In the same spirit as above, for e-mail chains and/or drive sharing, prep time stops when you press send on and email or press share on a google/cloud document. I would suggest asking for your opponents email addresses prior to the start of the debate round so that doing so does not take time out of your prep. I really do not want to be the judge in a round holding up a tournament, and unfortunately it seems like this is the only way I can hold everyone accountable without everyone stealing prep left and right.

This should also go without saying, but the expectation is that you are prepared to and have planned for sharing speech docs in some way with your opponents. If you have no way of doing so, I will request that someone in your partnership allow the other team to use your laptop to view the speech. As a last resort, I will instruct the opposing team to stand and read over your shoulder during your speech so that they can flow appropriately. These are, to reiterate, last resorts. The ethical move for the sake of education in the round is to make sure you have a way to share documents: via email, google docs, dropbox, flash drive, etc.

General Conduct/Protocol/Speaker Points:

Open cross is fine. Make sure questions and answers remain a team effort though, for the sake of your speaks.

High speaks go to debaters that stay organized, keep to their road-maps, and clearly signpost.

Err on the slow side with me. I am super unimpressed by debaters that spread unintelligibility. State your taglines and authors slowly with extra clarity to be sure that they end up on my flow; If I can't understand you, I can't write down what you are saying, and your argument is moot. Spread only if you truly know you can be understood when you do so (that should go without saying, but based on rounds I've had to sit through, I guess it needs to be noted explicitly). Rule of thumb: if I am not typing while you're speaking, take that as your clue that nothing you are saying is going on my flow.

Treat your fellow debaters with the utmost respect, especially during cross ex. I understand that debate can be stressful, but stress is never an excuse to be rude or nasty. There is no simply need for it. Unnecessary hostility in cross-ex is a major issue for me. Chill out and try learning from each other. If you are rude or unnecessarily hostile to either your opponents OR your partner, your speaks will negatively reflect that.

The use of any derogatory/discriminatory terms, including sexist, homophobic, and/or racial slurs when referencing an opponent or judge will result in my stopping mid-round to call out the unacceptable language. Speaker points will negatively reflect the use of such language. Repeated use of slurs/name-calling will result in my ending the round with an automatic win for the opposing team.

I don't love the use of profanity for profanity's sake-- Meaning, if you can make your argument without the use of profanity, I would prefer that. If you are using profanity, your words should be chosen for a reason, and the reason should not be shock value - make smart choices here.

My personal background:

- I have been involved in policy debate in some capacity as either a college debater, judge, or high school coach since 2010.
- I am a high school teacher. (Courses taught: AP Macroeconomics, Economics, Law & Equity, Criminal Justice, Intro to Debate, Advanced Debate, US History & Social Justice).
- My academic interests mainly lie in economic theory. I believe strongly that economic impacts ARE social impacts and existential impacts.

Final Thoughts:

I congratulate you on choosing to participate in one of the most difficult, yet rewarding, activities that high school/college has to offer. I encourage you to use debate as a true learning and growing experience. If you allow for it, debate can make you a critical reader, a faster thinker, a better writer, a more confident speaker, a more prepared activist, an in-tune empath, a team player, a humble winner, a gracious loser, and ultimately a better overall citizen of this world. I wish you the very best of luck, and encourage you to use what you learn in debate to create more good in the world, starting as soon as you possibly can... perhaps even right now.

I am a lay debate judge that primarily works as a speech coach. Please don’t spread.

I prefer debaters not to run Ks, theory, etc. unless it’s super easy to follow for someone that doesn’t have a lot of experience in circuit. Make your arguments clear and concise in your constructives and make the winner of the debate clear in your rebuttals (voters, crystallization, weighing). I consider myself a rational person that values truth over tech in most cases.

I will not be favorable to anyone who makes any bigoted, harmful arguments (homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.).

Hello!

I have judged 0 rounds this debate season and have not done any topic research. I have also been out of speech and debate for 3 years. Debate is a game. Stocks are crucial. Slow down and be clear when reading analytics; I flow on paper and haven’t debated in a while. The practice of speed reading has gone too far. I believe clarity is key to being an effective orator, and this will reflect on your speaker points. The aff should have solvency explanations. The affirmative should have the United States federal government in the plan text and should be in the direction or an example of the topic. Reading pessimistic or nihilistic descriptions about improving the status quo OR rejecting the resolution are reasons to vote negative. Fairness is an impact. Quality Evidence > Wall of Cards. If you are going to run a critique in front of me, do not expect me to know the jargon; please contextualize how it relates to the affirmative. The more relevant you are to the affirmative or topic, the better. I’d prefer not to judge anything related to post-modernism.

Last Updated: 11/13/2020

Email: patricia.l.leon27@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/Them/Their(s)

About Me: My name is Patricia Leon, alum and former assistant debate coach for Maine East high school. I debated in high school, received my B.S. in Environmental Sciences from Northeastern Illinois University, and am now a first year M.S. student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

General summary of my judging:
-I prefer big picture over small technical issues. I can't stress this enough: framing (top level especially) is super important to me and provides more concrete reasons for me to vote for you. This is especially important for me in rebuttals. Key questions you should ask yourself and explain to win me over: What arguments are you winning? How does this help you win the debate? What does this mean for your opponent's arguments(that is, why should I prefer them less and why are their arguments insufficient)? Please also try to slow down a bit in rebuttals so I can flow these crucial moments properly.

-I generally believe that debate is an educational activity and should be valued as such. Recently I have been finding myself less and less likely to view fairness as an impact as a result. If you are going for arguments that frame fairness as a prior question, please try to have a coherent explanation as to why this is net better role for my ballot and why this subsumes their educational/indicts to your educational model claims. Going for other impacts would also be a good move if FW is truly your only option.

-I enjoy all kinds of arguments, but for more complex ones I will need more explanation before I can feel comfortable voting for you. I am familiar with the topic, so I know the common terms and court cases. If you are running an uncommon aff, just don't act like I automatically understand your specific terms and acronyms.

-I am actively trying my best to understand your arguments and strategy, and to accurately determine who won the round. By the end of the round, you should have really made it clear to me why I should vote for you. If I am still left confused once the round ends, it will be harder to do so.

-Evidence comparison. Please do this! This year's topic in particular I have seen a flood of evidence from debaters, yet no explanation or clash regarding the evidence. Absent comparison, I'm left to make these decisions myself, which can end up hurting you in the end. See a flaw in their evidence? Point it out, and explain why your evidence is better.

Cross-x: Cross-x should be where you poke holes in the other team's arguments, not for asking pointless questions because you are forced to. If you are the one asking the questions in cross-x, you should have taken at least 3 minutes before the speech ends to prepare your questions. Being prepared in cross-x will not only clarify issues in the round you did not understand, but will(or should) signal to me, the judge, where you are going with your strategy.

Kritikal debate: I enjoy K arguments a lot. I have decent knowledge of generics(cap, security), Feminism kritiks(K's of western/white fem), Queer Theory (Edelman, Halberstam, Puar), and general understanding kritiks relating Race, Ableism, etc. BUT- I have found that when debaters go for arguments under the spheres of postmodernism, poststructuralism, and existentialism (think Nietzsche, Deleuze, Bataille, Baudrillard, etc.), their speeches are filled with incoherent arguments. If these are your preferred K stuff, then I am not the best judge for y'all. If you wish to go for these arguments in front of me, PLEASE go in depth on explanation and go beyond unnecessary jargon.

Buzz words or excessive jargon are annoying and should not be used in place of actually explaining your argument. So please- explain your argument concisely and precisely. This makes it significantly easier for all of us to be on the same page and avoid confusing cross-x.

Policy debate: Be sure to have proper overviews that explain them more clearly to me. For affs- the 1ac tags should be coherent enough to help me understand your aff. I find it more compelling when counterplans/disad's are specific to the affirmative and are explained in depth.
Impact defense is certainly necessary for case, but internal link turns also make for great case arguments. Impact turns are interesting, but usually have low-quality evidence/warrants (don't go for those terrible warming good cards in front of a scientist...).

Framework vs K aff's: I'd rather the neg engage with the substance of the affirmative, but big picture framing, impacting out arguments, and overall in depth explanations from either side will help me the most in any of these scenarios.

Topicality: I have a high standard for this. You absolutely need standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. Focusing on even one standard like limits or ground could help you out. Affirmatives should focus on impacting their offense. If your argument has multiple interpretations, be sure to make clear what you are going for (all or some of the interpretations). Re-reading your 2AC block will not help you get my ballot.

Theory: Topicality comes before condo. 50 state uniform fiat, multiplank are probably good. 1 or 2 condo is fine, 3 condo is probably pushing it, 4+ is bad.


Any other questions: just ask me in round!
If you ever want to email me any questions or resources (I'm a college student so I have access to various sites and articles that you may not), send me an email at patricia.l.leon27@gmail.com !

she/her -- and yes, email chain: kleong2082@bths.edu

former 2a at brooklyn tech '18

**absolutely zero topic knowledge for 2020-21** and i'm less knowledgable about LD*

I went for the K on the aff and neg most of the time and will be able to get a good grasp on most kritiks, especially those that grapple with race and gender, albeit my familiarity with more theoretical literature/dead white man stuff is very limited. To be really honest I kind of hate it. However, I will vote using my flow every time so the point of all this is to please do you and whatever you feel most comfortable with. Be nice to each other and have a good time.

William Cheung and Leo Zausen were my coaches so look at their pages for a more comprehensive idea of how I judge.

tl;dr: I don't care what you read as long as it's not oppressive and violent in any way, as those debates are the best ones. Also please err on the side of using less debate jargon as I only judge sometimes and no longer debate in college.

If you have any lingering questions please don't hesitate to email or fb message me, or ask before the round starts.

David Levin (he/him/his)

Head Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT

Email Chain: levind@stlukesct.org

All Formats

be decent to one another (this includes your partner). don't use oppressive rhetoric. put me on the email chain.

Paradigms for PF, PD, and LD below.

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

Public Forum

>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for Kritiks. i'm a pretty good judge for theory. this format has so much potential for innovation - don't be afraid to try something different/new.

TOC 24 Notes:

Congratulations on making it here! Based on my topic research and the limited number of disclosed cases I've read through already, I have a few thoughts about debates on this resolution:

AFF GROUND: Aff ground is largely speculative - Evidence that actually advocates for the abolition of permanent membership is scarce, and there's no analog/historical example to provide an empiric basis for aff solvency. All of this probably means aff analytics carry a bit more weight on this topic. I think it's fair for aff teams to go beyond the literature base to envision what the world of the affirmative looks like, just have some empiric basis to support your speculation.

"HYPOTHETICAL CONFLICTS": I'm predicting that negative teams will make arguments about conflicts that "could have happened but didn't" because of the UNSC. Taking that on face value is as speculative as aff solvency, so provide a little bit of analysis or evidence that can point to how the status quo UNSC was/is able to avert conflict/escalation.

General:

"Progressive debate" debate doesn't mean much to me. I love to evaluate kritik and framework debates. I like evaluating purposeful T and theory rounds (I'd especially like to see more fiat debates). I also like judging a good salt-of-the-earth "substance" round. I don't enjoy evaluating what you might call "tricks", but I'll judge them fairly. I'm not here to tell you what you can't run (outside of oppressive/exclusionary arguments). It's good to interrogate the normative expectations of PF debate, and to have discussions of what forms of exclusion undergird debate, and specifically this format, to begin with. I likethis article from Stefan Bauschard a lot.

Housekeeping:

Please pre-flow and create the email chain before the round. Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting (see "Evidence"). If you have a shell (T, theory, etc), please send it in the card doc. Let's work together to trim down the time spent on evidence exchanges.

DO NOT send a "locked" document to me or your opponents. This is a competitive equity AND academic integrity concern.

Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one.

Speaking:

Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant.

If you have an auditory processing concern, please address it with your opponents rather than me whenever possible. If someone comes to you with an auditory processing concern, accommodate them. Be good to each other.

How I flow:

I flow digitally, and divide my flow by contentions. For contentions with multiple subpoints, just make sure you sign post. I flow warrants and read card docs during crossfire and prep, so don't just extend your author/tag.

I don't judge-extend or judge-kick whenever possible (maybe once in a while in a novice round).

I flow overviews at the top of the first contention. I'd rather flow weighing on the contentions individually, rather than en-masse at the bottom of the speech.

How I evaluate:

A-priori arguments are, as the name implies, evaluated first. Absent an a-priori debate, I go to framing.

Framing should be complementary to your impact/weighing. If framing is not argued, or if both teams drop framing, I default to utilitarianism. Once the framework debate is resolved (if there is one), I move to the contentions.

I like comparative link weighing a lot. Speculative impacts require a bit more work on uniqueness than empiric impacts. I think the status quo can be an impact in itself.

If neither team is able to garner offense, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo. Presumption can be flipped if the status quo is the impact.

Crossfire is binding.

Speaker Points:

I average around a 28.7 for varsity rounds. For a well-executed technical debate, expect something in the 28.8-29.4 realm. Above a 29.5 is reserved for performances that "stick to the ribs", demonstrating both technical mastery and rhetorical salience. Remember that debate is largely a practice in storytelling.

Specific Arguments

Topical "normative" Cases:

Truth is determined by the flow, and I don't judge-extend or kick arguments. Otherwise, do what you do. Turns rock.

Topical "critical" Cases:

Win your framework and role of the ballot. "Role of the judge" feels redundant, but if you make a distinction between my role and my ballot's role, I'll listen.

Again, links and solvency usually the most vulnerable components of the case. K solvency shouldn't be restricted to discourse - but what does the fiat-ed adoption of the critical worldview look like?

Textual alts that suggest specific actions get a little too close to plans/counterplans for comfort - instead, "vote [your side] to endorse/reject [something]", then go win the link.

These rounds are where I can offer my most helpful feedback, whether you're running a K or debating against one.

Non-topical criticisms:

Win your framework. Explain why the criticism is a prerequisite to topical debate, answer the TVA/TVN, and the perm.

Remember that I default presume to the side of the ballot closest to the status quo, whether you're reading a Non-T K or debating against one.

Presumption can be flipped either way. If you do a performance or narrative of some sort, implicate that stylistic choice.

"Off-case" Criticisms:

I'm not quite as fond of these for time constraint reasons (they often result in messy back-halves), so if you read one, do so in 2nd constructive or first rebuttal.

If you're critiquing a specific problematic discourse your opponent advances, consider running it as a short theory shell instead (example: I don't need you to spend 120 seconds dissecting gendered structures of power to claim misgendering is bad - it's pretty straightforward).

Topicality:

I prefer T be read in shell form with an interpretation, violation, standards and voter(s).

I believe that fairness is an internal link to various more objective impacts, rather than an impact itself. If you go for "drop the team" on T, it should be the whole FF.

T against kritiks should center standards for why I should hold the line for the resolution.

Theory:

Strong theory debates should focus on defining best practices for the activity.

"Theory bad" arguments are inherently theory arguments themselves and I'll evaluate them the same way I evaluate other forms of theory.

I prefer competing interpretations, but if the theory is clearly infinitely regressive or needlessly punitive, my threshold for reasonability lowers. This is especially true for theory "tricks".

Disclosure is good; Open-source disclosure is the gold standard; from my experience and observation, disclosure serves to benefit small programs and under-resourced programs; community minimums for disclosure are debatable. Paraphrasing, rather than reading actual evidence, is unethical.

Evidence:

Cut cards are an ethical standard for debate and non-negotiable at the varsity circuit level. Paraphrasing is not an automatic loss, but I will have no basis to trust your analytics absent you producing a marked copy of your evidence.

I have a low threshold for voting for paraphrasing theory against you, absent a performative contradiction from the other team.

Novices should learn to cut cards, but for them this a goal, not an expectation.

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

Policy:

I'm a little rusty, but regularly judged policy between 2016 and 2020. K v. K and K v. FW/T rounds were my favorites.

Hello again! It's been a minute! If you have me in a policy round, my most important request is that you help me flow you. I can normally follow at decently quick speeds, but if I "clear" you, it's a request for you to help me catch what you're saying. Sign posting is important and please please read tags and shells more slowly than your internals.

I debated policy in HS and coached/judged for a few years before moving to more PF. That said, policy directly informed the way I coach and evaluate PF. I don't have particularly strong opinions about most arguments, so run what you're good at running. I understand that this is quite vague, so if you're unsure how you'll pref me, or what to run in front of me, just ask.

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

Lincoln-Douglas:

Run what you want, but understand that I don't know the norms as well here.

You can likely infer my judging style from the PF and Policy sections above. Any questions, just send an email.

elena.eh.liao@gmail.com

I was a debater at UCLab. I ran k arguments on the aff and neg.

Debates are not decided by my biases or what arguments I am used to but the actual debaters in the round. I'm ready to be dazzled by whatever it is you have prepared, but more importantly I want to be told explicitly why to vote for you. To make this matter clear to all, I think that data/evidence about theory and praxis is better than just one or the other. Give me easy ways to understand why TeamA beats TeamB, as well as give me solid warrants to your arguments so I can defend my decision in the RFD.

Argument types:

DAs, Topicality, Ks, CPs and the whole lot are fine by me. Willing to vote on a DA turns case, willing to vote aff on a 0% risk of a DA, but just be clear: LOL @ RVIs. LOL @ 13-off (you deserve a special breed of theory violation) and LOL @ things I don't understand by the final rebuttal.

Theory in general - what was abusive??? Varies round to round. Yes, a dropped argument is really influential to my ballot. I like when there is a clean sweep for either team... and I will vote on theory with clear links and impact analysis.

Cross-ex is speech time without speech constraints. I try and flow this because arguments tend to become more apparent to all during this part of the round.

Fair warning: speaker points will be a reflection of how you competed in the round. Poetic diction is praised and points will be raised. Passion is justifiable, but prejudice is not.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Yes, include me on the email chain. zhaneclloyd@gmail.com

Brooklyn Tech: 2011 - 2012 (those three novice UDL tournaments apparently count), 2017 - 2021 (coach)
NYU: 2014 - 2018
The New School: 2018-2020 (coach)

***I used to keep my video off for rounds, but I've since learned that it's a mistake for the morale of the debater as well as for confirming whether or not I'm actually in the room. If my camera is off, I am not in the room. Please do not start speaking***

I currently work a full-time job that has nothing to do with debate. I still judge because that full-time job does not pay enough (does any job nowadays?) and I've built community with people that are still very active in debate, so seeing them is nice. It is also means I'm VERY out of touch with what the new norms in debate are. But everything below still applies for the most part.

In case you're pressed for time

1. Do you. Have fun. Don't drop an important argument.

2. If there is an impact in the 2NR/2AR, there's a high chance you've won the debate in front of me. I like going for the easy way out and impacts give me the opportunity to do that. Impact comparisons are good too. NEG - LINKS to those impacts matter. AFF - how you SOLVE those impacts matter. Outside of that context, I'm not sure how I should evaluate.

3. I flow on paper, so please don't be upset if I miss arguments because you're slurring your words or making 17 arguments/minute.

4. Don't assume I know the acronyms or theories you're talking about, even if I do. This is a persuasion activity, so no shortcuts to persuading me.

5. Obviously, I have biases, but I try not to let those biases influence how I decide a round. Usually, if debaters can't accomplish #2, then I'll be forced to. I prefer to go with the flow though.

6. If at the end of the round, you find yourself wanting to ask my opinion on an argument that you thought was a round winner, know that I have one of two answers: I didn't consider it or I didn't hear it. Usually, it's the latter. So try not to make 5 arguments in 20 seconds.

7. There's no such thing as a "good" time to run 5+ off, but I'll especially be annoyed if it's the first or last round of the day. 10+ off guarantees I will not flow and may even stop the round. I'm not the judge for those type of rounds.

8. I've grown increasingly annoyed with non-Black debaters making "helping Black people" as part of their solvency. A lot of you don't know how to do this without either a). sounding patronizing as hell or b). forgetting that "helping Black people" was part of your solvency by the time rebuttals come around (#BackburnerDA). I'm not going to tell you to stop running those arguments, but I strongly recommend you don't have me in the back of the room for them.

**ONLINE DEBATE**: You don't need to yell into your mic. I can hear you fine. In fact, yelling into your mic might make it harder for me to hear you. Which means you may lose. Which is bad. For you.

If you're not so pressed for time

I debated for four years at NYU and ran mostly soft left affs. I think that means I'm a pretty good judge for these types of affs and it also means I'm probably able to tell if there is a genuine want for a discussion about structural violence impacts and the government's ability to solve them or if they're just tacked on because K debaters are scary and it makes the perm easier.

I do think debate is a game, but I also think people should be allowed to modify the "rules" of the game if they're harmful or just straight up unlikeable. I've designed games from time to time, so I like thinking about the implications of declaring debate to be "just" a game or "more than" a game. Now to the important stuff.

Speed: Through a card, I'll tolerate it. Through a tag or analytics, I'll be pretty annoyed. And so will you, because I'll probably miss something important that could cost you the round. When reading a new card, either verbally indicate it ("and" or "next") or change your tone to reflect it.

Planless affs: Even in a game, some people just don't want to defend the government. And that's perfectly okay. But I would like the aff to be relevant to the current topic. Though I do understand that my definition of "relevant" and a K debater's definition of "relevant" may differ greatly slightly, so just prove to me why the aff is a good idea and why the lack of government action is not as relevant/bad/important as the negative's framework makes it seem.

CP: Wasn't really much of a CP debater and I don't really coach teams that run CPs, except the basic novice ones that come in a starter kit. I think they're a fine argument and am willing to vote on them.

DA: You could never go wrong with a good DA. DAs, when run correctly, have a really good, linear story that can be extended in the neg block and could be used to effectively handle aff answers. Feel free to go crazy.

Ks: I can't think of a neg round where I didn't run a K. I've run cap, security, queerness, and Black feminism. But please, do not talk to me as if I know your K. If you're running pomo, I most definitely don't know your K and will need to be talked through it with analogies and examples. If you're running an identity K, I probably do know your K but expect the same from you as I expect from a pomo debater. Cap, security - you get the memo.

T: My favorite neg arg as a senior. I'm always down for a good T debate. I do think that sometimes it's used as a cop-out, but I also think that some affs aren't forwarding any sort of plan or advocacy. Just stating an FYI and a neg can't really argue against that. So T becomes the winning strategy.

Framework: Not exactly the same as T, but I still **like** it. Please just call it framework in front of me. I've heard various names be used to describe it, but they're all just arguments about what should be discussed in the round and how the aff fails to do so.

Theory: Important, but the way debaters speed through their theory shells makes me question just how important it is. Again, slow down when reading theory in front of me so it's actually an option for you at the end of the round.

Pronouns: he/him

I am a coach at Success Academies Harlem North Central. I've coached Public Forum and competed in Lincoln Douglas and Parli but do not have a policy background.

I am fine with moderate spreading and prefer e-disclosure at theodore.longlois@saschools.org. I have a mild hearing impairment so spreading needs to be clear and debaters need to speak up.

I am more of a tech judge than a truth judge. I am highly persuaded by strong impact calculation/weighing and strongly prefer debaters signpost well. I will consider framework arguments first when deciding which impacts to consider. Debaters need to point out drops, extensions, and fairness claims for them to be weighed in the round.

I am fine with kritiks. Debaters need to be polite to each other and I will vote down teams who make offensive arguments/use offensive language, especially if it is pointed out by their opponents.

First, my philosophy on debate stems from Harlan Ellison’s short story The Silver Corridor. I will flow rounds and keep time. I will give teams ~30 seconds to send emails between rounds but then any tech issues will be counted as prep time. I encourage students to attempt what they have prepared for the round but I will not have student cards in front of me so I will base my flow and votes on what I hear in the round and if I can’t understand what someone is saying it won’t mean anything in the round. I vote based on the most compelling argument on the current years topic. Respect the debate space and have a good time.

Include me on any email chains: tlopreiato@yahoo.com

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

The briefest background info ever:

2A at Binghamton - I did a lot of K debate in high school - I do a lot of K debate now.

1- K, phil

2- policy/LARP

3/strike- theory/tricks

Put me on the email chain

cmarin1@binghamton.edu

Do whatever you want* just tell me how to vote, what to vote on, and why I should vote on it

* Misc things that are not up for debate

- problematic behavior/rhetoric/language/vibes means your speaks= the number of hours of sleep I got last night

- I will flow shared speeches, please do not feed lines to your partner, just say them yourself

- If you're reading Schmitt or Heidegger your speaks are capped at 26 regardless of whether or not you win

- Brownie points in the form of speaks for a well-executed phil strat in any event (that includes util if you do it right)

- if you spread your unsent analytics at card speed im only going to evaluate what i was able to flow so be careful

My default procedure for evaluating a debate -

*I believe very strongly that the three points under this heading are up for debate - these are just defaults*

1. Who am I, what is the round, what is the ballot and what can it do? Absent arguments that tell me otherwise:

- I am a college debater majoring in linguistics and psychology, I care a lot more about the activity than policymaking

- The round is a competition predicated on your ability to persuade me to vote for you

2. What are the roles/burdens of the aff and the neg

- I don't care if the aff reads a plan, defends a change from the status quo, makes no arguments at all, you just have to explain why it means I should vote aff

- the negs job is to convince me to vote neg

3. Who solves which impacts and how do I evaluate/compare them?

- I start my evaluation with probability of solvency

- discourse/education matter (ie. I would rather you just go for liberalism good than argue that your reps aren't important)

more detailed takes for people who want them:

K's:

I have probably read your lit base, if I haven't I'm equally excited to hear it

Do something fun and exciting, do something we've all seen before, just do it well and enjoy doing it. It's your round, I'm just living in it

There are probably no perms in a methods debate, but you still have to win that

DAs:

Love them (and never get to judge them lmao)

Don't be afraid to go for a DA and case just don't forget presumption

CPs:

Solvency advocate theory is probably true

These are a solid and underutilized strategy against k affs

Theory/T:

think of this as like a break glass in case of emergency option in front of me

Disclosure theory means I need screenshots with a timestamp

if you're a circuit debater and your opponent has no idea what's going on I will deck your speaks

affs

I'm a 2a, I've read all kinds of affs.

K aff's- literally do whatever you want. I don't care if you mention the topic. I don't care if you have a c/i on fw.

I will vote for soft left affs, and honestly, I miss them, probability>magnitude is very winnable in front of me.

Policy affs- please keep your internal link chains alive ???? - tell me how the aff solves your extinction scenario

**2022 LONGHORN CLASSIC UPDATE**

Email please - flashingisprep@gmail.com

I have now lived on a farming commune for the past two years. I have judged maybe 5 debates in that span, and zero debates on this topic. Do not expect me to know things about what is happening

I will not vote on things that happened outside of the debate I am judging.

Since I’ve been out of the activity, I think two main things have happened to my judging philosophy

• I have gotten worse for the neg in framework debates. I increasingly find the negs framework standards silly and am beginning to think more and more that framework is an argumentative crutch that prevents people from actually trying interesting and/or responsive strategies. Yes framework is often an impact turn to the 1AC which like, fine I guess. And yes, sometimes the aff doesn't defend anything at all, or sometimes is just “this is how I make a home in debate” which like, how do you negate that? But a shocking amount of the time, in front of me, you will be better off just debating the aff as it has presented itself in the 1AC. I do not want to watch you go for framework. I will still vote for neg in these debates, just not as easily as I did before.
• I have gotten worse for the aff in K v K debates. Your aff doesn't do anything? I'm excited to vote on presumption. Your aff plays some music and reads poems? I'm excited to vote for any of the thousands of impact turns to poetics, or a fun PIK out of the music. I think that the neg has a lower threshold for me in KvK debates than most people seem to think. I want to watch you go for something that is not framework. I will still vote aff in these debates, just not as easily as I did before.

-------------------------------------------------[2021-2022]-----------------------------------------------------

**IMPORTANT UPDATE**

"No mask, no win. You can only have your mask off when giving a speech. Masks should be on for CX, prep, and all other times we're in the same room. Otherwise, you will take a big L 25. Don't like it? Great, do your prefs." - Yao Yao Chen

I've been out of judging for a year as I have been living on a farming commune, and over that time a couple of things have happened

• I have gotten worse for the neg in framework debates. I increasingly find the negs framework standards silly and am beginning to think more and more that framework is an argumentative crutch that prevents people from actually trying interesting and/or responsive strategies. Yes sometimes framework is an impact turn to the 1AC which like, fine I guess. And yes, sometimes the aff doesn't defend anything at all in which case you need to force them to actually take a stance on something. But a shocking amount of the time, in front of me, you will be better off just debating the aff as it has presented itself in the 1AC. I do not want to watch you go for framework. I will still vote for neg in these debates, just not as easily as I did before.
• I have gotten worse for the aff in K v K debates. Your aff doesn't do anything? I'm excited to vote on presumption. Your aff plays some music and reads poems? I'm excited to vote for any of the thousands of impact turns to poetics, or a fun PIK out of the music. I think that the neg has a lower threshold for me in KvK debates than most people seem to think. I want to watch you go for something that is not framework. I will still vote aff in these debates, just not as easily as I did before. Just answer the aff. Seriously, have y'all heard of this thing called the cap K? Speaking of the cap K....
• There has been this trend to push beyond the whole "I will not vote on racism good" and say things like "I will not vote on climate change not real/good" Which I totally support. Now that we have opened up that gate, I am really tempted to say that "I will not vote on cap/heg good." I thought about this for a long time, and I'm not going to draw that line in the sand outright, but I am willing to say that it is going to be hard for you to win a cap good debate in front of me. I'm done trying to leave my very real political investments at the door for the sake of "the sanctity of the game" or whatever other nonsense.

Also, if you have (NON-DEBATE) questions or curiosities about any of the following feel free to reach out to me. I'd love to hear your thoughts and maybe share a few of my own, or at least help you find people more qualified to answer your questions.

Communism, prison and police abolition, pre-configurative politics, homesteading, private property, reparations, cooperative living, sustainable and regenerative agriculture, labor history, why crypto is bad, etc.

----------------------------------------------------[2020-2021]-----------------------------------------------------

Yes I want to be on the email chain: flashingisprep@gmail.com

**Please make the subject line of your email something that makes sense (ex: TFA State - Round 3 - Texas CM v MSU GS)**

All other things (questions, comments, speech doc requests, etc) should go to masonnmv[at]gmail[dot]com

[ONLINE DEBATE NOTES]

Please for the love of all that is good in this world update your wiki's. The community has paradoxically dramatically reduced it's wiki updating during a time of Zoom debate where it is more necessary than ever before. Seriously, what are you doing. Update your wiki. I will vote on disclosure theory.

Also please leave your camera on if possible. It's so awkward and alienating to stare at a blank screen for two hours by myself.

For other things see paradigm from last year below

----------------------------------------------------[2019-2020]-----------------------------------------------------

[Pre-TFA State UPDATE - 2/25/2020]

Still judging only clash debates so here is a more complete framework rant

• Ideologically I slightly lean aff for reasonability reasons. In the real debate world we actual live in, (some) K affs are predictable, and (most) K affs that are in the direction of the resolution are not hard to engage with. Not only that, but ideally we all have case negs to the best teams at the tournament anyway. That being said, framework is still absolutely negative ground, and K affs are (often) impossible to pin down. Also a lot of K affs require you to spot them solvency before you can win offense which is probably not something we should have to do. Two things you should take away from that
• On the aff, defense goes a long way. The negatives fairness and limits offense is often blown way out of proportion and you should stop letting them get away with that
• On the neg, negative engagement is the easiest standard to convince me of. The 2AR will probably say "our aff is contestable because XYZ" but framework debates are questions of models not just about the aff.
• I vote aff in these debates when:
• The 2AR wins that impositions of limits are bad. I don't often find myself voting that "limits in the abstract are always terrible" but re-framing that same argument as "imposing X limit on debate is bad for Y reason" is something that I find a lot more compelling, especially when the 2NR doesn't do impact comparison and instead just asserts "but I promise limits are super great"
• The 2AR wins that their interpretation solves limits with even a small net benefit of some kind. Mostly this happens when the the aff spends a lot of time on defense (an under-utilized component of framework debates, see above), or when the 2NR rants about impacts for 5 minutes without talking about internal links.
• I vote neg in these debates when:
• The 2NR does great internal link work. I would love for the 2NR to include a section that says "their interp is A which allows for B because C which doesn't solve D because E" Doing so will force you to clearly articulate an internal link differential which is a thing I care about, while also dramatically raising the threshold the aff has to meet to win any of their defense (again, a thing I care about)
• There isn't a role for the negative under the affs interp. I believe clash is great, and the negative often gets away with telling me that they are the only ones that allow for clash to occur. Not only that but the negative often is better at telling me why the types of clash that we have under their interp is good for XYZ reason.
• I think debate is great, I wouldn't devote 100% of my non-schoolwork time to it if I didn't, so you will have a hard time convincing me that "debate is terrible, we shouldn't do it, clash is always bad in every instance" and the negative will have an easy time winning "debate can be good, you don't even have to read a plan just say something at all please"
• I find it really hard to explain why the act of reading framework in and of itself is violent or bad. Specifically, I will have a really hard time voting on "you read framework you should lose" if the 2NR doesn't go for it, and I really don't care about framework linking to X other position that you read. If you don't put framework in the 1NC the aff gets to run wild in the 2AC, and fallback positions are a thing. If you're neg you still need to answer it but don't think you have to go for framework or you're screwed because as long as you answer it I don't care that much at all.

[MID SEASON UPDATE - 12/11/2019]

• I increasingly find myself saying something like this in the RFDs "I have you saying quote: *reads exactly what I have written on my flow* in the 2NR/2AR, to me that is not a complete argument nor does it answer the explanation the other team is doing" - this might be me being picky, but just know that I have a slightly higher threshold than average for what qualifies as extending a complete argument
• I have also done this a couple of times "I have you saying quote: *reads from flow* in the 1AR/block, while the 2NR/2AR explanation is very good you have not made this into an actual argument until then"
• This is not a tech over truth claim. Truth does come before tech, but there is a minimum threshold that your truthful argument has to meet for me to feel comfortable evaluating it
• For framework, some new thoughts
• To quote Bankey: there are two framework 2ARs: 1) limits are bad, or 2) we solve limits. While there are a plethora of winning 2ARs on framework, if you don't do either of those things you are going to be in a rough spot
• If the aff is going for the "we solve limits" 2AR, the 2NR would be greatly served by having a section which says "their interp is A which allows for B because C which doesn't solve D because E" Doing so will force you to clearly articulate an internal link differential between your interp and their interp. If you can't do that in the 2NR then maybe go for a different standard.
• I still continue to only judge clash debates. I've accepted that fate by now, but know that if for some reason I'm in a policy debate I will probably not be as educated as I should be.
• Specifically, I seem to end up judging a lot of *different flavor of anti-blackness* vs *state engagement and fiat are good* debates. I can almost promise that I've heard someone make a much better version of the argument you're making and I can also promise that I'll just wish I was watching that person debate and not you when you're making that mediocre argument.
• I enjoy these debates when:
• There are examples from both sides on the ontology portion of the debate
• Each side answers the specifics of the others examples
• I hear an example I haven't heard before (examples are a trend here if that wasn't clear enough)
• You clearly know what you're talking about/look like you've actually read a book - if you know your stuff, make that clear, it makes me happy that students know things
• I DO NOT enjoy these debate when:
• You assume you're winning ontology true/not true without doing any explanation
• You sound like you're annoyed the other team exists/is making arguments (yes even if their arguments are bad you should still respect them)
• When there are only non-black people in the room and nobody talks about/seems to recognize/cares about that fact
• It's clear you are just reading blocks and don't actually know what your cards say - I will still vote for you, I'll just be upset about it and you're speaks will not be happy

[POST CAMP PARADIGM - SEPTEMBER-ISH 2019]

General Things:

• Tell me how to vote and why, hold my hand as much as possible and you will be rewarded
• Your evidence quality matters a lot to me, but I won't read evidence unless I need to. Use that to your advantage, compelling and in depth evidence comparison goes a loooong way.
• If/when I call for cards I will ask for "whatever you think is important" That is NOT an invitation to send me everything you read, nor is it a promise to read everything you send me. Instead it's an opportunity to do what you should have done in the speech and tell me which cards you think I should read (that does include opponent evidence if you so choose).
• Truth over tech, you should have a warrant to prove why your truth claim is true
• Take risks and have fun. When you're engaged and having fun it makes my job more enjoyable and a happy me = better speaks
• Always happy to answer specific questions you have before the debate. The question "do you have any specific paradigms judge" (or anything along those lines) will be answered with "do whatever you want"

Framework - these are my initial thoughts, all of these (unless otherwise stated) are things I think are true but I can be convinced otherwise if you out debate someone on it:

• State good isn't offense for a framework argument, and state bad isn't offense against it - unlikely you will tell me otherwise
• Your interp isn't just a model that dictates the way debates go down, but also a research model that dictates the way we prepare for debates - you should have reasons why both in and out of round their interp is bad and yours is good
• If the aff says arms sales are bad I do not understand why winning arms sales are good is not a reason to vote neg. On the aff that should help you answer fairness/ground, on the neg that should give you another 2NR option if you so choose.
• I am more than willing to vote for intervention/heg/cap/arms sales are good. Often times I think the aff is too flippant about answering the impact turns that get read on case and the negative fails to capitalize on that.
• Increasingly I am becoming less and less of a fan of arguments that say "framework is policing/the prison/any other actually bad thing" In fact, I think that it is very dangerous to equivocate the violence that happens in a prison to the "violence" that happens when teams read framework.
• Answering the aff is not a microaggression. Neither is reading generic evidence. Debaters make bad/non-responsive arguments all the time, that's not a reason to vote them down, just a reason you don't have to spend as much time answering the argument.

Until I judge more rounds on this topic I won't have as many topic specific things to say. Please consult the previous seasons paradigm for any additional information

----------------------------------------------------[2018-2019]-----------------------------------------------------

Yes I want to be on the email chain: flashingisprep@gmail.com

General things:

• Tell me how to vote and why, not only will this help your chances of winning, it will also help your speaks
• I will read your evidence after the debate, not during, so the more you do the ev comparison for me during the debate the more likely I am to believe you - that being said, your evidence quality matters a lot to me, and I will read the evidence that I think is relevant while making my decision, so make sure to tell me which evidence matters
• Take risks. It makes my job a lot more fun and often pays off big. Your speaks will be rewarded for it.
• Truth over tech, and you should have a warrant to prove why your truth claim is true
• I increasingly keep judge clash debates, I have judged maybe two high level disad/cp debates since the Greenhill tournament, that means two things
• First, in clash debates I find myself leaning aff on the internal link level but neg on the impact level, I think the 2NR impact explanation sounds pretty but the internal link is dramatically under explained, and the 2AR can often be very compelling on a "you don't solve your own impact" level. The topical versions that teams are reading (mostly the generic open borders stuff) is also only really ever compelling to me in a world where the aff goes for "our discussion good" which is increasingly not the way the aff is answering framework. If your aff defends restrictions are bad and provides a mechanism for resolving (whatever that means) that then I am a fan. If your aff is just "debate is bad, fairness and clash are bad" then I am not a fan
• IF you do have me in a policy v policy debate, make sure you explain which part of the debate matters and why, and do a little bit more handle holding me through the debate in the 2NR and 2AR than you would in front of your regular policy judges as I will need to shake the rust off

Policy things - these are my initial thoughts, all of these (unless otherwise stated) are things I think are true but I can be convinced otherwise if you out debate someone on it:

• Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, you will be hard pressed to persuade me otherwise
• Undecided on indefinite parole good/bad - probably lean neg on this question but haven't seen it really debated out enough yet
• The topic is LPR - way more thoughts on this later, but unlikely you convince me your non-LPR aff is T
• If your CP has a solvency advocate (each plank, together) I think it's almost impossible to lose to any theory argument
• Presumption flips aff if the CP is a larger change from the status quo than the aff is (fully explained in the CPs section at the bottom)
• The 1AR is a constructive, you should probably read some cards

Clash of civ things - these are my initial thoughts, all of these (unless otherwise stated) are things I think are true but I can be convinced otherwise if you out debate someone on it:

• Fairness is an internal link, but negative engagement and clash are very compelling impacts
• State good isn't offense for a FW argument, and state bad isn't offense against it - unlikely you will tell me otherwise
• If the aff says and defends that restrictions on immigration are bad I find it harder to win a limits impact but a little easier to win a topical version
• Your interp isn't just a model that dictates the way debates go down, but also a research model that dictates the way we prepare for debates - you should have reasons why both in and out of round their interp is bad and yours is good
• Ericson is descriptive of debate 15 years ago, not prescriptive of what debate should be. I think this makes it a little difficult to win a predictability internal link, you still can just make sure you do slightly more work than you normally would here for me
• Negative engagement/clash is an impact but probably doesn't solve the affs education offense because the neg wants to be able to go for the temporary CP and base, instead it is good as a critical thinking model

K v K things - these are my initial thoughts, all of these (unless otherwise stated) are things I think are true but I can be convinced otherwise if you out debate someone on it:

• I don't judge a lot of these debates, but when these debates are good, I highly enjoy them. The more specific you get with your links/alt explanation/link turns/alt offense the happier I will be
• The aff gets a perm - "this is a method debate" is not a real world thing to do, only way I really change my mind here is if the aff drops this argument
• You are not responsible for other things your author wrote that you haven't read, but you are responsible for other things/theories that the parts you have read rely on for their theorization (your psychoanalysis aff probably has to defend the Lack even if you don't make any of your arguments about it)
• Examples are the key to winning the link v link turn debate for me
• Just because you read a Zizek card doesn't mean you can just make any argument you want - your theory should be consistent and you should tie your arguments back to your evidence, I will read your evidence after the debate while making my decision

Feel free to email me with any questions - masonnmv[at]gmail[dot]com - yes this is different from the email above, please use each for its intended purpose.

After that quick and dirty, here is my rant about the topic as I've seen it so far. Increasingly on this topic I find myself becoming more and more frustrated with the trajectory of affirmatives who have decided to read a plan. Two large complaints that I have:

• Your aff should be LPR
• You should specify which restrictions you reduce

Let me unpack those two things

First, LPR. I feel very strongly that the aff has to be for the purpose of LPR and only for the purpose of LPR. I know that generally the community is moving in this direction but I feel like it’s worthwhile for me to talk about this because I find myself more ideological about this than others I’ve talked to. I think that “legal immigration” most clearly means “admission to the United States for the purpose of long term permanent residence” and anything that isn’t that is fairly clearly negative ground. There are two versions of the refugee/asylum/T/U visas affs that are mainly being read now.

The first type just makes it easier to get those visas. This is the “determine that environmentally-displaced persons constitute ‘refugees’” aff’s. Or the “remove the requirement to cooperate with law enforcement” aff. These affs, for me, and almost impossibly defensible. Those people that enter under those new expanded rules are not permanent residents, nor are they guaranteed to be permanent residents. The most popular counter-interp for these affs, “legal immigration is path to lpr” to me is poor at best. It begs the question of what a “path” is, which I have yet to find a good definition of. For example, H1-B’s might be considered a path to LPR because the majority of people here on H1-Bs apply for transfer of status and become LPR. Without a good definition of what a “path to LPR” means I have no idea how that interp can set a limit on the topic that excludes non-immigrant and temporary visas. With these affs they all have the similar we meet/reasonability story that happens in the 2AR which goes something like “but our visas end up with LPR and aren’t temporary because they eventually become permanent so please don’t vote neg” But this we meet argument is not even close to compelling. In my mind this is the negatives argument, and at best for you is just the same as saying “we are effectually topical so don’t vote neg” The plan doesn’t immediately give people LPR, and I don’t think that our model of debate is defensible.

The second type of that aff changes those visas and makes them LPR. These are the “for the purpose of long term permanent residence” affs. These are think are more defensible than the type above, and end up raising a lot of interesting T questions, but I would prefer it if they weren’t topical. The problem that I have with these affs is that they just make any non-topical group topical. I have no idea why the plan can fiat that they give refugees immediate LPR and why they would not be able to fiat that H1-Bs are LPR (I keep using H1-Bs because I feel like everyone agrees that those are by definition not topical). The problem that I run into when thinking about these types of affs though is that I don’t think that there is a good interp that clearly limits these types of affs out. I think that there are two ways you can try and limit out these affs. The first, is a definition of restrictions that would say that making a new LPR isn’t reducing a restriction. But I think that a compelling answer to that is probably that the restriction that exists on getting LPR is the 1 year requirement which the plan would eliminate. I think that this could go either way, but that’s the point of debate. The second way you can limit this out is to say that a reduction has to be pre-existing. The aff increases the cap from 0 to 200 LPR refugee visas, which is technically a reduction of a cap but it doesn’t increase a currently existing cap. That coupled with a literature argument about there not being any lit to contest reducing restrictions that don’t officially exist to me feels weak but doable. In general this is the debate the aff wants to have in front of me, because despite the fact I don’t want these affs to be topical I don’t know how to safely limit them out without just arbitrarily deciding that they shouldn’t be topical.

Second, specification. This one really gets me going but comes up in debates less. The topic is not immigration good/bad. The topic is restrictions good/bad. The number of affs with plan texts that resemble “Plan: The USfg should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration for artificial intelligence professionals.” is sad but not surprising. Look I get it, you don’t want to debate PICs. But come on, you have to actually defend something. The best debates on this topic are not “should we let in AI professionals to the US?’ but instead centered around how we should do that. And unless you want every debate to be indefinite parole vs LPR then it would benefit everyone if you just specified. If you read a plan, and a solvency advocate that goes with it, that defends a specific restriction(s) then I am very comfortable inflating your speaks AND telling the neg that their generic CP/links don’t assume the specific mechanism of the aff. If you do not do that (read a real plan that is), I am very comfortable voting neg on a circumvention argument. Let’s be real, you are reading your plan like that because you think it has strategic value, and truthfully, it does. And with that in mind I think that there has to be some incentive for the aff to foster clash and read a real plan text so if you are aff in front of me and you don’t read a real plan, make sure you spend more time than you want to answering vagueness arguments/case circumvention arguments. I am also more comfortable with cheating CPs against affs with vague plans, and dramatically less comfortable with cheating CPs against affs that specify.

I understand that the two above statements might make you slightly uncomfortable but I feel like I should put that out there just so that everyone is on the same page.

------------------------------2016-17 Season-----------------------------------------

I am a first year out. I debated for four years at the Liberal Arts and Science academy and currently attend the University of Texas in Austin. I have always been a 2A so that does actively shape the way that I think about/approach debate.

Short and sweet – Yes put me on the email chain - flashingisprep@gmail.com. I lean more truth over tech in the sense that I will not vote on something that can't explain to the other team at the end of the debate, but that doesn’t mean you can just drop things and hope I ignore them. Do what you do best. Seriously. I would rather judge a good debate on something I am less familiar with than a bad debate any day. The more you can write my ballot in the 2NR/2AR, and tell me what I am voting on and why, the more likely you are to win but also the more likely I am to give you better speaks. Make my job easy and you will be rewarded. I will be somewhat/very expressive during the debate, and I will flow cross ex

Any specific questions feel free to email me: masonnmv [at] gmail [dot] com - yes I realize that this is a different email from the one above, please use each email for its intended purpose.

Now what you are probably here for:

K affs and Framework – I read mostly traditional affs throughout my career but I did read a variety of different K affs with moderate levels of success. I would like to think that I will do my very best to evaluate the debate in front of me but there are a couple of thoughts that I have about framework debates in general that will always be a part of my decision calculus no matter how hard I try and be objective.

First, my senior year my partner and I went for framework against every single K aff that we debated except for one, against which we went for the global/local K. I think that K affs tend to not meet their own interp more often than you would think, and get away with it, and in the instances in which they do meet their interp, it is often very easy to win a limits disad. I also think that a lot of the offense that K teams like to go for is often only a question of “our education is unique” which I feel is often resolved by switch side and maybe the topical version. Limits and clash are the negative standards that I find the most persuasive, and I most commonly went for clash as an impact that has intrinsic value. I am least persuaded by the topic education standards people like to go for, but I encourage you to do what you are the best at and if that’s topic education then go for it. I tend to think about switch side debate more than other people do when evaluating framework debates. I lean neg in general on framework that's for sure.

That being said, there is nothing intrinsic to me about debate that requires that you read a plan, nor do I think that not reading a plan means that no productive debate can occur. I think predictability is definitely a question of the lens through which you view the resolution (eg: on the China topic, even “policy” teams knew that people were going to read a Pan aff. Doing research in a particular area helps to guide what you and others are able to predict will be read during the year), which means that K on K debates can be highly productive/clash can occur. I think that the neg often gets away with way too much offense in terms of things like the limits disad etc as the aff often forgets to test the internal links of their impacts and instead just goes for the impact turn. To use the limits disad as an example, I think that the negs interp is not nearly as limiting as they often get to spin it as, and the world of the aff is often not as bad as the neg says it is. Don’t get me wrong, impact turning things is fantastic, but sometimes smart effective defense can be just as useful.

Other thoughts on framework debates

• One carded, smart, topical, topical version of the aff goes A LOT farther than 4 short generic ones. Specificity matters a lot in these topical version debates. Both the aff and the neg can exploit this to great effect

• If your aff has a solvency advocate that links your theory to the topic in the same way you claim to, you are in a MUCH better place. It cuts back against a lot of their offense and makes it substantially harder for them to win anything that isn’t limits

• I tend to think that both interps have some educational value, if you are winning reasons why the education that your interp provides is comparatively better than the education that their interp provides you are 75% of the way to winning these debates

• I think that debate is a game, but that doesn't mean that it can't have other intrinsic value, eg it can definitely be a home, or a place of individual expression, or even an academic space or educational training ground. I get this framing from my years playing soccer, which while being a game, also provides a lot of good to a lot of people. What that really means for y'all is that I am probably not the best judge for "it's a game cause some wins so vote neg because fairness"

• The more specific that each sides offense gets, the better. There is often a lot of offense happening on both sides of these debates so the more you are able to get ahead on the specifics of how your offense interacts with their offense the better.

I think it is very hard to win state good is a net benefit to framework, especially if you’re coupling it with a switch side debate argument.

Now the more specific things

Kritiks vs Plans –

• Buzzwords do NOT equal explanation. Just because I might be familiar with your author/argument doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t explain it.

• Specificity matters. Feel free to read your generic link cards but be prepared to explain them in the specific context of the aff. On the aff, read your generic K answer cards if you have to/want to but again, be prepared to explain them in the specific context of the aff

• I am better for the negative than most for frameworks that do not let the aff leverage its advantages – I generally think that the aff just assumes that obviously they get the aff and don’t spend enough time here. Yes you can go for framework as the alt/without the alt/whatever you want to call it. Especially if you have a link specific to the aff/something the aff did and not just a link to the squo this can be a very effective strategy.

• Link turns and “the aff is a good idea”/”our reps are true” are sufficient offense to vote aff, but mostly only when coupled with a perm, and you have to explain to me why the aforementioned statement is true. You don’t always have to have external offense against the alt but it would greatly increase your chances of winning. If they kick the alt you can sometimes still get the perm, but you have to do the work to tell me why you should

• On the aff, you should defend the aff and you shouldn’t forget about the aff. Often people get caught up in going for “psychoanalysis bad” instead of actually just answering the links and defending the aff. You should still have specific K offense but seriously, if the K is competitive, then the aff is offense in and of itself. Unless you don’t get to weigh it. See above

Kritiks vs No Plans –

• Just because this is a “method debate” does not mean the aff does not get a permutation. I definitely think that it is actually most real world to combine different methods and see how they interact. Just because we are in debate doesn’t mean that that same standard should apply. Now you can win specific reasons why in the context of your theory the perm still fails, but the aff probably gets the perm.

• See K vs plans stuff as well – specificity matters a ton. Especially in the link vs link turn debate. The aff will almost always have some chance at a link turn, so whoever is ahead on the spin and explanation game will probably win that part of the debate. Historical/contextual examples are super useful and super underutilized. Don’t just assume your truth claim is true, say words and explain why.

Disads –

• I have different thoughts about risk than most people do. Start at 0% risk and build up, NOT at 100% and work down. I think that it is the negatives burden to prove that their internal links are true and not necessarily the affs burden to disprove them. That being said, if the aff only reads a non-unique in the 2AC I think that the negative is going to have a very easy time proving that the rest of their disad is true. What this means is that I am a sucker for a 2AC that maybe reads one or two cards but mainly makes smart and true analytic arguments to answer the disad at each level. Especially if your disad is bad (if you have to ask then yes, yes it is), then I think that the 2AC probably doesn’t need to even read a card and can instead get away with talking about the disad in its entirety for about 45 seconds or less. This is the best example of where I am more truth over tech

• Yes disads can go away in cross ex if it is done correctly, but you still have to make those same arguments in your next speech. A well-executed cross ex on a disad in my opinion is more concerned about what the 1NC evidence says than what the 1N has to say about it.

• The 1AR is basically a constructive. Let’s be real, I got through A LOT of my high school career going for cards that were in the 1AR. As long as you have a similar analytic argument in the 2AC, you can often justify the card. I don’t think that it’s the 2A’s burden to start answering a disad before it becomes a real disad (see above about analytics being awesome). This does NOT mean you can just drop it. But I often don’t think that you need to read cards.

• I really enjoy a good impact turn debate. My senior year this was my bread and butter, and this is where I am more tech over truth. I think that sometimes the CP just solves the aff and so impact turning the net benefit is often an effective and useful answer to CPs. So on the negative just be prepared to defend your impact(s). This goes both ways, if you are ready to impact turn the aff then go for it. These debate are awesome and often involve a lot of strangely qualified evidence and if you do this well I can’t say that your speaker points wouldn’t see a small not-so-subconscious boost.

• On that note I should add: You will receive minimum speaker points and lose if you read racism good, sexism good, and a variety of other arguments where your moral compass should understand that thing is un-impact turn-able. If you have to ask, you shouldn’t go for it

Counterplans –

• I have thoughts about presumption that I think are different from others when it comes to counterplans. Presumption flips affirmative when the counterplan is more change from the status quo than the aff

• For example: Plan: USfg should feed Africa and go to the moon, CP: USfg should feed Africa, Presumption stays negative.

• Example two: Plan: USfg should invest in renewables, CP: USfg should sign the Law of the Sea, iron fertilize the ocean, build CCS, and instate a carbon tax, Presumption flips aff.

• Obviously there are instances where this is not a perfect standard which is why I think it is up to the debaters to explain which way presumption flips and why. This doesn’t come up a ton but when it does it matters.

• On CP theory in general – I am a 2A. Always have been. That being said, I think that you are much better off going for perm do the counterplan/the counterplan isn’t competitive, instead of trying to go for “delay CPs are a voting issue”. I have a hard time believing that I should reject the team because they read a [insert process] counterplan, but I can be persuaded if you have to go for it.

• Also while I am on theory: I have a lot of thoughts about conditionality, but I try my best to judge the debate that happened in front of me. I try to view and evaluate the condo debate the same way someone would evaluate a T debate: which interp have the debaters proved to me is best for a model of debate. I do subconsciously lean aff on this question, but if it's a new aff, do whatever you want.

• 2NC CPs/amendments to CP texts: they justify new 1AR arguments (perms, offense, solvency deficits, links to the net benefit, etc), they are very rarely a reason to reject the team, I could be persuaded that it’s a reason to reject the argument

• The solvency deficit just has to outweigh the risk of the net benefit. Both sides should be doing this comparative work for me please.

Case debate –

• Please do it. I view this the same way that I view disads, it’s the affs burden to prove that their internal links are true and not the negs burden to disprove them. So just like with disads, a smart 1NC on case can be devastating and the less generic your case work is the 1NC the higher the threshold will be for 2AC answers. Basically just read the stuff about disads but switch the aff and the neg

• I am not a fan of the fast, blippy, 2AC case answers, nor am I a fan of your 45 second long block of text that you are going to spread through and call an overview. The 2AC should actually answer case args and the block and 2NR will be given a lot of leeway if you don’t. “Yes war – their evidence doesn’t assume miscalc” is not an answer.

Topicality –

• T is and always will be a question of competing models of debate. That might sound to you like "competing interps" but there is a distinction. Competing interps for me is much more a question of how I should evaluate offense in a topicality debate. Reasonability just means that your interpretation is reasonable (not that the aff is reasonable)/your interp is sufficient to resolve a risk of their offense, competing interps just means that it should only be a question of offense/defense. But in both worlds I am still evaluating different, comparable models of debate.

• I am less concerned about your ability to read your five sub-points ground and fairness block and more concerned with your ability to outline what the world of the other teams interp looks like. Why is it bad for debate (both aff and neg ground) etc.

• That being said, I went for T a lot in high school. T QPQ and framework were our two most common 2nrs. So do what you have to do. And yes, T is a topic generic.

• Topicality is about the model of debate that you endorse, so have a defense of that. Case lists, and why the affs on that list are bad or good, are a must.

• For reference from the China topic – on a scale of Yes T-QPQ We Meet/Counter Interp double bind to No T-QPQ We Meet/Counter Interp double bind I’m a firm “no”.

To close I would like to quote Ezra Serrins, my high school debate partner, "I appreciate it when debaters take arguments seriously but you shouldn't take yourself too seriously"

tl;dr yeah, you can go fast

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: jrmartin707@gmail.com

--

Debated in college for UC Berkeley, have coached high school and college teams at local and TOC levels, etc. Doing a bit of occasional coaching and judging now but I'm not plugged into the circuit hardcore; you should assume I'm familiar with everything argumentatively/stylistically and very little on the topic. Generally, same stuff everyone says: debate like you want to debate, explain things and impact them, tell me why you winning or losing an argument does or does not influence my decision, and have fun. Otherwise, here’s some things you probably want to know:

- My own argumentative evolution has been from a pretty exclusively K debater early on to almost all policy work by the end, though I've coached all kinds. For what it’s worth, if you need an easy way to rank me, I lean more and more towards enjoying straight-up policy debates the more I judge. It's tough to disentangle "what are you a good judge for" and "what are you gonna have more fun watching" sometimes, even though they're definitely different, so I'm just gonna be honest and say that if you have no good reason to pick the K or the DA or which of your affs you're gonna read, might as well read the policy one. My favorite debates to judge are: huge in-depth case throwdowns, techy aff-specific counterplan debates, K on K clashes that are grounded in true disputes in the literature, impact turn debates (on the case or against a DA/K), and well-executed topicality debates.

- I do fundamentally believe that framework is true and debate would be better if people read plans, not that that means I exclusively vote negative in those debates. Predictability and debatability sound like pretty important things to me, and I think most aff framework counter-interps do not develop a feasible role for the negative and what neg prep should look like in their version of debate, but that doesn't mean any given neg team executes properly. I think like most everyone I’d rather here some clever unique strategy, but I dislike the dichotomy that framework isn’t a “substantive” argument and that the negative “didn’t engage the aff” by reading it. It's a good argument. The best aff answers lay out really clear alternatives for what debate should look like and impact turn all the skills that policy-focused debate generates.

- I’m generally unpersuaded by arguments along the lines of “the permutation/framework/etc. is violence/stealing our advocacy/etc.”, arguments that the negative doesn’t have to disprove the affirmative, purely nihilistic alternatives, and K speeches that consist entirely of buzzwords where you expect me to fill in what I already know about your concepts. I’m not afraid to give decisions which consist mostly of “I have no idea what you were talking about most of the time” if you just repeated the words “rhizome” or “foundational antagonism” at me, even if I know what you were trying to mean. Additionally, I'm super not down with arguments that are about things outside of the debate, like "show us your prefs" style stuff. I think the other team needs like a ten second defense of "you can only critique stuff we actually said" and I'm checked out.

- I have relatively few strong predispositions about common theory arguments; conditionality is probably fine but not necessarily, etc. I'll be extremely flow-centric here: I have absolutely voted for really bad theory args that got dropped, and also refused to vote for dropped ones when they were never a full argument with an impact in the first place.

- Evidence comparison, and calling out your opponent’s terrible, terrible evidence for what it is, is both extremely important and probably the best way to rack up your speaker points, alongside detailed impact calculus. The best ways to hurt your speaker points are to be a jerk to your partner, to get angry for no reason in cross-ex, and to spend your whole speech behind your laptop not paying any attention to the judge's reactions. Try to be a kind person who knows their stuff and the rest will follow.

- Because so many debates start with the question, "Can we do open CX?", the answer is always the same: you can, technically, there's no rule against it. But I would really recommend you don't - it's always better to get practice handling your CXs alone, going to your partner only as a last resort. It's important that they have the time to prep their next speech (that's three full minutes of free prep time!) and it's also much better for both of your speaker points if you each look organized and have mastery of your material.

TL;DR- Competed competitively in high school for three years but have been "out of the loop" for a couple of years. I've only done a few rounds on the topic, so please don't assume too much background knowledge on your cases, even if they are common for this year. Fine with everything, but topicality needs to have in round impacts for me to vote on it. If you're super techy that's fine, but please spell out to me how each of your arguments interact with each other if it gets into an in-depth Framework debate, especially in the rebuttals.

If you have more time to read about me-

Experience: Competed in Policy for thee years at a school in Northern Utah (Sky View High School). I never went to the TOC but I made it to a few bid rounds my Junior and Senior year and got 4th Speaker at NSDA Nats. I almost exclusively read and ran critical arguments (Afro-pessimism primarily) and honestly was never the most techy of debaters, but I can follow and appreciate a good "traditional" round as well. I took two years off after high school and am now a sophomore at Harvard College and generally help coach for the Urban Debate League in Boston.

Affs- Don't really have a preference on if it's topical or not, but I want to know what exactly I'm voting for if I send in an aff ballot (so if that's an advocacy statement or an idea or a narrative, just make sure it's clear to me what the affirmative is AFFIRMING. Or if you don't think you need to affirm something, make sure you clearly lay out why that is and what my ballot does in that case). The narrative of the 1ac should be clear throughout the round, so please have at least case overviews in the 2ac (and if you're reading a traditional case, please extend each of your impact scenarios you plan on going for in each speech).

CP's/DAs- Chill with basically everything. Regardless of my personal opinions on PICS/Severance CPs, it's all good with me until the other team reads theory. Then I'll evaluate that theory based on the in-round impact and the standards presented. Please have a net-benefit, but whether that's internal or external is up to you.

T- If you're going to go for this in the 2nr, please have in round impacts. If not, I highly doubt that I am going to vote for it. Just being honest.

K's- This is more my home, but I have been out of the game for a bit so make sure you clearly explain your links and alternative to me throughout the debate. I expect you to have some sort of framing as well, so that should be presented to me in the block if not earlier. Good K debate isn't about just talking past the Aff team with big words, I want to hear some in-depth analysis on how your K interacts specifically with their aff (not just the topic in general), what the impacts are, how your alternative solves (or doesn't if that's conducive with your literature), etc etc. If I don't understand what I'm voting for or why I'm voting, then I'm not going to do it.

Theory- Unless there has been some very clear abuse, I likely won't make it a voting issue. I'm much more likely to side with a "x justifies y" line of argument where them doing something unfair justifies you doing something unfair as well.

FW- Not the most experienced in this area, but I definitely think it's a viable strategy/thing to include in the round. Just be sure you explain to me what exactly your vision of debate is under your framing, the reasons for preferring that vision, and if it gets really nit-picky than please please flag for me the most important issues/arguments that you are winning, and how winning that point interacts with the remaining points.

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

Hello!

First thing first, do not spread. I know it is supposed to help debaters contribute more evidence to support their arguments, but I have a problem with my hearing and it is really hard for me to make out what is being said if you're going at hyper speed. But please feel free to read fast, if I can't make out what you are saying I will make sure to signal/notify you.

No specific preference on the types of arguments that are made, but I would rather see fewer strong arguments than multiple weak ones -so just keep that in mind.

Also please use your time wisely, if you aren't ready to begin speaking and are still pulling up your case I will consider that as prep time. Also use all of your time when speaking, it will boost your speaker points.

Overall speak clearly and have fun!

Current Debate Coach at Caddo Magnet HS

LHSSL Executive Secretary

email: Kasi.mccartney@gmail.com

Please show up on time. Have email chains, stands and other needs set up before the start time of the round.

I generally look to the fastest and easiest way to resolve the debate. In order to win you should make clear impact calculus throughout the debate and provide a specific path for round resolution in the 2NR/2AR. First tell me how you win the round, then tell me why even if I buy into some of the other team's arguments you should still win. This is how you win my ballot.

I default to a policy maker framework. I will vote for non-policy strategies but they MUST present a clean structure for their impacts. I prefer the affirmative to have a plan text. I do not consider myself an activist or that my role is to balance forces within the debate community.

Identity Politics - You should probably not pref me. You MUST have a link to the aff or specific in round actions for me to vote on this. I understand and sympathize with the issues in round, but this is not my preferred argument. It will take a lot of convincing to get me to vote on a strategy that is outside the resolutional bounds. I ultimately believe that traditional forms of debate have value.

Theory – I think theory is definitely a voting issue, but there needs to be some form of in round abuse for me to truly buy that it is a reason alone to reject one team or the other. I do not think that simply kicking a CP in block is a time skew that is truly worth voting against a neg team unless there are other circumstances. I don't like CP's with lots of planks. I think that it makes the debate too messy.

Case - I must say I have a hard time being persuaded that the negative has enough weight on their side to win with only case defense and a DA. What can I say, I'm a product of the late 90's. I much prefer to have a CP/K in there to give the flexibility, especially with a topic that allows for affirmatives to have heavy military impacts. Please be careful and make sure that if you takea case only route that you attack each advantage with offense and have a very very weighty DA on your side.

Kritiks- Not my bread and butter, although I do understand their strategic benefit, having come from an underfunded public school. It is my preference that K’s have a clear order and structure. I will vote on the K if you win that your impacts outweigh the impacts of the plan and that there is a true need for action, but I would not be the judge to introduce an extremely loose and unstructured argument to. I understand and buy into threat construction and realism claims, but in the end, I much prefer a well executed CP and politics debate to a poorly executed critical strategy. You will need to a have link specific to the plan. Links based off of the SQ will not be enough for me.

Framework - I default to the framework that the aff can weight the impacts of their plan versus the impacts of the neg.

Impacts – I believe that impact analysis is at the heart of a judging decision. You are an advocate for your arguments and as such you should provide insight and analysis as to why your specific impacts are the greatest in the round, how they should be evaluated by the judge and how they change the evaluation of the impacts to the other team’s case. Without this assessment I feel like you leave too much wiggle room for the judge to pick their personal preference of impact.

T - normally I like T. I default to competing interpretations. I think CX checks for ASPEC. I dont buy RVI's. I like for there to be a robust discussion of specific ground loss and the impact that it would have on debate as a whole.

Speaker points- Speed can be an advantage in the round and should be encouraged, but always with the intent of being clear first. My ability to clearly understand your arguments is crucial to getting them evaluated at the end of the round. The ability to provide analytics and analysis in the round will get you much further with me. As far as CX is concerned, I simply ask that the person who is supposed to be asking/answering the questions, gets the first shot at speaking. If they ask for help that’s perfectly fine, but don’t overwhelm your partner’s ability to conduct their own cx. Baseline speaks for me is 28.5 and you move up or down from there. I hardly ever give above a 29.5

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

I don’t have any expectations on what will happen in the round, so I tend to vote directly on the flow. Also, I recommend that you assume that I don't know anything about any of your case so explain it well or don't argue when I vote you down. I am fine with both policy and K's so it doesn't matter to me. I did debate for 6 years, varsity for three years.

Do you and you will be fine, as will I.

Don't go for Racism or Anti-blackness Good, FYI.

Email:davmac98@gmail.com. Do put me on the email chain and email me any questions, concerns o complaints.

Emily Mendelson, she/her // add me to the email chain: emendel1@binghamton.edu

Experience:
I debated at Binghamton for four years starting as a college novice, taught at the UTNIF for two summers and qualified to the NDT my junior and senior year. For the past two years I was coaching at Baylor and just completed my MA there. Currently, I'm a PhD student at Illinois and the program coordinator for the Broome County Debate Alliance. As a debater I read mostly disability stuff before doing more performance-y things like coloring and balloon animals, but that was just a framework argument. I'm familiar with the majority of k's but can find myself persuaded by framework if done well.

In-Person Debate / Legal Personhood Thoughts: 
I'm really excited to see what cool things people come up with on this topic. You're welcome to do / read / say whatever you want in front of me as long as it is not actively harmful to someone else. As we return to in-person debate, don't forget that debate is fundamentally about the people in it. Be a good person. 

Virtual Debate Notes:
Please speak slower and clearer than you think you need to. While I don't think people should be flowing off of speech docs, I think flashing analytics (or at least overviews, CP text, interps) is probably valuable just in case clarity or wifi issues arise. From what I've learned so far: debates are better when everyone has strong enough wifi to keep their cameras on, cx is messy when everyone's trying to talk over each other bc of zoom auto-muting whoever isn't the loudest, and cameras should probably remain on during prep if possible. I'm sympathetic to performance teams who are going to be uniquely disadvantaged by the virtual format.

Edits:
1. Check if everyone is there before you start your speech??? lmao I thought this one was intuitive but if my camera is off and you don't hear from me... I am not ready for you to start
2. I flow on paper, please give me some pen time even if you flash analytics
3. Speech docs w/ analytics are not a substitution for clarity

Judging Thoughts:
I'll vote any way you want me to with judge instruction, and if not, I love flowing so I'll default to the line-by-line.

Reading framework: I'm unpersuaded by fairness as a terminal impact, I think at most it's an internal link to education/clash/some better impact. That being said, I'm absolutely down to vote for fairness if there's a well-warranted abuse scenario or the affirmative is egregious in defending absolutely nothing. Specific TVA's are an easy way to persuade me in favor of your model of debate as long as they meet your interp.

Answering framework: You're better off concentrating most of your offense on impact turning framework in front of me, but I also think a lot of K teams under-utilize counterinterps and counter-definitions. I don't think your model of debate needs to be perfect but I do think there should be some explanation of limits and ground division between both sides.

K affs: I think there should be some sort of "method" to the aff in the sense that it's not just some sort of truth advocacy text that says 'vote aff because we say x thing is good.' Use examples to your advantage and please don't be afraid to actually defend something in CX. I was definitely guilty of being shifty but I would love it if you clearly defined the parameters and concepts in the aff instead so I have something better than a nebulous understanding of what you're saying.

Policy affs: On average, I think policy teams need to be doing a lot better job at explaining solvency throughout the debate. Make sure you have a clear internal link story & solvency advocate. In the rebuttals, walk me through how you want me to evaluate arguments in comparison to one another, even if it means you go much slower and read less cards. I promise it will pay off. Take a minute and explain some jargon you might be using.

Making my decision: Clear judge framing arguments will give you an easy way to predict which way I'm likely to vote. Clear impact calculus in the rebuttals is especially important to me and minimizes the likelihood I have to intervene. I love judging and I love learning and I love flowing so whatever you're reading I promise you'll have my full attention. If you don't want me to base my decision off my flow alone, I'm happy to abandon it. Just tell me why.

Additional thoughts:
- Arguments need warrants, please extend them. I'm tired of flowing just a litany of claims.
- CX is binding and I flow it. I'll know if you're lying later in the debate. Feel free to call other teams out on their lies.

Speaks: Good evidence is good. Read quality, well-highlighted evidence and you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. Highlight complete words. If your ev needs to be highlighted in a way that pulls letters from words to make new acronyms, your speaker points may suffer.

[Names of schools, years of graduation]

I debated for [number] years and made it to [a hotel ballroom nobody cares about].

Have fun always, try your best always. Like really I put it at the top for a reason. Don't insult your opponents. Don't be mean to your partner. The more you think you're better than them the more I'm gonna want you to be wrong.

Put me on the email chain please: jacksonemdebate@gmail.com

I wanted to try and come up with a good song for you to listen to as you read my paradigm like I do with every topic. It's kinda hard to hit all three areas of the topic at once, maybe try like this (although it's definitely not long enough). I feel like this might be the closest I can get since it involves like resurrection which I guess is like biotechnology.

General

(Disclaimer: I like to think I judged decently actively on arms sales and cjr (a combined 75 rounds if I'm counting correctly), but the only judging I did on water was a single season opener. On top of that, I've gotten a lot further into my computer science education since the last time I judged - I'm now officially an incoming software engineer - which I'm sure has radically altered the way I think about things, and probably mostly in ways I'm yet to realize. I wrote this paradigm like 3 years ago and it hasn't changed at all (beyond me removing cynical comments about the debate community that I'm no longer qualified to make 3 yrs out of debate), whereas I myself probably have changed somewhat.)

I know jack-squat about [topic], both in terms of the actual issue as well as how people have been debating it this year. So, I can’t wait for you to teach me! What I can assure you of though is that I’ll never go on facebook or anything during either speeches or cross-ex, and frankly that’s more than some judges can say.

Short version: Tech over truth. Long version: Remember that I am mortal. I would say evaluate my argument preferences under the assumption that those arguments have not been dropped/critically under-covered. Everybody says and understands that the judge votes for whoever best persuaded them, and that's true. But, I think what people often miss is that the judge isn't being persuaded in terms of which team they think is "right," but rather which team they think won the round.

Debaters have been telling me that the K has become more popular as judges and debaters have become more familiar with it. I have like, not judged enough at a high enough level to be part of that shift.

[Statements that amount to "Make good arguments"]

Getting the sense defense has become severely underrated.

I get annoyed when judge paradigms tell you to "act like you care," because I think what they're really saying is "act like you care about winning." In reality, all you should be caring about is just debate itself - and that's distinct. So, I'll tell you to care about debate. I'd maintain that policy debate is a very, uh...heuristic environment, and I stuck with it (kinda?) and am better off for it. But if you still don't care, just stop going to debate tournaments if you can. There's nothing wrong with not liking debate or not caring about it, and you don't owe it to anybody to participate if you really just don't wanna. But on a intra-tournament, round-to-round basis, not putting in full effort is probably bad.

Don'ts

Don't read suicide good. Don't read extinction good. Don't read warming good. Don't read racism good. Don't read sexism good. etc.

Boo to the Schlaang super seat and AntoniNO. I'm gonna suggest you don't read Baudrillard (I hope I spelled that incorrectly), both in front of me and in front of all your other judges.

Don't say "no neg fiat." If you read troll arguments like consult asgard or like time triangular pyramid I'll dock the 2N's speaks.

S e n d a n a l y t i c s.

K Affs

I'm not calling them "planless affs" or "performance affs" or wutevr so that might already give you some indication.

The point of debate is to gain critical thinking skills by repeatedly practicing the comparative analysis of theoretical worlds (counting the squo as one) by framing facts and deductions as uniqueness, links, impacts, etc as a means of trying to understand the implication of those facts upon the imagined theoretical worlds. Critical thinking skills =/= the skill of criticizing things - that's just a coincidence in their spelling. Though, it also isn't at all as though those two concepts are just completely decoupled.

You can win without reading a plan, but you're going to have a rough time unless you have some reason why reading your aff and receiving a ballot improves the status quo. There are many ways to accomplish this and I really want you do at least one of them.

I'd say I find many of the framework arguments both neg and aff teams make to be pretty unconvincing and unoriginal. Neg teams, I'd love for you to think about why k affs would be hard to debate against even if they were predictable. Aff teams, I'd love to hear about why an inability to engage institutions irl means it's bad to debate [topic] in theory/as an educational exercise to practice critical thinking. I could write a million of those requests.

This is gonna sound silly, but I honestly don't find fairness or predictability to be that convincing, at least not in the way I often saw them deployed. Like personally, never once have I heard of a high school debater or coach putting in the time to cut a case neg to an aff unless they already knew for a fact that that aff was being read by a team they were particularly afraid of. Yet at the same time, I do not at all think "predictability" is pointless to talk about. For fairness, I guess I'll just say "fairness is an internal link". I encourage you to really think about what people can get out of debate and what things like fairness and predictability really look like and what their implications are.

*Run framework*. Otherwise, I will be sad and not like the round very much so like just please do. If you think running framework is unethical or wutevr please strike me. Lol I had to have at least one of those in here.

Get creative with your 1NCs. Think about what new opportunities unconventional affs might afford you, both in terms of positions and args within flows. If a center-left layperson wouldn't think it's "unethical" to read, I probably won't either.

I feel like a lot of times when aff teams say "debate isn't a game," they still treat it like it is one.

Neg Kritiks

I'll definitely vote for some Ks, but if your link is only "you use the state" or "you use the [topic]” you're gonna have a tough time getting me to vote for the K.

I didn't even actually debate the [topic] topic I'm sorry I was just trying to look edgy.

But seriously, links are the most important part of K debates and DA debates alike because they, and they alone, are the root for any comparative analysis you can do. They are the only direct way for *you* to illustrate a distinction between the world you're advocating for and the world your opponents are advocating. All of your internal links and impacts are just arguments for why that discrepancy matters. (Okay yeah if they're running a CP differences between worlds are more obvious.)

Number one tip I would say - both to the aff and the neg - is just impact out your args. Never assume I know why you auto-win if you "win the ontology debate." Similarly, you need to explain, impact and probably persuade me of things like "fiat isn't real" and "social death." It is likely that your "tricks" are - in my eyes - actually just bad arguments. Don't get me wrong: a dropped arg is a dropped arg, but a prerequisite to something being a dropped arg is it *being an arg*.

****

Also just like generally about "dropped arguments" - an argument being dropped means that it is substantially easier to extend, not that you no longer have to extend it. If you wanna go for a "dropped argument" in front of me then you should make sure to mention that argument's claim and warrant (and, in rebuttals, its implications for how the round should be decided) in every speech from when you first read it until the debate ends.

****

I default to assuming that the K has to have an alt that solves impacts and is mutually exclusive with the aff. If the impacts the k solves aren't as important as the one the aff solves, I'll vote aff.

"Extinction already 'happens, happened, or will have had happened' for x ppl bc social death" is a hard sell for me, especially if you're trying to argue that it means nuclear war isn't bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPH-br_eJQ

Go to case. Like with *defense*.

Go to case. Seriously.

CPs

Have as many planks as you want. You can read new planks. You can probably amend existing planks, too.

Having a good solvency advocate (so like one from a source actually written in the context of [topic]) usually makes me think a counter-plan is more theoretically legit.

Love an intelligent counter-plan. I don't like process CPs but they definitely are a thing people read.

Theory and T

Honestly, refer to K aff section.

Probably won't win on T unless the aff really isn't T and there's some concrete, specific abuse. The abuse is less of an internal link to a fairness based-RoB and more just really strong evidence for why their model of debate is bad.

I'm much more likely to vote on theory and T when I'm convinced there was in-round abuse. I lean neg on condo but definitely do not think infinite condo is okay.

Everything Else

[Irrelevant opinions] (I mean to be fair that's like most of this paradigm but)

[Relevant opinions immediately made irrelevant by a barrage of qualifiers]

Other

[Encouraging you to make jokes even though in reality that always plays out really awkwardly in round]

Hi all! My name is Kathy, and I am currently a sophomore at Yale University studying political science and history. I competed in policy debate for four years mostly as a 2N for a very small, underfunded public school in Boise, Idaho, and won a bid and was in multiple bid rounds by my senior year of high school (reading a lot of T and disads).

I am definitely more familiar with policy args as opposed to critical arguments, so if you read critical arguments in front of me, please use additional explanation because I probably will not be familiar with the philosophical or conceptual frames you will be (hopefully) applying to the aff. It's been a few years since I've been involved in debate, so I may not be as familiar with certain terms/trends, and I definitely don't know too much about this topic outside of what I read in the news.

My old paradigm was deleted :( so here is a truncated summary of my paradigm:

-Things I love (and will reward via speaker points): Technical, organized debating (i.e. line by line, numbering arguments); clear speaking (feel free to spread, but please don't trade comprehensibility for speed); case debate is underrated; sharp cross-ex; smart, strategic, "scrappy" moves; occasional humor

-Things I don't like: Rudeness, esp if it might be (overtly or subliminally) discriminatory in some way. Sass is wonderful, but disrespecting your opponents and/or partner is not okay. I also really dislike the use of language that may come off as misogynistic, patronizing, ableist, etc.

-Like I said, I have a lot more familiarity with policy arguments (nothing like a good case debate and disad for a 2NR), but I think regardless of whether you are a "K team" or a "politics disad only team", as long as you explain things clearly to me, I will do my best to follow your arguments. Please don't assume prior knowledge for more niche concepts; like I said, I'm a polisci/history major, so I will probably need explanations for concepts outside of those fields.

experience:

2 years LD/2 years policy at reagan high school (graduated 2018)

harvard '22

email: zorymontemayor99@gmail.com

be mindful when i'm your judge that i haven't debated nor judged in almost 2 years now after graduating high school.

as for background as a debater: i've been both a 2A and a 2N. in high school i read both policy and K strats. open to anything.

for more specific info

kritiks: fine. might not be familiar w the lit tho so make sure to have solid explanations. link specificity is important to me-- i probably won't vote on generic links unless you've spun them really well and are ultimately damning in the debate. also win your frameworkkkkk

das/cps: fine as well. politics das were some of my fav positions to go for. that being said, make sure to have a solid story regarding the internal link chains of the scenarios. as for cps, i prefer them being competitive unless you can defend your usage of a PIC really well.

T: i default to competing interpretations usually. would love to hear a case list or a topical version of the aff.

if u wanna read a k aff u do u. my partner and i didnt defend a USFG plan our senior year. I would just say make sure to make your explanation of the aff's methodology very clear and not vague

FW debates are also cool

theory: if u want this to be a voting issue make sure u spend a significant time explaining the impact to this page and making it apparent it's not just a time suck for the other side

as for non argument points:

- try to make taglines as clear as possible-- again i'll reemphasize i havent judged/debated in almost 2 years so my ears are probably untrained tbh. that being said, i'll flow the debate on paper and try to keep up as best as i can.

- don't steal prep. the timer ends whenever u start flashing cards to ur opponent but dont use this as an opportunity to finish writing analytics.

- unnecessary rudeness will slash your speaker points

be nice and have fun during your rounds! good luck!

Current Director of Debate at the University of Northern Iowa #GoPanthers!

high school = Kansas 2012-2016 (Policy and LD)

undergrad = Emporia State 2016-2020 (Policy)

grad = Kansas State 2020-2022 (Policy Coach)

edited for the youth

Updated 4/18/24

Policy Debate

Yes, put me on the email chain.Squiddoesdebate@gmail.com

Virtual Debates --- Do a sound check before you start your speech. Simply ask if we can all hear you. I will not dock speaks because of audio issues, however, we will do everything we can to fix the audio issue before we proceed.

SEND YOUR ANALYTICS - if you want me to flow every word, it would behove you to send me every word you have typed. I am not the only one who uses typed analytics. Don't exclude folks from being able to fully participate just because you don't want to share your analytics.

The first thirty seconds of the last rebuttal for each side should be what they expect my RFD should be. I like being lazy and I love it when you not only tell me how I need to vote, but also provide deep explanations and extensive warrants for why the debate has ended in such a way to where I have no other choice to vote that way.My decision is most influenced by the last two rebuttals than any other speech. I actively flow the entire debate, but the majority of my attention when considering my decision comes down to a flow-based comparison of the last rebuttals. If you plan to bounce from one page to the next in the 2NR/2AR, then please do cross-applications and choose one page to stay on. That will help both of us.

I think debate should be an activity to have discussions. Sometimes these discussions are fun, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they are obvious and clear, sometimes they are not. Sometimes that's the point. Regardless, have a discussion and I will listen to it.

I don't like to read evidence after debates. That being said, I will if I have to. If you can make the argument without the evidence, feel free to do so. If I yell "clear", don't trip, just articulate.--- If I call for evidence or otherwise find myself needing to read evidence, it probably means you did not do a good enough job of explaining the argument and rather relied on author extensions. Please avoid this.

Your speaks start at a 30. Wherever they go from there are up to you. Things that I will drop speaks for include clearly not explaining/engaging the arguments in the round (without a justification for doing so), not explaining or answering CX questions, not articulating more after I clear you. Things that will improve your speaks include being fast, being efficient with your words, being clear while reading evidence, demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of your args by being off your blocks or schooling someone in cross-x, etc. If I significantly hurt your speaks, I will let you know why. Otherwise, you start at 30 and I've only had to go below 26 a handful of times.

my range is roughly 28.7-29.5 if you are curious for open and higher for Novice becauseI love novice debate

Prep time, cross-x, in-between-speeches chats, I'll be listening. All that means- be attentive to what's happening beyond the speeches. If you are making arguments during these times, be sure to make application arguments in the speech times. That's not just a judge preference, it's often devastating.

I like kritikal/performative debate. I did traditional/policy-styled debate. I prefer the previous but won't rule out the latter.

this is less true as I judge more and more high school debate but it is still true for college debate.

General Tips;

have fun

slow down when reading the theory / analytics / interps

don't assume I know everything, I know nothing in the grand scheme of things

don't be rude unless you're sure of it

Ask me more if you want to know. Email me. I am down to chat more about my decisions in email if you are willing.

LD

• theory is wild. i don't know as much about it as you think I do
• tell me how to evaluate things, especially in the later speeches because new things are read in every speech and its wild and new to me. tell me what to do.
• I love the k's that are in this activity, keep that up.

Congress

I reward clash. If you respond to your opponents in a fluent, coherent manner, you will get high points from me.

I am not the most knowledgeable on the procedures of Congress so I don't know what tricks of the game to value over others. But I'm an excellent public speaking and argumentation coach/professor so I mostly give points based off of the speeches than the politics of the game - i.e. blocking others from speaking, switching/flipping, etc.
For P.O.'s --- I reward efficiency and care. I feel like some P.O.'s take things super seriously in order to be efficient but they come off as cold and unwelcoming in the process. P.O.'s who can strike a balance between the two get the most points from me. I don't keep track of precedence so you gotta be on top of that. I don't time speeches, that's on you as well. I just vibe and look for clash.

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

Add me to the email chain: trevonmuhammad34@gmail.com

K teams pref me 1!!!!! I am more than capable of making the right decisions when it comes to Policy V Policy debates.

I'm a novice parent judge who is relatively new to the policy debate format, but has middle school debate judging experience.

My plan is to come into the round with an open mind; and my goal is to evaluate the round the best I can.

I am flexible, but following are some things to keep in mind:

- Voice volume does matter. I need to be able to hear your speech.

- Speed matters to the extent that I need to able to digest your arguments/points.

- Be courteous to your team member, your opponents, and me. Unruly and unsportsmanlike behavior will negatively impact your speaker score.

yes please put me on the chain, use this email: arieldoesld@gmail.com

They/Them pronouns

I did HS LD for 4 years at Fort Lauderdale High graduated in 2016 then did college policy for a couple years after.

I think debate matters a lot, and when people see it like a place to collect trophies to justify being rude as hell or problematic, it’s disappointing to me and your speaker points (I don’t care why you debate, just respect why other people come here too). This also means pay attention to people social location and don’t fill the round with microaggressions.

Most debate I did was focused on K debate. That’s just honestly going to be the round where I am the best judge for you in terms of education. judge adaptation is usually BS, and you’re most likely to win when YOU do whatever you do best. I’ve been judging for long enough that I’m able to competently judge a traditional Policy or LD round.

My paradigm used to have a bunch of debate opinions I held, a lot of them I still do, but if you make a good argument, or an argument I think is bad but well warranted, that’s going to matter a lot more than some random opinion I have. If you want to know any specific argument preferences I have, feel free to ask me any time until the round starts, and I’ll clarify whatever you need.

I evaluate rounds based off the flows, I consistently vote on warrants that are cleanly extened through rounds being more sufficient than repeating the tag from the 1ac to the 2ar without explaining how you should win from that. The more you explain why your arguments are true AND why that means you should win, the more likely you are to get my ballot.

I'm pretty much always going to give an RFD for debaters but if you don't pay attention or seem like my input doesn't matter, your RFD will be very short. I love making sure debaters understand how they lost my ballot instead of walking away and telling their teams that they don't know how they lost on something that wasn't even in my RFD.

I didn't think this was something that had to be made explicit BUT:

** If your answer to arguments about oppression include minimizing violence that is very clearly established (antiblackness, colonialism, anti-queer violence, there's a lot more im missing, but if you have to question it, it probably falls into this group) you will not win anything you think your defense gets you, and your speaks will be directly related to how uncomfortable those arguments make me.

mx.ortiz.m@gmail.com

Assistant Coach @ Mamaroneck, 2020-2021

Assistant Coach @ Lexington, 2019-20

Debated @ Northside College Prep, 2015-19

TL;DR

The sections below this are a set of my opinions on debate, not a stringent set of guidelines that I always adhere to when making decisions. I encourage you to go for the arguments that you enjoy instead of overcorrecting to my paradigm. I tend to like most arguments - my only distinction between good and bad debates is whether or not your argumentation is strategic and nuanced.

I think CX is heavily underutilized by most debaters. Organized debates make my job easier and are more enjoyable.

Non-negotiables:

I won’t vote on things that have happened outside of the round.

There is a fine line between being assertive and being rude in CX - please be aware of it.

Don’t threaten others or make harmful comments about someone or a group of people - you will lose the round and I will talk with your coaches.

Non-Traditional Affs/Clash Debates

It’s hard for me to be convinced that policy debate actively creates bad people OR perfect policymakers; I think there’s value in challenging our understanding of the resolution and debate itself, but I also don’t think T is inherently violent.

In clash debates, I tend to vote negative when the affirmative fails to parse out the unique benefits of their model of debate, and tend to vote affirmative when the negative fails to grapple with the applicable offense of case. Organization often falls by the wayside in these debates, so I would encourage you to identify the nexus questions of the debate early and compartmentalize them to one area of the flow.

Fairness can be an impact, but it is not one by default - that requires explanation. I’ll vote for any impact on FW if effectively argued, but I personally like strategies centered around truth-testing/dogmatism. I think skepticism is healthy and that breaking out of our preferred ideological bubbles results in more ethical and pragmatic decision-making over time, but I can also be persuaded that the method the aff defends can also be consistently ethical/beneficial.

Aff teams are overly reliant on exclusion/policing arguments but almost never actually impact out the tangible consequences of the negative model as a result, or provide a reason why the ballot would resolve this. If arguments like these are what you like going for, I suggest you codify them within a reasonability paradigm that criticizes the usefulness of the competing interpretations model when it comes to K Affs.

I will say that I am quite partial to teams that go for the K against non-traditional affs (I judge FW debates frequently, and they get repetitive). Most K affs nowadays are specifically tailored to beat FW and generally rely on generic permutations to beat back K’s. I can be easily convinced that permutations exist to compare the opportunity cost of combining specific policies, and that in debates of competing methodologies the evaluating point of the debate should be reliant on who had broader explanatory power and a more effective orientation. How I decide that is up to what parameters you establish within the debate.

Kritiks

I’m not opposed to any of them. However, I do prefer techy K debaters - overviews should be short and the substantive parts of the debate should be done on the respective parts of the line by line.

Specificity goes beyond good links - nuanced impact and turns case explanations make it easier to vote on something tangible as opposed to nebulous platitudes. It’s easy to tell when you have a generic link wall with fill-in-the-blanks like “insert aff impact” “aff mechanism” etc.

For both teams - know the broader theories that your arguments function within (i.e. understanding what theory of IR your authors defend, or actually knowing a decent amount about the author your K is named after). Understanding these concepts outside of the context of debate will give you the tools to be more specific in round, and will often give you additional ways to leverage offense.

Aff teams with extinction impacts - stop overcorrecting to the negative team's strategy. Extinction is extinction, which is easily defensible as bad - if you're not link turning the K/going for the perm, I find it strange when the 1AR/2AR try to subsume the K's impacts/offense by describing how the inroads to extinction would be bad for X group the K is worried about ("nUcLeAr StRiKeS tArGeT uRbAn CeNtErS") ... because extinction, in the end, kills everyone. Also, K teams often capitalize on this arbitrary framing and make it a new link. Don't waste your time - win that you get to weigh your impacts and then win that your impacts outweigh.

CP’s

The more specific, the better.

Yes judge kick. “Status quo is always an option,” once said, is sufficient enough for me to be willing to kick the CP unless the aff explicitly challenges it in both aff rebuttals.

Condo is good. If the 2AR is condo, it's either been dropped or you think it is your only road to victory.

I lean neg on most theory issues, but can be convinced that process CPs and 50 state/NGA fiat are bad for debate.

Invest time and organization into the competition debate - meta definitions matter just as much as word definitions in these debates because they are about competing models.

Severance perms are probably always bad, but intrinsic perms can be very useful if you know how to defend them well.

DA’s/Case turns

Love them, even the crappy ones - there's nothing more fun than watching someone very effectively debate in favor of something everyone in the round knows is ridiculously unlikely.

Winning framing does not mean you win terminal defense to the DA. Winning that a DA is low risk comes from substantive arguments, and then how the framing debate is resolved dictates whether or not risk probability matters. Seriously. Nebulous arguments about the conjunctive fallacy or the general low risk of existential impacts mean nothing if the 2NR can just get up and point to a unique internal link chain on their DA that has not been contested.

Impact turn debates are some of my favorite rounds to judge, but unfortunately I am often left to resolve stalemates within a debate by reading a bulk of the cards in the round and then determining on my own which ones are better, which I think functions as a disservice to everyone in the round. I don’t think that having less/worse ev necessarily means you’ll lose the debate, but you must have constant and effective comparison in-round.

Topicality+

Evidence comparison matters. Terminal impacts are important - so many 2NRs don't do this work (why, I don't know). Not enough teams are going for T against the egregious number of bad affs on this topic.

I don't like arguments like Embody PTX because I don't think there is a way to enforce them as a model and thus lend themselves to problematic enforcement, and it frustrates me when affirmative teams don't make the obvious case for this being true.

Aff teams should be going for reasonability more often against nitpicky T violations - not as a vague appeal, but as a better heuristic than competing interps.

Debated policy for Brooklyn Technical High School (2013-2016) and for Binghamton University (2016-2020). You can add me to the email chain at jpan2541@bths.edu

TLDR been out of debate for a while, have very little familiarity with the topic so please explain acronyms, topic specific knowledge, etc... You can probably run anything (nothing offensive) and I'll evaluate it. While I enjoy K debates more, I'm not particularly against debates about policies as I started out as a non-K debater. I prefer depth over breath and think line-by-line is important. Since debate is now on Zoom, please be very clear using changes in tone, inflection, etc to ensure that I am evaluating the arguments you want me to evaluate.

I'm just going to copy and paste a portion of Lee Thach's paradigm here because it basically summarizes how I evaluate debates:

"1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die."

Here are some of my other thoughts:

Kritiks: I mostly ran critical arguments including ones about anti-blackness and biopower. I like Ks and when good K debates happen. One thing that has changed for me in terms of Ks is that I want to hear that the K does "something" whatever that "something" is. Whether in round or external to the debate, please explain what that "something" is, why I should evaluate whatever the K does as "something," and how exactly the K does that thing.

FW: I would say that I'm probably 51/49 against framework. I think that it is sometimes valuable to discuss non-traditional affirmatives especially when the affirmative has given me reasons why their AFF is valuable to this year's resolution. I do enjoy framework for certain AFFs that are abusive/irrelevant. That said, my bias can be overcome with good debating (i.e. when standards/violations are super nuanced and when there are clear articulations/comparisons of each side's model of debate and why they're good/bad)

CPs/Piks: I love them. Flex your creativity as much as possible. I can also be convinced why particular CPs/Piks can be abusive.

DAs: I will evaluate all types of DA but just please have uniqueness and be very clear about your internal links. Contrary to popular opinion, I like politics DAs.

Miscellaneous: I like jokes and the like that make debates entertaining and enjoyable so if you can make me laugh I'll probably boost your speaks. Troll debates are cool too but only when the arguments actually apply and can sorta make sense.

Hello!

Feel free to run any and all types of arguments.

Spreading is fine as long as I can understand you and you sign-post . Cross-x will be open and binding. Do not just read cards/ taglines without explaining them. That is not sufficient enough.

Make sure you are respectful towards one another. Being rude will dock you speaks. This is an educational space that everyone should be able to have fun in.

Ask any questions you may have before the round! Always remember to have fun and try your best.

UPDATED FOR THE THE GLENBROOKS 2023

uclabdb8@gmail.com

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***brief***
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. pen time on overviews matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue

**background**
identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. i now spend my time developing programming for Chicago's urban debate league. you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.

**disads/cps/case**
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- chicago
- udl
- coaching debate!

**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

I want to be on the email chain: Kristin.raveneau@saschools.org

I debated College Policy at NYU. Earlier in college I read more soft left Affs with performative elements, but I've been getting progressively more performative and more kritical as my college career progresses. That means I'm open to hearing whatever arguments you want to read as long as you're able to defend it. In terms of policy, I've never read a strictly "policy" AFF, but I've coached teams reading them and am familiar with that style. With this in mind, you should read whatever makes you most comfortable and confident and I'll vibe with you.

Flow - I will flow what I hear. If you're fast, I can keep up as long as you're clear. If I can't understand you I will say "clear." I flow performative elements (music, poetry, dance), but if you think I might not flow something flag it for me. It's your job to tell me what is most important, I won't do that work for you.

Flashing/email chain - Be organized. I don't want to wait 5 minutes for you to reply to the email chain or flash files. If I feel like you're taking too long prep time will start again. Don't waste my, your opponent's, or your partner's time. Stealing prep is disrespectful and if I see it, your speaker points will be docked. That applies to Novices too (although my threshold is a bit higher) because it's important to get into good habits from the beginning.

Speaking/CX - Be respectful. I love sass and attitude in CX and in speeches, but be aware of where the line is between sass and disrespect. This includes being disrespectful to your own partner (don't talk over them during CX). Debate should be a community and space where we all feel safe, if you jeopardize that and the other team problematizes and impacts this out, I am willing to vote on that outweighing all of your hypothetical policy impacts. If you make me laugh your speaks are going up.

FW/T - I will vote on T and FW, so feel free to read it in front of me. For both AFFs and NEGs, you need to have a clear abuse story and explain to me why your interpretation creates a better model of debate. Don't just say "our model of debate is better for fairness and education," you must also prove to me why those things are necessary and good and why the counter-interp is insufficient.

K - I mostly read them in college and they are my favorite arguments in debate. THERE SHOULD BE CLASH WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE. You need to link specifically to something in the AFF, not the squo. Even though I am familiar with K lit, I'm not going to do work for you. Explain clearly and have a compelling story. You need to show me the world of the Kritik. If at the end of the debate I don't understand what your alt is (how it functions, what it looks like, how it resolves the links, how/if it solves the AFF) I probably won't vote for it. You should be giving explanations that compare the world of the AFF and the world of the K.

NOTE: Be careful if you read anthro against anti-blackness teams. I find it is often argued in very problematic ways and I typically hate hearing anthro in those rounds. I have, however, voted for anthro many times (unfortunately), so it can be done successfully, just TREAD CAREFULLY.

DA - Here, it's all about the link and impact debate. Have specific links to the plan and have a cohesive impact story. If you're going for the DA, I want to hear in depth impact comparisons. If everyone is claiming the same impacts or everything leads to extinction, you will need a more robust story to get me to prioritize the DA. My preference is that you read a CP that solves for the DA. If you're not reading a CP that can overcome the DA, make it clear to me why this is worse than the squo.

CP - It's all about solvency and competition. That means you need to have a net benefit.

If you wish to have one, please set up the email chain before round so you can hit send at start time.

ellelaurenreed@gmail.com

Conflicts: Sehome HS, Bellingham HS, Squalicum HS (WA)

* are new/significant

*UPS 2023- I will vote on anything yall are likely to read and am somewhat in the literature for coaching. I've noticed a lot of good LARRP debaters on our circuit, but haven't judged a very high level LARRP v LARRP round in a while, so if you plan on doing any kinda crazy stuff like plan tricks or plan repair maybe explain it in a tiny bit more depth.

*online debate note* from my limited experience judging online, I/my wifi seem to generally be able to follow a pretty good speed, though if you are very fast your mic will probably clip words. Know your mic quality, it changes how fast you can go and be clear. I will 'clear' 2-3 times, watch chat messages. I flow speeches not docs. Also, somehow, some of ya'll steal prep more than in-person with less stuff to do, don't do that.

Overview-
-Do good and win arguments. The more rounds i judge, the less i feel like the type of argument/style of debate you do matters as much in my evaluation of a round as i expected it would when i first started judging.
-Read what you want, if it has a warrant and some kind of framing mechanism to impact into.
-Also, don't intentionally be a bigot if you don't want to lose w/bad speaks. *This includes the cards you read and strategies you go for*
-Feel free to go fast, but signpost, differentiate tags, be clear, and SLOW DOWN AT INTERPS and PLANS! I flow speeches, not docs, and it is just good debate/spreading to differentiate tags and cards this way. also somewhat applies to important analytics
-*dont be sus: don't clip. dont message/talk to your friend or coach about the debate round in progress. dont have teammate in the room whispering tips to you. It really isn't complicated. I've disqualified teams over all of these. Most of the time, the team doing this stuff would win straight up if they would just think and debate normally. I may give you a warning, especially in JV, but I don't have to.

I try to base speaks on how well you debate, with some focus on technical performance but more on strategic choice, with 28.5 being average. Not too stingy, but i think point inflation is bad and rarely give 29.5 and above. I appreciate really good debates and try to reward good/ outstanding performances, technically or in 'the vibe'. Creativity gets rewarded pretty heavily

if you think my paradigm is odd and want to ask questions about it, feel free to.

specifics-

I debated LD in HS and got a few bids. I also did policy debate for NYU in college. I am probably more familiar with LD still, but I've judged and debated a lot of good CX rounds. I mostly read critical or performative arguments (especially in policy), and thats the style of debate I understand the best generally, but in HS i was very flex and fundamentally I will vote on whatever.

*note here for Washingtondebaters *- i mostly debated on the east coast and Texas, so i am way more familiar with tricks, phil, and pomo than the average judge on our circuit, despite my somewhat policy background. Feel free to read any of this stuff (well please) and i will appreciate it.

I also think disclosure is in general good and the best responses to disclosure theory are kritical rather than about small schools or fairness. about disclosure- i do not like deployment of disclosure theory outside of norms. If the aff has not been broken, or the debater has not competed at a tournament yet (or even worse, at all this year), I will likely reduce speaks for reading disclosure, even if i will vote on it. I really really don't like contact info theory as a way to establish a violation for a debater who is otherwise disclosing and following norms. I will absolutely reduce speaks for this in all instances. Other stuff (full text vs cites, must disclose to black/other group of debaters/ other reasonable deployments) is totally fine.

i wont vote on- the resolved a-priori (other a-priories are fine), arguments cut from the SCUM manifesto, *trans-exclusionary feminism/gender args*, oppression of any kind good, evaluate theory after the 2nr (some debate about what to evaluate when is fine, but this being shelled out is a really tough buy for me).

I strongly dislike how the DSRB 'must talk about personal experience/positionally' framework shell is deployed in some (both LD and CX) rounds. If you read this arg, at minimum, your performance should meet the interp. Reading it, for example, with a ton of tricks, nibs, skep, and fairness first without any discussion of your own identity is anti-black and insulting to the context these arguments originated in (and, often, very violent in round). I have not intervened against this argument, but I have and will reduced speaks. I am also very very open to voting on prefcon and other offensive arguments when this shell is deployed in an anti-black way.

Don't be violent, and pay attention to social position. I dock speaks for microggressions, sometimes subconsciously, so try to not. (for example; there is nothing less impressive to watch in a debate round where a dude condescends a woman on something she understands better than he does)

defaults- presume neg (i think me writing aff here previously was a typo), flips if neg reads an advocacy. other ones are probably not important: ****Im more likely to discard a flow/impact as irresolvable and look for other offense in other places, rather than default on a million paradigm issues to make a ballot story make sense****

I'm cool with more weird/innovative arguments and i tend to like them a lot, as well as impact turns like extinction good that some judges don't like. make sure your justifications are good (and no fascist stuff please)

PF

*this section was written several years ago. I don't know how it holds up to the current meta, assume my ideas are still similar, if maybe somewhat more mellowed out*

I do NOT evaluate rounds based on persuasion. I evaluate the flow. If i should evaluate the round different, that's possible, but you have to win a warrant for your role of the judge. Any progressive stuff yall want to do is cool, but don't do it really badly. None of yall can spread too quickly so go whatever speed. Also uuuh 'rules of pf' isnt an argument in 99% of cases

I really do not like paraphrased evidence. PF already has huge issues with evidence integrity, and paraphrased evidence can say whatever you want it to say. Analytic arguments are almost always better because they normally actually have a warrant and don't teach bad academic practices. I also call for cards after the round and will go through the effort to check cites- do not fabricate evidence in front of me *this also applies to any other debate event when allowed by tournament*

ALL basic debate things actually do still apply to yall. For example- no new in the 2 (your arguments other than weighing/comparison in the final focus u want me to vote off of must be in a previous speech, and ideally before the summery. To clarify further, you also do not have to extend all arguments from earlier speeches, rather you should collapse down to your best arguments), dropped arguments are conceded arguments (including the first speech for whoever is speaking second!), you need offense to win a round, ect.

Another issue i often have in pf rounds is that teams expect me to take something bad-sounding for granted as an impact. You should not to this- 1. you de facto have to warrant all of the pieces; a) that your impact exists, and (b) that its bad, and (c) that its worse than your opponents impacts. 2. Things you think are intuitively bad may not be the same as what i think is intuitively bad

They/Them/Theirs

Add me to the email chain: queeratlibertyuniversity@gmail.com

(Also, I feel like I need to add this at the top....I flow with my eyes closed a lot of the time. It helps me focus on what you are saying)

TLDR:

I'm a queer, nonbinary, disabled lawyer. Don't change your debate style too much for me - debate what you know and I'll vote what's on the flow. If you read a K alternative that doesn't involve me (specifically antiblackness Ks), that will not harm your chances of winning. I've seen young debaters stumble and try to make me feel included because they worry I won't like their K because I'm white and not included. You have all the right in the world to look at me and say "judge, this isn't for you it's ours."

At the end of the debate it will come down to impact calculus (framing) and warrants. Please have fun - debate is only worthwhile if we are having fun and learning. Don't take it too seriously, we are all still learning and growing.

Top of the 2AR/2NR should be: "this is why you vote aff/neg" and then give me a list

Long Version:

Heyo!

I was a queer disabled debater at Liberty University. I've run and won on everything from extinction from Trump civil war to rhetoric being a pre-fiat voter. I'll vote on any argument regardless of my personal beliefs BUT YOU MUST GIVE ME WARRANTS. Do not pref me if you are going to be rude or say offensive things. I will dock your speaks. I will call you out on it during the RFD. Do pref me if you read Ks and want to use performative/rhetoric links. Also pref me if you want a ballot on the flow.

Don't just tell me something was conceded - tell me why that is important to the debate.

IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC

Aff Stuff:

Read your NTAs, your soft-left affs, and your hard-right affs. Tell me why your framing is important. Be creative.

Case - stick to your case, don't let the negative make you forget your aff

CP/K - perms and solvency deficits are good

Neg Stuff:

I do love Ks but I also like a good DA. As long as you can explain to me how it functions and interacts with case, I will consider it.

DA - you need a clear articulation of the link to the plan (and for econ, please explain using not just the fancy words and acronyms)

CP - please be competitive, you need to solve at least parts of the aff and you need a clear net benefit

K - you need to link to the plan (or else you become a non-unique DA) and be able to explain the alt in your own words.

Generic Theory Stuff:

T - I have a high threshold for T. you MUST prove abuse IN ROUND to win this argument. you must have all the parts of the T violation.

Other Theory args - just because an arg is dropped doesn't mean I will vote on it, you still must do the work and explain to me why it is a voter. I will not vote on "they dropped 50 state fiat so vote aff" you MUST have warrants.

I WILL VOTE ON REVERSE THEORY VOTERS If you feel their T argument is exclusionary, tell me and prove it. If you feel them reading 5 theory args is a time skew, tell me and prove it.

CX: remember you are convincing me, not your opponent, look at me. These make great ethos moments. Use this strategically, get links for your DA or K, show the abuse for T violations, prove they are perf-con, you get the idea

Speaker Points: give me warrants and ethos and it will be reflected here.

27: You did something really wrong - whether racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic - and we will be talking about it during the RFD

28: You are basically making my expectations, you are doing well but could be doing better.

29: You are killing it. Good ethos is granted to get you here and so will fleshed out warrants

30: Wow. Just wow. There was a moment during a speech or CX where you blew me away.

Position yourself so I can hear you. Don't speak into your laptop or stand on the opposite side of the room. Don't read typed-out things like they are the text of a card. Slow down and change the intonation of your voice when you're speaking.

I normally look to impact calc throughout debate

If I don't understand something, I will not vote on it even if it is conceded.

I am getting tired of multiple conditional cp's. Seriously, it is getting out of hand. The neg gets 1 conditional cp or Kritik.

I not only look for argumentation but also HOW you debate (aka how well you can convince me).

Clarity is key. If you are spreading and I can not clearly hear your arguments I will not flow them.

last speeches should start with telling me exactly what should be on my ballot.

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR:

Things I will not vote on:

Arguments that suggest students should engage in risky behavior.

Death is good.

Fear of death is bad

Bataille

Baudrillard

Matt Schnall Judging Philosophy (updated February 2021)

The three most important things to know about debating in front of me are: First, I am an exceedingly open-minded listener; I am willing to take most any argument seriously. Second, in convincing me, argument strength (logic, appropriately evidenced premises) is generally more important than technique. Third, debate should involve interaction — between you and your opponent; between you and me.

A short explanation:

“Taking all arguments seriously” means that I am open to persuasion on almost all issues in a debate, outside of time limits and speaking order. Creative and strategic arguments tend to particularly engage me. This doesn’t mean, however, that everything you say is automatically an argument. Generally, I will only consider arguments that are complete. So, if you say x will cause y to happen (or prevent it) but do not explain why y would be good or bad, there is no argument and no response is required. Similarly, “perm do the aff” requires some explanation in order to become an argument.

In terms of truth versus tech, I appreciate technical proficiency and rhetorical skills in debate. They make it easier for me to be a good judge. Good line-by-line debate, preceded by a coherent story, is usually the best way to convince me to see things your way. Nevertheless, I do my best to evaluate arguments however they are presented, and if your opponent persuades me on a point, the fact that you have been faster, more emphatic, more eloquent, or repeated your argument in more ways will not carry the day. In evaluating evidence, I will begin by giving weight to the supportive warrants a proponent has flagged or the gaps articulated by the opponent. Once I am reading a card, however, if there is a gap that is plainly inconsistent with the proponent’s explanation, I will not ignore it merely because the opponent did not point it out.

Interaction means clash; it means listening; it means asking and grappling with difficult questions in cross-ex, not dodging them. It means I may interrupt your speech or cross-ex to ask a question. Even if I say nothing, I will provide a wealth of non-verbal feedback. If I frown or look puzzled, I probably don’t (yet) understand your argument; if I shake my head, I may not (yet) be convinced. In either case, try it again. You will be most successful if you treat me as an active listener who is working to understand and evaluate what you are saying, rather than a passive canvas on which to paint some preconceived picture.

Clarity and online debate:

I decide debates based on your arguments. To do that, I need to understand all of your words, and more generally to understand complete arguments as they are made. I can do this in person at a reasonably high rate of speed, but it does require both comprehensibility and digestible, transparent argument structure. For online debate, I would recommend slowing down to a speed consistent with your technology. I will look at evidence if resolving an argument depends on it — and to this end, please include me on the email chain — but do not expect that I am reading along with your speech doc.

More details:

My background — I debated in college and coached college teams with some success when I was much closer to your age than I now am. Over the last 25+ years, I have stayed involved by judging somewhat regularly. I did a bit of coaching and argument development and judged more heavily over the period in which my children were high school debaters (2010-2016). Harvard will be my first debate judging on the criminal justice topic.

Clarity —

(1) Comprehensibility should be the same for tags, citations, and evidence: I am listening to, and flowing, cards. If you are not comprehensible I will say something, but after 3 or 4 "clear"s you would be wise to keep an eye on me to see whether I am following, as eventually I will give up on verbal feedback.

(2) An argument is not an argument until I understand it. If you reiterate it in a later speech, I will treat it like any other new argument. Obscure wording is not your friend. If a tag is more than 10-15 syllables (not words), you probably need to simplify it. Pay attention to me when you are making any novel or intricate argument, particularly theory and advocacy statements (plan/counterplan/alternative advocacy) — if I look confused or stumped, explain further.

Predispositions — I expect that a debate will involve advocacy by the affirmative team and a response to that advocacy by the negative team after which I can determine a winner using some reasonably objective standard(s). Beyond that, I will entertain debate on framework, theory, etc. I am predisposed to resolve theory disputes in favor of competitive balance and educational value, but I can be convinced otherwise. All else being equal, I would prefer to see a debate about the topic.

Time limits and speech order are not negotiable. On a two-person team, each debater must deliver one constructive and one rebuttal speech, and I will not evaluate advocacy that takes place by a different person, including a partner, during that speech. Absent reasoned argument to the contrary, rebuttal speeches, including the 1NR, are limited to response to or elaboration of arguments from prior speeches; however, outside of the 2AR, I will not entirely discount an argument as new unless the opponent so identifies it.

Incomplete arguments — As noted above, I do not evaluate an argument if it does not contain — or I do not understand — all of the elements necessary in order for it to affect my decision making (such as an argument missing a link or impact). Whether an argument is complete is of course a subject for debate, but if you think your opponent’s argument incomplete, you should point it out. If I agree, then I will treat the argument as newly made when it is completed. This might cause the argument to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, and it would always allow you to make new responses after the argument is completed.

Lexington High School Class of 2019 – debated for four years - if it matters, I did do the whole TOC thing my senior year.

I am not debating in college, and have little to zero topic knowledge.

I want to be on the chain: dsen050@gmail.com

Update for Stanford (Policy):

Do not know anything about the topic. Been out of debate for a while, I am comfortable judging policy affs vs DA/CP, K aff vs FW/Cap, or policy affs v K. Less comfortable with K v K rounds and policy affs vs topicality.

Update for PF Debate:

Haven't debated or judged PF, but am somewhat familiar with how these debates are supposed to look. Do not feel the need to spread or incorporate elements from LD/Policy into PF.

Disclosure is important.

General:

Tech>truth, but to a certain extent. For example, just because the 2AC says “vague alts are a voter” with no warrant or impact and the block drops it, this does not mean I immediately vote aff. I am very hesitant in general to vote on blippy one-shot theory arguments.

I will not vote on suffering good, racism good, sexism good, and anything just egregious.

My flow is decent, but it's far from the best. I am fine with speed, but signaling where you are on the flow and clarity is really key for me to follow on. I am also not really into “flowing straight down”.

I tend to think about rounds through an “offensive-defensive” paradigm.

Yes, I will read evidence if needed, but how I read that evidence is dependent on how each team explains their ev and does comparison. I will try to avoid intervening as much as I can, but that depends on you, more comparison and analysis means I will do less work.

In the camp of “read rehighlightings”.

If the 1AR makes a new argument, it must be justified.

I will NOT evaluate arguments about situations that have happened outside the round with other debaters or coaches. Anything that happens inside a debate round is fair game.

Being aggressive is fine, but there is a line.

I’m not the best at maintaining a poker face. If I am confused I will most likely show it, and if I think you are making smart arguments, I will show it.

Online debate note: Given the current condition of debate, flexibility and clarity are very important to me. If anything, go slower than you normally would, and make doubly sure you are clear. Given internet difficulties/feedback/other problems that can come with online debate, debaters should always feel free to ask clarifying questions to the other side about arguments made. As a judge, if I miss an argument due to online difficulty, I will ask for clarification.

For the whole "camera on vs camera not on" question, I think my preference is that debaters should try to have their camera on while giving their speech. However, that is just a slight preference, I really don't care that much. I will try to keep my camera on as a judge but may turn it off in case of internet issues/other circumstances.

I use two monitors and I usually put the tab with the debate I am judging on my second monitor while I flow on my laptop. The above is just to note that I will be oftentimes looking away from my camera which is on my laptop to look at the second monitor with the debaters.

I do not think any judge is purely “tabula-rasa” so below are my general thoughts about arguments. They are not absolute and can be changed through good debating, but are general biases.

FW/K affs:

Against kritikal affs I went for framework 65% of the time and the Cap K the other 35%.

These types of debates are the ones that tend to evolve the fastest in terms of what offense and defense teams deploy. As such, I will do my best to be open to new innovative arguments from both the framework/K side.

Yes, I am open to voting for framework, and I am open to voting for kritikal affs. Personally I believe there should be some role for the negative, but what that role looks like is up for debate.

The winner of these debates, in my opinion, is the team that does the superior technical debating.

In these debates, I always start with evaluating the case page first and then move to the framework page.

If debated 100% equally on both sides, I would most likely vote negative.

I really liked to think about these debates a lot in high school.

a) FW:

I am good for fairness (this was the impact I went for most in HS), but I think the most interesting framework debates are when the negative goes for a nuanced clash or topic education argument that interacts with the affirmatives offense in some way. I do not think I am super receptive to framework impacts that claim to resolve some existential crisis, however, I do think that in-depth clash over the course of a season is good.

Even if TVA’s do not need to solve the aff, it would be cool if the negative attempts an explanation for why it does.

Switch side debate is severely under-rated.

“You should presume the aff is false because we could not test it” is a silly argument in my opinion and I will most likely not give too much credence to this argument unless completely dropped.

b) K-affs:

I do not think affs need to have a relation to the topic, but the further the aff deviates from the topic, the more “justification” there has to be in my opinion.

I think counter defining words in the resolution and going for developed DA’s against framework is the best strategy, but if you want impact turn everything, I am fine with that too.

I think kritikal aff’s that defend something material rather than something completely abstract is more persuasive and is less susceptible to presumption type arguments. Aff’s that are eight minutes of straight-up pre-emption to framework will have a harder time beating presumption.

The best pieces of offense for me are ones that are interlaced with the affirmative thesis level claim about why the assumption around framework as “being mutually advantageous and agreed upon” are wrong. I think kritikal affs can have benefits and that the imposition of a more limiting topic can be violent and exclude important types of scholarship.

Just saying “rev v. rev solves” is not an argument to me, but descriptions of alternative models of debate that are not just policy centered can be persuasive.

“The wiki solves” is a cringe argument.

Terminal defense to framework is under-rated.

Questions such as “Is debate just a game?” or “Does debate shape our subjectivity, and in what way?” are important to me. I do not think the aff needs to necessarily win that debate isn't a game, but they should have arguments about how they grapple with the inevitable competitive nature of debate.

Topicality (policy):

Go slower when explaining what your interpretation is and what the topic looks like because I do not have topic knowledge.

Usually a more precise interpretation of the topic is better than an arbitrary interpretation that limits the topic.

In order to win reasonability, you must win why your counter-interpretation is reasonable, not the aff.

Actually do impact calculus, why is aff ground more important than preserving limits and vice versa?

K’s:

I was mostly on the policy side of this debate, but I am not totally unfamiliar with kritikal concepts given the prevalence in which I debated them. I will be more familiar with anti-blackness, cap, and security type arguments than high theory arguments.

Going to explain your theory of power and WHY it is true will go a long way for me. Throwing around buzzwords assuming I know what they mean will only leave me confused. It would also be helpful if there is a clear explanation for what your theory of power implies for the debate.

Framework is important to me as it influences how I view arguments such as the links and especially the alternative. I do think the negative can win that I should not weigh the aff in the typical sense of just evaluating the plan versus the K. In these debates, teams tend to use vacuous terms such as “scholarship” or “epistemology” without actually telling me what that means in the context of the affirmative. Final rebuttals should not tell me not just why they are winning framework but why that matters in the context of the debate. If the framework debate ends up being a “wash” I will most likely default to weighing the affirmative.

The best links to me are when teams use a thesis level claim of power to create links that show how the aff actually plays out with an impact.

The alternative doesn’t necessarily need to solve the aff, but it has to do something that is not just “reject the aff”.

Having an overview is not an excuse to not do line by line. If the overview is too long, I will be visibly frustrated. If you are going to jump from argument to argument, tell me where you are and instruct me as much as possible. For example, if the permutation is going to be completely covered in the 1NR, tell me that before you start the 2NC so I can organize my flow.

Aff’s should attempt to have some defense of their representations. For example, if the negative forwards a link about why extinction rhetoric is bad, the aff should ideally have evidence that says why extinction rhetoric is good. Just because you get to “weigh” your aff does not always mean you win the aff is a good idea.

Counterplan’s:

I am open to creative advantage CP’s that do not have solvency advocates, but be prepared to answer theory.

Counterplan’s with specific evidence that is tailored to the affirmative are bueno.

I think there needs to be a solvency deficit in order for the permutation to make sense or very strong links to the net benefit argument.

I default to kicking the counter plan unless told otherwise.

I really do not think process or consult counterplan’s are competitive. Stop being scared of a 2NC’s 8 blippy sub pointed answer to “permutation do the CP”.

DA/Risk Assessment:

Impact calc is super important, I am fine with short 2NR overviews, tell me whether to prefer magnitude, timeframe, or probability, and why your impact outweighs.

Link turns case>>>impact turns case

2AC analytics are good only if they are not blippy and actually point out logical flaws in the DA.

Contrary to most people, I actually love the politics DA.

Framing contentions are meant to supplement your answers to a DA, they should not be your only answers.

Theory:

I usually default to rejecting the argument except on conditionality.

Process/agent/other CP’s that literally result in the aff – Aff leaning

Condo – neg leaning

2NC CP’s – neg leaning

substantive PIC’s – neg leaning

State CP’s – neg leaning

Object fiat – ridiculously aff leaning

Perf con – neg leaning

LD:

I never did LD, but know of some of the types of debates that go down here. I am not heavily researched in phil and the topic area, thus certain concepts may need to be further explained in order for me to understand. Everything from above concerning DA's/T/CP's etc. is all applicable here as well.

I should mostly be comfortable with everything except for whatever "tricks" are and frivolous theory. Best for LARP and clash of civ debates.

I probably have a higher threshold for RVI's given that RVI's are not a thing in policy.

Not sure why this is a thing in LD, but do not ask me about your speaker points.

Miscellaneous:

Speaks: Breaking is hard, and I understand that. For me, if you do line by line and have strategic argumentative vision, your speaks will be pretty decent.

I love bold strategies that are well executed.

Shirley Update

The only topic work I’ve done for Personhood is digging up my old plant ontology files, go slow and tell me your stuff.

If my camera is off I am not present - don’t start.

Short

I've read every kind of aff from straight up heg good to baudrillard, I care way less about what arguments you make than how well you defend them.

I went for the K a lot in high school and still do, but I also love a good policy round, and would much rather you debate to your strengths than to what arguments you think I'll like.

Put me on the email chain, alexsherman99@gmail.com I won't be reading along, unless you read a card that I think is so good I want to recut it for my teams, or if there's a dispute about something that was read.

Long version

I flow on paper. This means that you going slightly slower, and having a clear story will be quite helpful. I'm at the tail-end of year 10 competing and year 5 judging, so this doesn't mean you have to talk to me like I'm a parent judge, but it does mean that if you go full speed through 8 minutes of blocks, to not be surprised when I miss an argument or two. The easy fix to this, for all of you speed demons out there, is to label your arguments with a flowable tag. We already do this with cards, why not do it with our analytics too?

When making my decision. I first write up the most important arguments for both sides. This usually comes down to about 2-3 things, though that may just be because I only judge clash rounds. I then look over my flow, and try to write up an explanation of each, and what it means for both sides. I then compare these, and look for responses that the other team has forwarded. What this means for you, is that it is in your interest to identify what you think the 2-3 most important arguments for either side are, tell me why you're winning them, or why you should still win in the event that you don't win these arguments. If you do not do this, I will still do my best to identify these arguments, but, what I think is important and what you do may not line up, and as a result, our perceptions of the winner may not line up either.

When doing this, I often try as hard as I can to not read evidence. This is because I am very committed to my belief that debate is an activity about communication, and that if you did not effectively communicate an argument to me, it does not matter if you read an amazing card. While I obviously still care about research and evidence quality, I feel that the impulse to read all of the evidence to decide the round makes me more interventionist (which I would like to avoid) and also seems to fall outside of the terms of debate. I.e. outside of teams dropping stuff, if i were to just decide the round based on the cards you read, and not what you said about them, why should I even be sitting there for two hours listening to you? Couldn't you just send me your cards and have me decide at the end whose I thought were better?

This applies less and less if both sides are comparing a piece of evidence, or questioning it's qualifications, or implication, but the "this card is fire, please read it judge" has never been something I have been that inclined to do.

I judge a majority clash debates (around 80% when I last checked) and have found that oftentimes the winners in this debates are the ones who engage with the other side's approach to the world, rather than just explaining why their approach is better. While we obviously should still care about drops, and they are often useful in making decisions in these rounds, I've found that it's useful for both teams to invest a substantial amount of time in looking to where the other team clashed, as much as where they didn't.

I've noticed that I may sound kind of grumpy when giving rfds. This very rarely reflects my distaste at having to judge your round, and more so reflects that I am displeased at having to get 5 or 6 hours of sleep.

My favorite judges in high school were always the ones who seemed really excited to be there judging my round, and the ones who emphasized voting on what was in the round. I love debate and I know you care about the activity to be giving up your weekends to compete in it, and it would be rude of me if I didn’t put all my effort into making the best decision I can. If you don’t think I’m paying enough attention, go ahead and call me out. Nothing here is set in stone, but, if you don't tell me to change how I'd evaluate any of these, then they're my defaults.

1 Tech Over truth, but to an extent. True arguments require less technical explanation for me to buy what you're selling. Oftentimes when making decisions, I find that I am looking at dropped words on my flow, but am unsure how to piece them together to make a cohesive rfd. It is in your best interest to not only tell me what was dropped, but then tell me what I should think about the drops.

2 Mediocre strategies may win in front of me, but, speaker points will likely suffer. If the 1ar drops aspec that was at the bottom of your t overview, and that’s your a-strat, I’m probably not the judge for you. I prefer debates with either really tricky and nuanced strategies, or teams that are willing to just bet it all on black and go for impact turns. I've found that teams that do a better job articulating how I should evaluate arguments do better in front of me than teams that just wait for me to reconstruct what an argument means for my decision. I'm not smart so if you tell me how arguments implicate the rest of the debate, you'll be in a better spot.

3 Protecting the 2nr. There's nothing worse than giving what you think is a fire 2nr and then watching the judge nod along with an argument you're certain wasn't in the 1ar. 2ars should have a high standard for drawing arguments from the 1ar unless they were clear in the speech. I.E. new 2ar cross applications should be justified in the speech/flagged in the 1ar. If I don’t think I could have seen it coming, I probably will think it’s new.

4 Counterplans: They should compete with the aff. Theory arguments are usually just reasons to reject the counterplan, but this is primarily because most folks are afraid of going all in. If your solvency deficit is mediocre, theory is probably a good way out. You don't need a solvency advocate, but having one definitely makes your job easier. Exploit generic link chains in affs.

Generic pics are awful, and specific pics are one of the fastest ways to get good speaks, but in both cases, pics bad needs to come back with a vengeance. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR.

5 Disads: 2acs with bold strats, i.e. straight turning a disad would increase my value to life, and your speaker points. I am very much in the camp that a disad that isn't a full argument in the 1nc is a terrible strategic decision hint: 1a's pull out your impact turns. Outside of that though, I really do like them, whether you're a plug and chug politics team, or a team with the amazing topic link card that no one else has found.

6 Kritiks I like them, they’re probably my favorite argument. I’m really into high theory, and probably am a good judge for you if you like to run kritiks. I’ve run all kinds of things, mainstream stuff like cap, and apoc rhet, to stuff like dng, baudrillard, and halberstam. Examples, explanation and re-contextualization will be integral to your success. These rounds are often more about controlling the narrative than many others, which makes sense given that the focus of the debate is on whether the assumptions that the other team has forwarded are valid.

You don’t need to have an alt to win, but you should justify why. Your links should be specific to the aff. Obviously this is a sliding scale, and if you're reading a K of realism against an aff from John Mearsheimer, I won't be rolling my eyes wishing you had a card specific to the aff, but, If I can’t tell what aff your debating in your 2nc on the k, we’re both gonna have a bad time.

I was always pretty frustrated after giving a 2nr on the K when the judge was just like. "I know you both read a bunch of stuff on framework, but I couldn't really decide who won so I kinda just picked a middle option that both teams never said" Not only does this seem to heavily favor the affirmative, but also reflects a combination of arguments that was never advocated for by either team. I think the best strategy for the aff is just to have some arguments that presume that they (gasp) have to defend why their representations and scholarship are good. Given that most k's are some kind of argument about how the affirmative's theory of IR justifies violence, it doesn't seem that hard to identify the strain of IR that you have affirmed, and provide a defense of why you think about the world the way you do. If the neg has said debate is about how we craft our subjectivity, and said that the subjectivity they endorse opposes a particular world view, why wouldn't this equally apply to the aff, and the defensive realist subjectivity of the taiwan aff be a reason why you should get to say your impacts still matter.

Generally though, I think that affs need to be doing a lot better job answering k's. Please talk about your aff more and generic backfile cards less. Most cases outweigh the k, and extinction impacts are often pretty persuasive. I really do not want to die, and presume that most people do not want to die either, and one thing that always confused me was when there were debates where that comparison didnt really start until the last two rebuttals.

I also think more affs should just bite the link and impact turn the K. Obvi dont read racism/sexism/ableism good, thats the quickest way to a 25 and an L short of conceding the round, but, every K makes other claims that you can, and probably should consider reading offense against.

Two side thoughts

1. Most people read utterly incoherent theories of international relations. I.E. Ikenberry and Mearsheimer may both think that leadership is good, but are not as buddy buddy as people would like me to believe. Obviously just being like "lmao these cards are a double turn" does not meet the threshold of an argument, but, "the aff de-prioritizes the role of institutions because ___ this means that you should be skeptical of their ability to solve for the liberal international order, which Ikenberry says is cohered through a strong commitment to international institutions" is. The latter will shock and impress me, and put your baseline speaks at a 29.

2. Most people have turned against the "not our x" Sometimes this is fair, because the team is lying to get out of links. But, I don't particularly understand why a team should be punished because their author had a bad idea that they don't defend or talk about in the 1ac or 1nc. Consider if we applied this same standard to policy rounds, and the neg read a politics card from nate silver about a specific seat in the midterms. The affirmative responded with a card that said "nate silver was way off on this one super unrelated prediction" and read a card indicting the method of that poll specifically. Why would the neg be tied to defending the poll that they have not cited, and is not intrinsic to their argument? This doesn't mean that I'm waiting to vote on not our x, but, that I will be pleased if both teams can defend why their argument is or is not distinct from x, by demonstrating a command of the literature base that they are deploying.

7 Topicality: Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't really understand ground arguments - if you don't have generics ready to go for core topic areas, or arguments that make debating the aff irrelevant (impact turns, process cp's etc) that seems like a you problem. I get some affs are really small and don't do much, but either they have an absurd impact claim that you can turn or outweigh, or they'd need such a contrived interpretation of the topic to be T that you could just go for limits.

Reasonability has never really made sense to me either, because usually those debates just boil down into the same silly buzzwords that everyone uses. I think reasonability can be an incredibly gnarly argument if it's framed more in the form of an explanation of why offense/defense is bad for topicality debates. Scotty P wrote a really good explanation of what that would look like here https://hsimpact.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/what-is-reasonability/

8 Speaks

Things that will get you good speaks

5 minutes of Antonio in the 2nr (not joking)

9 Clipping- Don’t do it. I’ll be sad, and have to give you a 0

10 No argument too strange- I can be convinced to vote on anything if you do well. T is a rvi, double win theory, normativity k, silence k. If you think you can pull it off, and want to risk a ballot on it go ahead. If you execute it poorly, I'll probably be annoyed, but at the same time, no one ever did anything to radically change debate without taking a lot of risks.

11 Non-traditional affs. I think I’m a pretty good judge for these. I think these affirmatives are unfair, but, don't really know why that's bad (fairness is not an impact). I don’t really think framework is deployed effectively very often, which is unfortunate, because I oftentimes think that many of the claims from framework teams make a lot of intuitive sense. I ended up voting against framework about 60% of the time last year, but I'd attribute that a lot more to what happened in the rounds I judged than to a general predisposition.

For the neg. When I vote neg on T, it's because the negative has successfully done one of two things.

1. Proven that their impact turns the aff's offense.

2. Proven that the aff doesn't solve their offense, and have mitigated the application of case to T in a way beyond the sentence blurb "they don't get to weigh the aff because t is a procedural"

I've found that the topical version of the aff has become less persuasive to me the more clash rounds I've judged. This is not due to the argument being not strategic, but rather, me being left confused about how the topical version resolves offense that the affirmative has deployed, (and a secondary problem of most topical versions of the aff not meeting the standard of being a topical aff in a policy v policy round). The solution to this is easy. Instead of repeating any disad to the topical version doesn't prove it isn't an answer, it just proves neg ground, take some time thinking about the offense that the other team is deploying.

A second problem, is that most people seem to forget they're reading a topicality argument. I have judged almost 30 framework debates this year, and in about 5 of them, I've been clear on how the counterinterpretation solved the aff's disads, and included their affirmative. If the aff read a counterinterp they didn't meet on T-Pearson, or that didn't solve the aff's overlimiting offense why wouldn't you point that out? There's a reason why you're reading interpretations, and why we call framework a topicality argument, you should debate your shell as such.

I've also found that the repetitive "but what do you do?" presumption argument, is wholly unpersuasive. Most affs say they do something, and the neg says, but what do you do, the aff says what they do, and the neg says, yeah, but what do you do? I think this can also be fixed pretty easily, instead of carrying over this, but what do you do argument, make the implied follow on argument, which is something to the effect of, if x structure is so totalizing as their theory says it is, their method is insufficient to resolve it. Think about x as a similar example, which failed for y reason.

All this being said, I'm more than willing to vote on T, as it is obviously a strategic position, and I'm very sympathetic to teams (especially without substantial coaching resources) who would rather prepare to get really good at one argument that would answer all no plan affs, as opposed to specific critiques/disads.

For the aff - Have a clear counterinterp, tight impact turn story, and exploit the weakness of most teams at answering arguments that they are mostly unfamiliar with.

You have to answer disads, even if you dont defend hypothetical implementation of usfg action. This doesn't mean I'm waiting to vote on the aff flips the 2020 election, but rather that if you can think of a nuanced way to articulate a link I wont be a super tough sell on the aff has to defend the consequences of their epistemology. I.e. if an aff says that executive power is bad, I feel like John Yoo would have some things to say about that, even if the aff doesn't implement a policy.

I also really enjoy K vs K debates, as this gives me a break from hearing about what Steinberg and Freely need to tell me about decisionmaking, and allows both sides to engage literature bases that are often not brought into connection with each other. One side note is that I tend to find that the theory of power debate is far less compelling than specific applications. Most folks in the 2nr and 2ar tend to just be like, they dropped our theory of power, game over!!

Questions? Email me at alexsherman99@gmail.com. The longer you wait, the less specific my comments may be, but I have noticed that I recall my thoughts about rounds more than I don't.

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD and policy at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its and LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

Niles North '19

MSU '23

He/Him

add me on the email chain Matt.Sturt.debate@gmail.com

TLDR: I like debate a lot. Speak clearly. Speaks probs 27.5-29.5 Be Coherent. Tech>Truth most of the time

!=impact

you should do the following

FLOW
DO LINE BY LINE

you should not

BE RUDE IN CROSS-ex

BE ABLEIST , SEXIST, RACIST, or anything along those lines (I do not shy away from stopping rounds or calling people out) you will be reported to your coach and you will (hopefully) face repercussions

STEAL PREP i will also call you out for this

BE A RUDE PERSON

long version

OVERVIEW

I believe that debate is a game, but not just a game. There are extrinsic and intrinsic values to debate that come aside from winning. my thesis for deciding rounds is whether or not a policy is desirable, so things aside from that don't have a ton of pull on decision. if you do run an arg that you think is not like this, I am most likely not the judge for you. If you somehow get stuck with me, its not impossible to win these types of args, but if you can switch your strategy, i would if i were you.

T

in order for me to vote on a t arg, I need to know what is bad about the aff specifically in terms of 'breaking debate'. whether it be education, fairness ( which im pretty sure is an !, but my mental jury is still out on that one) or any other possible ! on t args. I also dont know this topic super well rn, so please explain things to me so that i know what this arg even is and am able to vote for it

Aspec is a real arg, you should flow and catch it (even if its not on the doc), but i might doc your speaks if you go for it. This should NOT be your strat going in, but if you feel that passionate about it, put it on another flow

i hope in the age of virtual debating you have the heart to at least put it on the doc. Please don’t put me in the situation where I have to vote neg bc the affs computer lagged and missed your .2 second ASPEC shell

DA

A big thing on this aspect of the debate is both the ! level, but also how one gets there. if you read a nuke war = extinction !, the amount i deem it probability of both a. happening and b. it killing absolutely everyone is intrinsically intertwined with the I/L debate. I care a lot about every part of the DA, so you better have a convincing story about your DA. Also just a side note almost every DA, in my opinion, is theoretically legit, only exception is rider (NOT Horsetrading, those are different @TimFreehan). This includes Ptx, but I do have a bs meter and if its egregiously false/lacking ev, my bar becomes much lower to vote on aff o/w with just ! analysis.

THEORY

i think most things are probs a reason to reject the arg. conditionalitY is not this way obvi. my mind can change on this, but like if you're going for theory i probs know what they are doing is abusive.

COUNTER PLANS

Counter plans were the heart and soul of my novice/jv debate career, but fell to the side as I looked forward into debate. That being said, your generic process/agent/actor/topic counterplan will still need some explanation, as to why it is a. better b. mutually exclusive and c. not too cheaty. refer to what i said above about theory, but if you go for a cheaty counterplan, and you're losing the judge kick part of the debate (more on that later), then rejecting that arg is pretty important in your stake in the debate. With aff specific Counter plans, Im gonna need you to explicitly say what the fundamental differences are between yours proposal and the aff. Do the same things as above to avoid losing to the Perm, but I will put some faith that you either wrote it, or understand it enough to know how it interacts. Again if you dont understand it, good luck getting me to.

Advantage cps are great, PICs that steal all of the aff except a word or phrase are probs abusive, but prove to me why they aren't

KRITIKS

My opinions on kritiks has changed in recent years. I think they are a useful tool, but im going to be honest, its hard to explain hyperspecific philosiphies in 3 minutes at lightning speed. I reserve my right to vote for an argument that i cannot explain to the other team. same goes for a a fw trick. if you explain your kritiks well (this includes the link), i will be much much much more likely to vote for them. I lean towards weighing the hypothetical implementation of the affirmative vs a competetive alternative very highly, but this is not unwinnable.

K AFFS/ FW

fun fact about me: i read and defended a planless aff for exactly 3 rounds during my highschool career and lost all three of those rounds, so please do not consider me an expert in the realm of planless/kritikal affirmatives. this does not mean, however, that i am against this style of debate. when debating I have gone for fw every time against a k aff except once, so I understand that offense against it the most. just being honest, i do think policy debate should be rooted in some form of policy or action, so i inherently lean towards frameworky type args, but I can and will vote for K affs, given that I understand them.

if your strat as a non traditional aff is "C/i - the USFG = the people" im not the judge for you. You will lose this arg 99% of the time in front of me

Overall, I am fairly policy oriented, but like the k when read/explained well

any questions be sure to email (it is at the top) me or ask me before the round - i am an open book and will tell you preferences that i have

Info below is hopefully helpful, but please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions, preferences, accommodations, etc. for me to answer/keep in mind!

The biggest things to keep in mind when debating in front of me are:

• Make sure your tagline actually corresponds with the body of your cards! Misrepresentative tags go against your argument and speaker points.
• I'm comfortable with spreading, but you need to prioritize clarity over volume. If you have one less link card or can't manage to get the final impact analysis in but are speaking much more clearly and intelligibly, that's a good tradeoff. Slowing down on the tagline and author is especially critical. That's not to say that clarity in the body of a card/argument is unimportant; mumbling through these parts to the point that I cannot understand you essentially takes away the warrants, which leads me to not put much weight on your claim.
• I'm fine with stock, T, Theory, Ks, etc., but each argument should be fundamentally sound: explain to me, be it via evidence or analytics, the logical flow between your links and impacts.
• Speaking of evidence and analytics, both are fine, and while strong cards with credible authors are great, incisive or powerful analytics can take out arguments where one might have otherwise resorted to a string of cards. Point out logical fallacies in the other side's arguments, and explain why your claims, links, and impact exhibit logical consistencies. I look favorably upon counterarguments where you point out the flaw in the logic or credibility of your opponent's card, as they're more efficient and usually more grounded than just reading blocks.
• Impact calc & framing debates, especially in the final speeches, is critical. Give me voters, of course, but also give me reasons why your voters and/or value and criterion and the implications they have are more important than the other side's (magnitude vs. timeframe vs. probability; stock vs. systemic; connections between your impacts/values/criterions and those of the other side).
• Points made intelligently in CX through suggestive questioning will be noted on the flow and considered elsewhere in the round. For that reason, mentioning an argument and the fact that it was brought up in CX (assuming it was) will count—no need to reiterate a point that’s been made already.
• In LD, the value/criterion debate is important, and showing me why your pair outweighs/is a prereq to/etc. your opponent’s pair is essential. However, I’m very receptive to non-stock Neg arguments, impact calc, explanations of how your impacts apply to your opponent’s value/criterion pair, etc.
• Be assertive, but not rude. It’s a fine line, but it’s an important one. Assertive debaters look intelligent and gain speaker points for masterful handling of the clash and confusion in a debate. Being assertive will gain you speaker points. Being rude will likely bring down your speaker points.

Former debater at Harvard and Westminster. It has been a few years since I was very actively involved with the activity, the last few years my involvement with debate has consisted of judging ~5 rounds a year and remaining lightly connected to the teams of the schools I attended. Do with that information as you will.

Mostly putting an emphasis on things I suspect might be idiosyncratic:

I think offense-defense is substantially overrated. It is one thing if the debaters argue successfully for it, but I think the a lot of the time a cruxy argument can be a defensive argument that proves one of the two impact/offense stories is substantially more true/probable than the other. I have also voted on entirely defense multiple times if I thought a team was proving the opponents sources of offense were indistinguishable from statistical noise.

I increasingly think there is an overemphasis on evidence in debate, especially if the evidence being talked about is really just an oped take or the like. In many cases the debaters just making the arguments directly would be equally persusasive, and I think that is fine. Just make analytical warrants yourself.

I don't think politics disads are intrinsic, and are generally inconsistent with the negative having CPs. Don't think I've ever voted on this though.

In theory debates in general, I find I value arguments about predictability and whether or not you have a coherent idea of what debate is / should be over very tactical arguments about which interpretation is more fair. Arguing about what common-sense argument a debate-theoretical construct like a perm or a particular CP amounts to, and why that is an argument that needs to be in our lexicon, is I think a good approach.

I didn't go for Ks very much when I debated, but I think empirically my judging record is something close to 50-50, though on a probably skewed sample. I enjoy Ks of the aff/negs scholarship or proposal or assumptions what have you moreso than I do discussions about debate itself.

zthiede1@gmail.com

Assistant coach at Rowland Hall.

TOC 2024 Update: This is my last tournament judging, for likely a very long time. I have updated my paradigm to be shorter and more to the point. I love debate and everything it has done for me, I will work very hard to fairly adjudicate every debate that I watch. Great job for making it to the TOC and good luck! :)

Debate in front of me like your debating in front of Mike Shackelford ;)

Some debate thoughts...

I strongly believe that debate is a game, read whatever arguments you want. I will not evaluate personal attacks on other students nor some past history that you have with them. Bring that up with Tabroom or your school's administration not me.

I judge a lot of framework v. K AFF debates. I vote for K AFF's more when they go for impact turns. Fairness is an impact.

Don't hide ASPEC, it's annoying and I will let the 1AR answer it.

50 state fiat is a reason to reject the argument.

You must read any re-highlighting if you want it entered into the debate. The only times you do not need to do this are if the other team has totally cut something out of context and you are inserting it for contextual clarity. Generally speaking though, I think it is more persuasive if you just read it.

Asking what cards were read BEFORE CX is prep or CX time. Learn to flow.

1 CARD MAXIMUM IN THE BODY OF THE E-MAIL!!!! DO NOT ASK.

I debated in LD for five seasons of middle/high school (2011-2015), and Policy at Wake Forest University four seasons (2015-2019). I also have a master's degree in World History at Northeastern University and am pursuing a PhD in World History at Northeastern; my research interests concern the Left in the US and UK during the twentieth century, particularly the 1960s.

I have strong knowledge of every style of argument, which reflects the versatility that I had as a debater and now a coach. I am absolutely okay with any level of speed, but I'm at the point where I think you'll sound more intelligent if you don't need to rely on debate jargon to make good arguments. Basically, I would lower your speaker points if you're doing analysis that would sound completely unintelligible to someone outside of debate, not just a layperson but even an accomplished academic. So instead of just saying, "the disad controls the internal link, any risk of offense means it's try or die" and moving on because I should get that, please talk about the substance of the real-world issues you're addressing like you've written a paper or had a conversation with a non-debater. You should still use debate terminology when it's obviously important (like if something's a perm, or a case turn, you should say that).

I will generally prioritize dropped arguments, but I still think weighing is important. So, the one exit strategy that I would give a debater who dropped something crucial is for them to explain why the arguments they're still winning outweigh the argument they dropped. This means it's necessary for someone extending a dropped argument to explain why that argument alone merits them winning the debate - no one should win just because of a tally showing that one debater dropped fewer arguments than the other.

I will not mind seeing a card doc after the debate, but I'm not going to decide the debate based on my views about your cards. I think the way I evaluate debates now is so much more about how you're talking about the cards and less about whether I independently judge that your cards are better than your opponent's cards. So if someone's evidence is really bad, you have to tell me that it is, and why - when I look at the card doc, I may feel confident that you were right in that assessment, but if your opponent doesn't have a good comeback I won't intervene and say "actually this card was awesome."

Note about LD theory/T: Read theory or T if it's making a reasonable point about a squirrely aff or a patently unfair practice. In that sense I default to reasonability, not in terms of intervention but rather my gut feeling that you have to meet a high bar for proving your opponent rigged the game. It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.

I am absolutely okay with non-traditional debate styles, but I believe that you should adopt a concrete political project (could be grassroots and decentralized, cultural/artistic, educational, etc.), or explain why you shouldn't have one at all (full pessimism). I don't think you can be half-in, half-out by talking about structures yet claiming that only the traditional Policy debater is naive about real-world change because they're using fiat/roleplaying. If you say "debate is meaningless, fiat is illusory, nothing we say or do at this tournament matters," I'll roll my eyes because (1) that applies to the K also, because you also spend your time doing debate, and (2) everything we talk about in debate, even hypothetical policies, has the chance to influence how we engage with the world once debate is no longer our entire lives. Whether or not fiat is real, I still think you either need to make a normative claim about how other people--not just debaters--should act, or you have to be radically anti-normative (no demands, no future, no change is possible). I personally think it's vapid to just have debates about debate, and given the real-world impacts that people face I think that you either need to expand your vision to the world or explain why the world is irredeemable. In other words, I think that good Left thinking is optimistic unless you systematically justify your pessimism.

I have 7 years of both debate and judging experience combined, ill go into deeper detail before an actual debate round (feeling lazy)

I consider myself to be an all around judge, in the sense that my sole purpose in the debate round is to evaluate it and vote on who made the most convincing argument. 

WIP for Yale.

Add me on the email chain: thuantran@college.harvard.edu.

When it comes to K versus policy, I prefer K debates. I went to graduate school for philosophy and have coached debate in CPS for 8 years, but was never a debater. As a result I am probably considerably less technical than other judges and just want to see good argumentation. I personally think this happens when we have a clear understanding of our epistemology.

I would much prefer to judge a round where there is a lot of clash on the flow and indicts on the other team's evidence than a round in which a team overwhelms the other team with lots of advantages or CPs. K debates can be equally bad for education when they involve half-understood ideas of So, if you're running a K or K Aff, please avoid relying solely on philosophical jargon. I think the best debaters are the ones who combine their technical of knowledge of debate with common sense and some semblance of rhetorical skill.

Counterplans are fine. If you run them be sure you can clearly articulate how the plan links to the net benefit.

I'm ok with speed, but I prefer debaters who slow down on analytics and theory arguments. Getting your arguments out in the 1AC/1NC should sound different from explaining why the perm fails or explaining why topicality should be a voter.

I think storytelling is important. I want you to be able to explain to me why you are winning the debate. I have two reasons for believing this: 1. I think this is an essential thinking and communication skill, 2. If you throw spaghetti at the wall and ask me to interpret it, I'm afraid that I won't interpret it correctly. Don't leave the round up to my interpretation; write my ballot for me.

I like a nice, tight DA with a carefully explained link story. Sometimes Ptix DAs get a little wild, but as long as you can sell the story, I'm willing to go along with it as a convention of debate, but would probably be sympathetic to an aff team that highlights the probability of the link chain or the quality of the evidence.

At heart I'm just an English teacher, so I will give an extra .1 spear poi if you cite some poetry in your rebuttal speech (in context) .2 if I really like the poem.

Tag team is fine; however, I think the speaker should be the one primarily responsible for answering. I don't want to see one partner dominating.

Kjtrant@cps.edu

the basics

email is trivinoaimee@gmail.com

my pronouns are they/them and she/hers but i prefer they/them.

i debated for brooklyn tech in the northeastern circuit. I have coached for MS 50 in the bilingual league and now work for the NYCUDL and for Binghamton debate. 

i did mostly critical debate and performance debate focusing on identity, particularly indigeneity, queerness, feminism, and academia.

fairness is an internal link to education in my mind.

i will vote on presumtion if neither team makes sufficient offense to resolve the other’s team’s alt/cp/da/whatever

anyone who commits microagressions or is being rude (included but not limited to speaking over non-men, yelling at their opponents, purposely misgendering someone, or interrupting speeches) will receive -.5 in speaker points. anyone who is blatantly homophobic, anti-black, sexist, or ableist will receive an automatic loss.

being witty makes me happy. judging rounds are boring when debaters are: monotone, ununique (is that a word?) all business. this activity is fun- make it fun for me and your speaks will benefit

adding to that, i will be very unhappy if you are not being clear- i’ll say clear a few times and if i can’t understand you i will stop flowing. so plz be clear so that i can flow your speech.

have fun and feel free to email me questions!

Please make sense of your arguments and ask for a ballot. I want to do the least work possible as a judge to determine an rfd.

10+ years as a judge. Debate is a game among other things. At this point, I'm pretty soulless and I don't know what more to say than that. The rounds that I enjoy the most are well organized and the debaters attempt to inform clear decisions on how the game should be won.

Fine with all kinds of debate and arguments

General Info:

Call me Vega!

SHE/THEY

Proud Boriqua Educator and Artist

Middle-School Debate Coach at John D. Wells, MS. 50

Full time Paraprofessional in Brooklyn, NYC

Debate Career:

ACORN Community High School 2012-16: Policy Debate

Coached Leon M. Goldstien from 2016-17

Judging Policy and Public Forum from 2015- Present

Judging LD from 2018- Present

Judging Congressional and Speech from 2019- Present

For the majority of my debate career I was double 2s, and later became 2N, 1A.

Overall Rules and Expectations:

I do not count sharing evidence as prep unless you take a century.

I believe that judges are NOT supposed to intervene in round under any circumstances, unless in the case of an extreme emergency.

I shouldn't have to tell you be respectful or to not use hateful, racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic language. If I hear it, I will automatically give the ballot to the other team. ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED.

Some may think petty debaters or debaters with attitudes are amusing or cute, I don't. Treat your competitors with respect or it will affect your speaker points.

Judge Philosophy:

I believe that it is my responsibility as the judge of the round to remove any pre-existing notions or biases from my mind on whatever topic you chose to debate over, and act as an objective observer who decides whether or not the AFF is a good idea. Unless told otherwise in the round, this is the perspective I default to.

Minimal expectations are the following: If the NEG does not provide any DAs to voting AFF then I will vote AFF. If the AFF does not prove that the AFF is better than the status quo and has an actual solvency method, then I will vote NEG.

It is in your best interest (speaker points) to go far beyond these basic debate expectations. I'm generous with speaker points if you keep me engaged and make sure I understand you, they usually range from 27-29.5

I don't have any specific preference when it comes to argumentation and I will vote on virtually anything you want me to if explained well, but DO NOT assume I know anything.

Name : Lauren Velazquez

Affiliated School: Niles North

Email: Laurenida@gmail.com

General Background:
I debated competitively in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common.

Director of Debate at Niles North

Laurenida@gmail.com

ME

Experience:

I competed in the 90s, helped around for a few years, took a bit of a break, have been back for about 7 years. My teams compete on the national circuit, I help heavily with my teams’ strategies, and am a lab leader at a University of Michigan. In recent years I have helped coach teams that cleared at the TOC, won state titles and consistently debated in late elim rounds at national tournaments. TL/DR--I am familiar with national circuit debate but I do not closely follow college debate so do not assume that I am attuned to the arguments that are currently cutting edge/new.

What this means for you---I lean tech over truth when it comes to execution, but truth controls the direction of tech, and some debate meta-arguments matter a lot less to me.

I am not ideological towards most arguments, I believe debate structurally is a game, but there are benefits to debate outside of it being just a game, give it your best shot and I will try my best to adapt to you.

The only caveat is do not read any arguments that you think would be inappropriate for me to teach in my classroom, if you are worried it might be inappropriate, you should stop yourself right there.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good story telling and evidence analysis. Strong teams are teams that frame impact calculations for me in their rebuttals (e.g. how do I decide between preventing a war or promoting human rights?). I should hear from teams how their internal links work and how their evidence and analysis refute indictments from their opponents. Affirmatives should have offense against disads (and Negs have offense against case). It is rare, in my mind, for a solvency argument or "non unique" argument to do enough damage to make the case/disad go away completely, at best, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but t is up to the teams to conduct a risk analysis telling me how to weigh risk of one scenario versus another.

TOPICALITY

I will vote on topicality if it is given time (more than 15 seconds in the 2NR) in the debate and the negative team is able to articulate the value of topicality as a debate “rule” and demonstrate that the affirmative has violated a clear and reasonable framework set by the negative. If the affirmative offers a counter interpretation, I will need someone to explain to me why their standards and definitions are best. Providing cases that meet your framework is always a good idea. I find the limits debate to be the crux generally of why I would vote for or against T so if you are neg you 100% should be articulating the limits implications of your interpretation.

KRITIKS
Over the years, I have heard and voted on Kritiks, but I do offer a few honest caveats:

*Please dont read "death good"/nihilism/psychoanalysis in front of me. I mean honestly I will consider it but I know I am biased and I HATE nihilism, psychoanalysis debates. I will try to listen with an open mind but I really don't think these arguments are good for the activity or good for pedagogy--they alienate younger debaters who are learning the game and I don't think that genuine discussions of metaphysics lend themselves to speed reading and "voting" on right/wrong. If you run these I will listen and work actively to be open minded but know you are making an uphill battle for yourself running these. If these are your bread and butter args you should pref me low.

I read newspapers daily so I feel confident in my knowledge around global events. I do not regularly read philosophy or theory papers, there is a chance that I am unfamiliar with your argument or the underlying paradigms. I do believe that Kritik evidence is inherently dense and should be read a tad slower and have accompanying argument overviews in negative block. Impact analysis is vital. What is the role of the ballot? How do I evaluate things like discourse against policy implications (DAs etc)

Also, I’m going to need you to go a tad slower if you are busting out a new kritik, as it does take time to process philosophical writings.

If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesnt have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is competitively fair and educationally valuable.

COUNTERPLANS
I am generally a fan of CPs as a neg strategy. I will vote for counterplans but I am open to theory arguments from the affirmative (PICs bad etc). Counterplans are most persuasive to me when the negative is able to clearly explain the net benifts and how (if at all) the counterplan captures affirmative solvency. For permutations to be convincing offense against CPs, Affs should explain how permutation works and what voting for perm means (does the DA go away, do I automatically vote against neg etc?)

Random

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex and dominating. You are part of a 2 person team for a reason.

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you have a ton of analytics in a row or are explaining a new/dense theory, you may want to slow down a little since processing time for flowing analytics or kritkits is a little slower than me just flowing the text of your evidence.

I listen to cross ex. I think teams come up with a lot of good arguments during this time. If you come up with an argument in cross ex-add it to the flow in your speech.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

preffin cheat sheet:

1 - Ks with plan-specific links, DAs with plan-specific links, case debate

2 - advantage CPs, impact turns

3 - Ks with reps links, 1-off FWK

4 - process CPs, politics DAs

5 - 9 off, whining

S - check out my riddles lmao

Iowa City High school 2012-2016

Northwestern University 2016-2020

Northwestern University Coach 2020-???

I want on the email chain: josephweideman01@gmail.com

--I generally know more about policy arguments, but I'm happy to vote for the K/think it is very strategic and usually answered badly.

--In K debates, both sides need to do a much better job of: 1) using examples/contextualizing their offense; 2) debating the other team's argument instead of a caricature of their argument; 3) evidence based debating

--I care a lot about evidence quality. I'll usually read a good chunk of the cards during the debate.

--I think a lot of debates are determined by which team has the better strategic vision/ability to weave the different pieces of a debate together into a win. I do not like having to piece together a debate without instruction from debaters on how to do so.

--I will be very quick to ignore evidence composed of sentence fragments that make no grammatical sense when put together.

--Inserting re-highlighting of the other team's ev is fine, but you must explain what you're inserting/why you think it helps you.

--T-USFG/FW: I think the vitriol with which this argument is approached by many people on both sides of this issue is bordering on the absurd. FW has argumentative merit. So do the answers to FW. Clash is good (If you want to convince me otherwise you'll need to explain what debate is without clash). I care less about fairness gripes. Stop saying things are intrinsic goods and instead use descriptive language to explain why they matter. Aff teams' impact usually outweighs but I consistently vote neg when the aff shotguns offense and fails to answer the neg's defense/tricks and/or because clash turns aff offense.

--I am uninterested in adjudicating personal attacks/arguments about things that happened outside of the debate.

--Conditionality = Good

--T vs Plans: Least favorite type of debate to judge (other than theory debates...maybe). I think evidence quality/predictability matters a lot and its usually silly to put limits above everything else.

--Make choices please.

I will evaluate any argument, except for any argument that is derogative, racist, sexist,

or ableist so with that being said it won’t be strategic for you to run

“Racism is good” in front of me. I have ran critical arguments and understand most of

them but please don’t assume that since I know it I will vote on, I ONLY VOTE ON

WHAT I FLOW. I feel if you go for any procedurals arguments such as( T, Framework,

Theory) I will need to hear some abusive story, and some VOTING ISSUE, and if you

run Topicality I need to hear a topical version of the aff and what I should I prefer such

as Competing interps or reasonability. Also, with traditional policy arguments I think

these debates are really evidence based and should also be articulated well. So I’m

generally an open judge just please articulate all arguments with a claim and warrant

and some weighing will be nice.

Rosemount High School (MN)

Debate Experience: 4 years HS policy (Rosemount HS, 1987-1991), 2 years CEDA (Truman State - formerly NE Missouri St 1991-1993)
Coaching/Judging Experience: 32 years judging, 18 of these actively coaching
Rosemount 2013-present
Farmington 2018-2020
St. Thomas Academy 1993-2001

Last update: 2022-11-19

--

New 2022-11-19 / Clarified 2023-12-2

Building on evidence highlighting argued below. If the highlighted portion of your evidence is word salad and/or changes the author's intent when read in isolation, I will stop the round and immediately vote on an ethical violation. This means a loss and minimum allowable points to the offending team. National circuit evidence standards are atrocious and need to be changed. This may be quixotic, but so be it.

The note about stopping the round will be only when evidence is taken out of context. In other circumstances, particularly (but not limited to) where cards are formed by taking one to four words from each of ten or more sentences, I will treat the argument as an analytic with no evidence support.

--

Yes, email chain.

I have changed the email address I use for email chains. The old one will still work, but please use wodarz.debate@gmail.com going forward

New 2021-10-02: Your evidence highlighting should read in grammatically correct sentences when read in isolation. I will consider exceptions on a case-by-case basis (generally, there should be a legitimate argumentative purpose for doing otherwise).

None of the older profile information below is out-of-date, feel free to refer to it for additional information.

I'm definitely an older coach but I like a lot of what K debate has brought to the community. I'm unique among the Rosemount coaching staff in that respect.

I most enjoy judging rounds where the aff and the neg have an underlying agreement on how the round should look. I prefer to judge either policy v policy debates or K v K debates.

Some details:

* I prefer that the negative engage with the affirmative. The better the specificity of link arguments, the more likely the negative is to win their chosen arguments.

* I roughly think of my judging philosophy as "least intervention". My hope is to try to not do any work for debaters, but this is the ideal and rarely occurs in practice. So I generally look at what I would need to do to vote for either team and choose the outcome that requires the least work on my part. I do my best to not interject personal beliefs into the debate, but realize this isn't always possible.

* I don't like most process or actor CPs, but often vote for them. When neg CP lit says a topic should be left to the states, that lit never means "all 50 states act in concert" but instead usually means "states should be free to not do anything". Affs could do a lot with this, but never do.

* I despise politics DAs, but again find myself voting for them. In 30+ years of debating and judging these, I think I've heard one scenario that had any semblance of truth to it. I think negative over-simplification of the political process and the horse-race mentality engendered by these DAs has been bad for debate and bad for society as a whole. But again, I rarely see Affs making the arguments necessary to win these sort of claims.

* I have a debate-level knowledge of most Kritiks. My knowledge of the literature is about 20 years old at this point and I rarely cut cards for my teams. What this means if you're running a K (either aff or neg): assume that I'm a judge who is willing to listen to (and often vote for) what you say, but don't assume any specific knowledge. This is particularly important at the impact level. If I have a warranted and detailed explanation as to why your model of debate is essential,

* In debates between similarly skilled teams, Framework debates usually come down to "is the aff in the direction of the resolution?". If so, I usually vote aff. Otherwise, neg. If you're a policy team, you're probably better off going for even a Cap K in front of me than for Framework.

* Even in person, you're not as clear as you think you are. This is doubly so in online debates. Slow down a little and you'll likely be happier with my decision.

* It's come to my attention that some teams have shied away from going for theory because of what I've written below. If you believe your violation is true, go ahead and go for it. My preference is to decide debates on the issues, but if I can get good clash on a theory or T flow, that's OK too.

* Disclosure theory is exempt from the preceding bullet. If you can win the debate on disclosure theory, there are better arguments you can make that you can also win on.

* If you're a big school on the circuit where I'm judging you, running a "small schools DA" will likely see speaker points reduced.

* I don't like a 6+ off neg strategy. If you're obviously far more skilled than your opponents and still do this, speaker points will suffer. Regardless, I'm probably more likely to vote on condo bad or perf con than most judges (but see everything else I've written on theory)

* I love good topicality debates. I also love creative (but defensible) affirmative interpretations of the topic. I default to "good is good enough"/reasonability for the aff on topicality, but can be persuaded to vote for the competing interps model. Just saying "reasonability invites judge intervention" isn't enough though. Believe it or not, so does competing interps.

==============

Older Profile:

I actively coached from 1993 until 2001 before largely leaving the activity for a dozen years. I got back into coaching in 2013 and have been in the activity since then. My time away from the activity proved to profoundly affect the way I view debates.

I view debate as an educational activity and my primary responsibility as a judge as facilitating that education. It is important to note what this means and what it does not mean. What it does not mean is that I like arguments that impact in "voting issue for reasons of education." Leaving aside the irony of the lack of educational value in those sorts of arguments, I am not saying that I will vote for the "more educational" team, whatever that means. What I do mean is that the round can be a very educational environment and my position is to assist that as best as I can. Argumentatively, I am looking for well-reasoned logical arguments, preferentially with strong evidential support. Counterplans which are contingent on successful consultation of any sort are almost always lacking here. Almost all politics DAs that I've ever heard have this problem as well. You're going to have a much easier time if you run a DA, CP, or a K with a solid literature-based link story.

Theory and Analytics: In-round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse. I have a large presumption against voting on theory, although I have voted on it. To win on theory, you'll probably need to spend substantial time in the last rebuttal and offer a persuasive story. SLOW DOWN when arguing theory. Give me a tag that I can get on my flow and then explain it. Five consecutive four word responses will likely get the first one or two responses flowed, and the rest missed. If it's not on my flow, I can't vote on it. The explanation is the most important part of the argument.

Topicality: Topicality stems from plan action. Placing the resolution in plan text or looking to solvency do not prove topicality. My default view is that if the affirmative interpretation provides an equitable division of ground and plan meets their interpretation, they will win the argument. Generally speaking, if the negative wins topicality, they win the debate. I have been persuaded to vote contrary to my default views in the past. The negative need not win that their interpretation is best for debate, but it helps.

Non-traditional Affirmatives: I don't insist that the affirmative run a plan but any planless aff better be prepared to explain how they engage the resolution. I'm much more willing to accept a non-traditional interpretation of the terms of the resolution than I am to accept an aff that completely ignores the resolution or runs counter to the direction of the resolution.

Evidence sharing/email chains: As of 2017, I have updated my philosophy on these. I would now like to get all speech docs that are shared. Please add me to any email chain using wodarz.debate@gmail.com. Please note that I will not use the speech doc to help flow your speech.

One notable change for the worse over the last decade is the terrible practices that paperless debating has fostered. I approve of paperless debating in the abstract and in a good deal of its implementation, but teams have taken to receiving a speech doc before the speech as a crutch and flowing and line by line debate have suffered as a result. I'm not happy with the blatant prep time theft that pervades the activity, but I recognize that any gesture that I make will be futile. I will take action in particularly egregious cases by deducting from prep time (or speech time, if no prep remains).

Please ask before rounds for clarification.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy:

I judge far more policy than LD, but I'm not a stranger to judging or coaching LD. I have no predispositions toward any particular style, so largely you should feel free to do what you're most comfortable with. I will not vote for a policy argument just because I'm predominantly a policy judge, although I will listen to them. Be sure to offer full explanations. LD time formats can be challenging, prioritize explanations over evidence. Anything above that isn't specific to policy will apply in LD as well. Your explanations are the most important part of the debate.

Updated 1/9/2019 to add LD

College Prep, Oakland, California

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Coach at Success Academy Queens 1 Middle School

myka.yamasaki@saschools.org

Full Judging Record: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=12179

In General... Read anything you want to read as long as it isn't racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic - you catch my drift. Junior year, I defended no plan coloniality affs on the Latin America topic and only went for one off kritiks on the neg. Senior year, I read an oil aff on the Oceans topic and went for politics disads. Given this, I am seriously welcome to all argument types as long as you argue for them well. Be nice, there is no blurred line between being disrespectful and a good debater. Also, I'd rather not call for cards at the end of a debate, explanation of your arguments during the round matter the most.

• Speed: I am fine with all ranges of speed as long as you are clear.
• Case: I like good case debate. Being able to tear apart the aff's 1AC is a great route for a win. Detailed case debate also shows you are well-prepared which is always a plus.
• DAs: I really like it when good impact debates happen on disads. Explain smart turns and impact filters. I am also a fan of smart defensive arguments.
• CPs: No one likes super generic counterplans but I get it. More specific the better but even if it isn't just be prepared to give good spin or else I won't be very compelled to vote for the counterplan.
• Ks: I am familiar with most of the kritiks read in high school debate. Thorough explanations are extremely important. I will not understand the point you are trying to make if you just throw a bunch of philosophical jargon at me.
• Topicality: T is cool just don't read T as a time suck. I think a well thought out T argument can be very dangerous for an aff.
• Framework: I am not predisposed to voting a certain way on framework as I have been a debater on both sides of the argument. I think an aff that is winning its value within the debate space is in good shape. On the other hand, a neg who is winning the limits debate is in good shape.
• Theory: I don't really see myself voting on theory unless it is flat out dropped or it is conditionality. Conditionality is probably not something that I will vote for if the neg reads only 1 conditional position. However, I think theory is underutilized in terms of using it to try to get a team to kick an argument.

Name: Jefferey Yan
Affiliations: Stuyvesant High School ’15
Binghamton University '19
Currently working as an assistant coach w/ GMU for 2021-22

Please put me on the chain: jeffereyyan@gmail.com

I debated for 8 years, in HS for Stuyvesant and in college at Binghamton. I read a plan for a majority of my time in HS, and various K arguments on the neg. In college, I read an affirmative about Asian-Americans every year with a variety of flavors and a few about disability. On the neg, we primarily went for K arguments with themes of biopower, capitalism, and resiliency.

Form preferences:

I think line by line is an effective way to both record and evaluate clash that happens in debate. I like to judge debates that are heavily invested in line-by-line refutation because I think it requires the least amount of intervention and the largest amount of me pointing to what you said.

That being said, I think rebuttals require less line-by-line and more framing arguments. The biggest problem for me when evaluating debates is there is often little explanation of how I should treat the rest of debate if you win x argument. In other words, you need to impact your arguments not just on the line by line, but also in the broader context of the debate. The ability to do both in a round is primarily what modulates the speaking points I give.

Argumentative familiarity/thoughts:

Framework/T-USFG: I like to think of framework as an all-or-nothing strategy that can either be utilized effectively and persuasively, or poorly and as an excuse to avoid engagement. My ideal block on FW is where you spend time articulating specific abuse and why it implicates your ability to debate with examples. I think specificity is what makes the difference between framework as a strategy for engagement versus framework as a strategy for ignoring the aff. I think a lot of the delineation here is most apparent in the 2NR and whether or not the neg explicitly acknowledges/goes to the case page.

Generally speaking, I think ties to the topic are good. I think topical versions of the aff are something people need to be going for in the 2NR and are lowkey kind of broken given the time tradeoff vs amount of defense generated ratio. I am unpersuaded by fairness as an intrinsic good or impact in itself, and relying heavily on it in the 2nr is not a great spot to be in. For example, I am relatively easily persuaded by the argument that if a current form of the game produces bad outcomes, then whether it’s fair or not is ultimately a secondary to concern when compared to re-thinking the content of the game itself. I think arguments regarding the quality of clash are the most persuasive to me as they can implicate both fairness and education impact arguments fairly intuitively.

I default to competing interps, but I think that aff teams tend to read awful C/Is without realizing it, mostly because they fail to really think through what their counter-model of debate looks like. I think a strong counter-interp really sets aff FW strategies apart, because being able to access the neg’s offense does a lot for you in terms of explaining the specificity of your own impact turns.

T: Like I said, I have very little topic specific knowledge and am a bit out of the loop in regards to the meta. This means I’m probably more willing to vote on a stupid T argument than other judges. This could be good or bad for you.

DA: I like stories. DAs are opportunities to tell good stories. Not much else to say about this.

CP: I wish people slowed down when reading CP texts because it makes it so god damn hard to flow them. I think judge-kick is stupid. If the debate becomes theoretical, please adhere to some kind of line-by-line format.

K: I am most familiar with structural kritiks. Link specificity makes life good. I think framework is incredibly important for both sides to win to win the debate. I think the neg should defend an alternative most of the time. I think the neg should generally pick and choose one or two specific link arguments in the 2NR.

K but on the aff: These debates are largely framework debates, and the winner of that debate gets to decide what happens with the judge and the ballot. I think it’s important to make clear what the aff advocates early on, because often times these affs have too many moving parts, which gets you into trouble vs link debates/presumption arguments. I think ties to the topic are generally good. I usually really like judging these types of affs.

Sydney Young

Rowland Hall ‘19

Harvard ‘23

syd8796@gmail.com

Top Level: Tech > Truth (to an extent, of course. I would not vote for a “dropped” 2016 elections DA). Evidence quality is important, but good spin, logic, and explanation can overcome mediocre evidence. I am best in policy-oriented debates since I primarily went for these arguments in high school, but I believe that kritiks are pedagogically valuable and will vote for them. I will reject any argument that is blatantly offensive.

Topicality: Love good T debates. Illustrate your world of the topic. Evidence comparison and impact calculus matters. Precision is under-utilized as an impact — a definition must be researchable in order for it to set a limit on the topic. Most limits claims are rendered moot if they rely on an unpredictable definition. Reasonability is most persuasive when paired with a precision argument.

DA: Fun with a CP, more fun if you go for DA and case alone. Turns case and impact comparison are essential. “DA turns case because it also causes structural violence” is not a turns case argument.

Case: Good case debate wins rounds. Good analytics that dispute the aff’s internal links can be extremely valuable. Will vote on presumption if the aff is truly egregious and defies all logic.

K’s: Contextualize links and prove that something about the aff (plan, advantages, rhetoric, etc.) is bad and mutually exclusive with the alt. Explain your terminology and literature well (avoid a heavy reliance on buzzwords) because I am not as well-versed in K literature.

CPs: Process CPs are fine, especially on topics where there is virtually no neg ground. That being said, Functional + Textual > Functional > Textual Competition. Smart CPs cut from solvency advocates or well-researched advantage CPs are preferable. Will only kick CPs if you win that doing so is theoretically legitimate.

Theory: Contextualize theory to the topic/the argument. I am sympathetic to teams that initially miss a super-fast, barely audible, cheap-shot theory argument as long as they answer it later (I’m looking at you, ASPEC). A new aff does not justify a negative free-for-all unless you win that new affs are bad.

Condo: I tend to err neg on condo. It grants the negative a greater degree of flexibility to test the plan from multiple angles and check against a topic with extensive aff side-bias. There is no distinction between 2, 3, or 6 condo. I am most persuaded by aff arguments about why conditionality disincentivizes the negative from producing a well-developed response to any particular policy proposal.

T – USFG/K Affs: I primarily went for T-USFG against K affs in high school. Fairness is probably an impact, but I could be persuaded otherwise. SSD and TVA arguments should be contextualized to the aff and function as defense to their model of debate. Always answer case.

Aff teams — Control the uniqueness debate. Establish why this one round/ballot does not matter for the neg’s impact but does for your own. Impact turn framework and have DAs with internal links specific to the aff. Both teams should have solid impact comparison.

Speaker Points: Clarity, efficiency, quality of explanation, and organization will be rewarded, as will bold strategies, good decisions, and smart “even if” statements that frame the debate.

Debated: Lexington High School 2013-2017, Harvard 2017—

Email Chain: ruthzheng15@gmail.com

Pretty much everything is permitted. That being said, if you do something abhorrent I will drop you. I'll evaluate the debate based on what was said in the round. If you want me to read evidence, please contest it within the debate. Framing is important. Tech \geq Truth. I won't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, though (re: grumpyface).

*Note on Framework v. Non-Topical Affs: I'm disinclined to think that fairness is a terminal impact, so persuading me otherwise will be an uphill battle (although not impossible). Limits or literally anything else is fine.

Stevens High School (South Dakota) '19 | MIT '23

I did five years of high school policy debate. For those not intimately familiar with the (nearly extinct) South Dakotan policy debate circuit, it tended to be more traditional in the earlier years of my debate experience (a K aff was essentially unheard of), and slowly transitioned into a circuit which was more comfortable with K (affs) and national circuit-style debate. This does mean that my preferences for arguments tend to lean towards policy arguments, but I am open to and will vote on anything. It also means that I know very little about the high-theory of various kritiks—if you run these, please use less jargon and more direct, leyman explanations. I am also not distinctly involved with the current debate topics too much, meaning that I will not have an understanding of the zeitgeist of the current topic. This should not hinder you if you explain arguments well, but do note it.

I have mixed feelings about email chains. Too often, I think, they are used as excuses by teams to not actually speak well, signpost, or enunciate. I think the best debaters are ones who actually slow down and perform the rationale of the responses cleanly on the flow, and balance the interplay. I also won't weigh a wall of cards if all of them make essentially the same claim unless you explicitly explain why they are different or important. Quality of evidence over quantity. I would still like to be on the email chain—alanyzhu@mit.edu

Generally, tech over truth—although, of course, your evidence should have warrants. Beyond that, I have one major objection, which is debate math. In my opinion, the source should do the analysis for you if it is a relevant implication from the source, and, as a mathematics major at MIT, it is much harder for me to buy the accuracy of statistical analysis done by non-experts. I do my best to vote entirely on the flow; obviously, as a human being, I can't promise you that my understanding of the world won't seep into my decision, but I will note that the easiest way for you to deter that from happening is keeping the flow nice and clean for me to follow. The more analysis I have to do about whether not a specific argument responds correctly to another one, the more variable the process is. Take the power out of my hands.

T — I like good T debate. However, I think if a negative team is going for topicality, it should be a priori and therefore all 5 minutes of the 2NR. If you have enough doubts on the T flow that you're not comfortable spending all 5 minutes on T, then you probably shouldn't close on it. (Also, unless negative is very, very blatantly abusive, T is not RVI.)

Be nice! Debate should feel like a community. Excluding others or being exasperated with your opponents will not get you good speaks. (In that vein, don't ask me if I am going to disclose/disclose speaks. I will say what I am comfortable with and what the situation calls for.)

I tend to keep prep.

Please ask me more questions so I can add to this paradigm! Future debaters will thank you.