UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

I have been judging and coaching Lincoln-Douglas debate for 5 years. Based on what I’ve learned and my interpretation of the unique aspects of Lincoln-Douglas debate, the following describes my judging paradigm.

Lincoln-Douglas DSebate debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to a world “as it should be.” Thus, the debater that proves persuasively that their case would advance the world to a point that is closer to what it should be best will likely win the round. Here are some specific points that I believe are important to help persuade me:

1. Analysis – The debater will clearly present a logical argument and also effectively refute the opponent’s case. A better case will also leave me with fewer unanswered questions about the case and the connections between its evidence and argument. A better case will also demonstrate clearly the debater's thoughtfulness in preparing a well-rounded case capable of sustaining itself in the face of a persistent inquisition about its evidence-based arguments and its ability to persuade me to believe that their case renders the world a better place than the alternative being presented in the round.
2. Proof – There should be a sufficient quantity of high-quality evidence to support the case. More evidence is not always better. Connections between contentions and values should be explicit and clear.
3. Organization - There should be a logical and orderly presentation throughout the round.
4. Refutation/ Clash – The better debater will demonstrate the ability to critically analyze the opponent’s arguments and develop clear and logical responses with the effective use of evidence and examples.
5. Delivery – The speech must be understandable, interesting, and persuasive. An LD debater should demonstrate effective oral communication skills including effective reading; clear and understandable delivery; persuasive vocal argumentation; presence; and eye contact. “Spreading” during rounds is discouraged for this reason – instead of overwhelming your opponent with speed that renders you unintelligible, a superior ability to identify and present the best arguments concisely is a much better representation of analytical acumen and the intent of LD debate.

The above criteria apply to progressive debaters as well. For any debaters who wish to advance a progressive case: please understand that I will likely find it difficult to understand and judge your progressive case as effectively as a more experienced judge. Do not interpret my difficulty in judging a progressive case on its merits as a sign of disrespect or disinterest. Conversely, I am typically quite fascinated by such cases. However, my interest in and respect for well-developed progressive cases does not render my ability to judge them reasonably or adequately any more likely. For any progressive cases, please note, therefore, that while I will do my best to judge your case, there is likely to be much of it that I struggle to integrate into my evaluation, try as I might.

Good luck to all competitors. I look forward to observing, critiquing, and judging your rounds.

Best,

JH

I am tabula rasa; did policy debate in HS and college. Fine with speed and K.

Parent Judge.

I am a parent lay judge from unionville started judging public forum from 2019 I prefer teams to speak slowly to understand the cases clearly with evidence impacts and resolutions.

if you want me to vote correctly please speak clearly so that I will be fair in retaining information to vote for the winning team.

Good Luck and Thanks

I am a lay judge and am only familiar with traditional LD. Be a good speaker and tell me why your arguments are better than your opponents and weigh clearly. Good luck!

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Debated for La Salle for 4 years, currently at Elon University

3 years of being a 2A/1N in policy, one year of being a one off K debater in LD, also was double 2's for half the immigration topic

Put me on the email chain: ian.mattson7@gmail.com

Tl;dr - I will vote on anything, so you do whatever you do best

Good explanation is important

Fast is good when clear

Analytics are good (most of the time)

Theory is good kinda

Politics DA is meh

High theory is meh

2NR ranks are T/K/DA+CP in that order

K Affs can be good

FW is good

Education is a better impact than fairness

Debate is always educational and almost always good.

Everyone wants to say they're tab but they're not, so I'm just gonna give y'all the way I think about arguments. I don't think that necessitates a change in strategy, but more in extension of arguments. You do you.

Theory

Theory is fine as long as it's not fringe. Tell an abuse story and why that made it impossible for you to win/participate in the round. Coherent stories and examples of ground loss, etc. are good.

LD People: Disclosure is good, you should do it. But if you're reading disclosure and the violation is "I messaged them on facebook X mins before the round and they didn't respond" I will give you a 25 regardless of whether you go for it or win. This is a terrible model for debate and whoever thought it was a good idea had no sense of personal space. Email or just, maybe, show up to the rooms 30 minutes before so you can disclose in person. Wild, I know.

DA's

Mostly the usual here, good links are better, impact calc is a must, please explain the turns instead of just putting it at the top of the block overview. Case specific DA's that you clearly did good prep for sound much better than a generic topic DA with a different link.

I think the politics DA is a terrible argument, if we're being honest with each other. That being said, in (almost) every policy round my 1NR was five minutes of politics. I will understand and vote on it, albeit begrudingly. If you have 3 internal links to get to an impact I don't hesitate to vote aff with some analysis on why risk of a link doesn't trigger said impact. 1 internal link is ideal, ya know, like a normal dis-ad.

Pls attack internal links, especially if there's more than 1. I promise they're bad. Unless they aren't, but I have yet to see a politics DA that has a good one.

CP's

More of the usual, make sure you explain why the CP solves case and why it doesn't link to the NB, and why the perm can't resolve the NB. Cheating CP's (Consult/Delay) are usually bad but it's the other teams job to call you out, if they don't then I'm not doing it for them. Just explain the mechanism and how it's different from the aff.

T

T and FW are different. T when done right is my favorite (and in my opinion, the most fun and strategic) 2NR. Extend interp/violation/(whatever you want to call impacts to T) and we'll be good. T is mostly tech so please try and keep it clean.

Some other thoughts:

Explain reasonability right please.

If there's no counter-interp it's literally impossible to win.

Generic shells are fine, just don't blow through blocks that you read against every aff on the topic. Slow down a little and contextualize to the aff.

There will be no RVI's under any circumstances.

FW

Also gonna keep it fully transparent with y'all, FW is probably a true argument. That being said, I spent the entirety of my senior year not affirming the resolution and had no relation to the topic. Make of that what you will.

FW is about lbl and explaining why your model of debate is good. Relation to the topic makes it significantly easier to win as a K aff. Impact turns to either sides education arguments are good. DA's to interpretations are good. If you don't have a competing model of debate I'm incapable of voting for you, even if you win every piece of offense to their interpretation. Link turns are good when explained right, impact turns to education are great when explained right. TVA's are terminal defense to counter-interps and any solvency deficits are just what neg ground is, so please explain why it is literally impossible to bring the thesis of your aff into a topical discussion. Or have a solid relation to the topic and have a reason your method wouldn't be able to function with fiat/the USfg/etc.

K's

When I did policy, I read exclusively Cap and FW against K affs, Neolib and Security against most policy affs. When in LD I exclusively went one off queerpess, you do with that whatever you want to.

K's are good when: they have good links; an alternative with reasonable solvency; a framework that supports their thesis; impact turns to the aff; are well explained (big important). One or more of those things is always ideal.

K's are bad when: they have bad/generic links; are explained badly; have arbitrary alts that get no explanation; don't interact with the aff at all at any level(biggest important).

Please make distinctions between pre/post fiat impacts and the way I should evaluate them, otherwise I do it myself and one of y'all won't like the conclusion I come to, so make it for me please. Please contextualize to the affirmative, otherwise the link story becomes weak. Please know what you're talking about, otherwise I probably won't be voting for you. If the other team knows more than you about said criticism, there's a high chance I won't be voting for you. Just know your stuff please.

Reps K's are fine, alts that are just reject the aff ~work~ but y'all can do better.

High theory is meh, I don't think myself or any of y'all understand it but ya know, not gonna generalize. If you read Baudrillard and it's the same 3-4 cards I've seen my entire debate career I will be sad. Don't copy Mich KM. Or South Eugene. Or whomstever you're copying. Be original, it makes everything better.

PS: I've read a bunch of stuff at this point. Don't skirt explanation because I may have read your author of choice, if it isn't in the round I'm not going to evaluate it.

Aff teams: if the aff is soft left the permutation is usually a good bet, contest links because they're probably bad, have defense of the rhetoric of the aff, give me a reason to prefer being a policymaker, etc. Most K's can be dismantled pretty easily if you just use your brain a little instead of reading more cards. Call out blippy DA's to things like the perm or FW.

Critical Affs

Hey I've read one of these! For a whole year! And it had no relation to the topic!

Regardless, I am totally fine with these. You need good answers to FW, reasons why their education is bad and yours is not, reasons why the TVA literally can't exist under their interp, etc. Know your lit. Explain what the aff does and why I should sign my ballot aff. Affs that want the ballot for the reading of the 1AC aren't persuasive. Have a method I can vote for, or why the epist is good, or whatever. Give me something. Please.

Performance: I never was ~too~ involved with these so take that into account. Explain why the performance matters/what it gets you/why and how I should evaluate it. As a sage once said: "Reading an eDgY speech doc is not a performance." I wholly agree with that, garnering offense off of the reading of the 1AC/K is fine but don't say it's a performance unless it is. Embodying the method in round would be considered a performance if done right.

KvK - I did none of these until my senior year. I've grasped it but still probably don't understand a lot of the nuances that go into it, especially if I'm not familiar with the lit, so please explain why things matter. If it's a methods debate I think it's very easy to win mutual exclusitivity on the perm, but that might just be me.

Intersectionality can be a good argument if you have the warrants for it, randomly claiming it probably isn't gonna fly and is super susceptible to links.

LD Specific

I strongly dislike trick/Phil affs but have zero problems actually voting for them if explained right. One line a priori arguments are probably bad but if there aren't any theoretical objections to them/they're dropped and the 1AR picks up on that it's probably a win. However, I am sympathetic to things like "Hey Ian, these arguments are silly and unfair to the negative" because they're probably true. Reading your own framing and then a theoretical objection to multiple a prioris/independent reasons to vote aff is more than likely your best bet against tricks.

Please extend the actual text of the aff into the 2AR. Please. I get you wanna talk about framework for 3 minutes but even if you win framework if you don't have an aff I can't vote for you.

Plans are fine in LD.

Final

Why is disclosing speaks a thing? Don't ask, I'll just make them lower than I was originally going to.

Cross can be good when utilized right. Don't be an ass, you can be sarcastic or whatever I honestly don't care. Bring the concessions up in a speech or it doesn't mean anything. If you make me chuckle it's probably good.

You can use whatever pronouns you want for me. If I slip up and say "guys" it's a Philly thing that is gender neutral. Misgendering people is just like, rude? It's not that hard to just say they/y'all. If anyone has an issue with that then they can bring it up, otherwise you just seem ignorant/mean/oblivious to me, which are all bad looks.

Sorry if I missed anything, feel free to email me with questions, it's at the top

Big-Picture Stuff:

I will listen to and evaluate basically anything that's not blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, so long as it contains three things: a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If it’s missing one of these, it's not an argument, and I'm unlikely to vote for it. More than anything, I believe that the end-goal of debate as an activity is education, meaning that I will reward in-depth analysis, specific research, and clever tactics. It also means that I will react negatively to shallow warrants, generic evidence, and cheap, "gotcha" strategies. Furthermore, I will NOT tolerate rude or abusive behavior toward teammates, opponents, spectators, or myself, and will begin docking speaks the moment it happens.

Specific Arguments:

Topicality/Framework-I have a relatively high threshold for T/FW, and have tended to default to reasonability in the past. Winning T arguments need to be specific to the affirmative, reference specific ground lost, and do substantive impact work in terms of my ballot. Proving topical version of the aff is also likely to earn my ballot.

Counterplans/Disads-Under-highlighted evidence with one or two word tags (e.g. "Nuclear war" or "Extinction") will be given relatively little weight at the end of the round.

K's/K Aff's-K's were my favorite arguments as a competitor, but will likely lose my ballot if executed poorly. Depth is much more important than breadth in these debates, and even generic links should be contextualized in terms of the aff.

Theory-Most of the time it can be resolved by rejecting the argument, not the team. If you feel that it’s important enough to stake the round on, please put it on a separate flow.

Conditionality-If you do not think there's a chance you'll go for an argument in the 2NR, DO NOT READ THAT ARGUMENT. Sandbagging teams with 8+ small, underdeveloped, and/or contradictory arguments is uneducational, uninteresting, and incredibly frustrating to judge. In these instances I am highly likely to vote for 5 minutes of condo in the 2AR.

Please be respectful of your opponent and your judges at all times. I will not tolerate inappropriate behavior during speech and debate rounds.

Debate

Always be sure to ask your judge and your opponent if we are ready before you begin a speech.

Remember that presenting a clear argument takes precedence over speed.

If you are in the middle of a sentence and time is up (either during a constructive or cross-examination), I will allow you to finish your sentence.

I look for a well-developed case that includes clear identification of the value, value criterion, contentions, points of clash, and voting issues.

You may use your electronic device to time yourself, but keep in mind that your judge is the official timekeeper in the round. Please be sure that your device is in silent mode.

For virtual tournaments please mute yourself if you are not speaking. You can unmute during your speeches and cross-examination periods.

Speech

I will be happy to provide you with time signals. Please let me know before you begin the specific time signals that you would like (i.e.., 5 down, fist at 10, etc.)

Most importantly, have fun!

For virtual tournaments please keep yourself muted when you are not performing.

Please refrain from texting and playing on your phone during other students' performances.

World Schools Debate

As World Schools Debate is not the same as policy or Lincoln-Douglas Debate, please refrain from spreading during the round. Your speech should be delivered at a conversational pace. Be sure to make eye contact and deliver your speech instead of reading word for word from your paper. World Schools Debate focuses on both the quality of the arguments and the quality of speech delivery.

Please make sure that your POIs are limited to 15 seconds each. If you do not wish to entertain an opponent's POI at a given time, please do so respectfully. Use your discretion about when to address a POI, but please make sure that you are not rejecting EVERY POI attempt during your speech. There are no POIs during the first and last minute of each constructive speech. POIs are also not permitted during reply speeches.

You may use a cell phone (placed in airplane mode) to time yourselves during the round. The judge is the official timekeeper. NSDA does not allow the use of computers during the round, so please make sure that all computers are away.

General Paradigm: Do what you do best, Tech>Truth, Speed is fine.

Experience: I did policy debate and some LD at La Salle College High School from 2012-2016. Since then I've consistently judged ~20 rounds per year.

Aff: I typically went for a soft left policy aff but I enjoyed running big stick offs too. I think affirmatives without a plan are an important and educational part of the activity as well. What ever you option you choose just make sure that at the end of the round I know:

what the 1AC is supposed to do
how it is supposed to do it,
and why what it does matters.

I'm not the best person for a No-plan vs. K debate simply because I wasn't in and haven't seen as many rounds like that.

Neg:

Framework: If the affirmative doesn't defend a plan Framework is the strategy I most often used as a debater and am most familiar with. When executed poorly Framework debates are boring. I'm personally like fairness and education standards. Only go for fairness if the affirmative really does make the round unfair (which they sometimes do). I think Topical versions of the affirmative are important and can make it hard for the negative, especially if you can find an actual solvency advocate for the T version, but I appreciate quick thinking too.

Ks: I went for security and Neolib fairy often. The same rules apply to the Alt as apply to the Aff; at the end of the round I need to know what the alt is supposed to do, how it is supposed to do it, and why what it does matters. I think the link debate is very important, I think the turns case analysis is important. I can be sympathetic to aff claims that the alt is vague but that's easily mitigated by: 1 not having a vague alt, or 2 making the affirmative seem like such a bad idea that a vaguer alt is a better idea. I find that in rounds where the Affirmative doesn't defend a plan and the Neg goes for a K the role of the ballot debate gets really messy, the cleaner that is the easier my decision is. If there are role of the ballot and role of the judge arguments explain why: 1 they are the same thing and competing, or 2 they are different and how they interact. I'll be hard pressed to believe that the affirmative doesn't get to weigh the 1 AC in some capacity.

DA: The more specific the better. I think probability, time-frame, and magnitude are all important. I believe a DA can have zero risk. If the affirmative wants to go this route they're best off reading something that says "low risk = no risk." At the end of the round make sure I know why the DA matters more than the 1AC.

CP: An Advantage CP(s) with impact turns are awesome debates(but who didn't already know that). CP solvency is important. If the affirmative makes a theory argument on the CP it's a reason to reject the argument, probably not the team.

Topicality: I'll buy reasonability but it's fairly easy for the neg to beat it. If the affirmative can win reasonability they probably could have won the CI/we meet debate too, reasonability is just an easier route. T is just another argument, it needs a claim, warrant, and impact. It's easy to convince me that a term of art definition beats two words defined separately.

Debate: I am a lay judge. I will look at the entire argument and how well you approach it.

I'm a college first-year student. I did debate for four years and have judged (officially) for two years now. I'll pretty much be persuaded to vote for you if you make the best argument and tell me what to prefer/how to vote. I have not judged on the topic this year, so assume I know nothing about your arguments.

T:
I do generally weigh T at the top in terms of Case, DA, CPs. However, I will vote on other arguments if you can prove to me that T is bad/wrong/etc. Basically, just give me something to beat out T.

DA:

For DAs, I will vote on them if I think there is enough impact calculus and link work to justify the case's likelihood for harm (I generally will never give a DA 100% possibility-- even if the aff drops the argument-- but will definitely give you the argument if they work is there and/or they drop it).

CP:

On CPs, I need a clear reason why the CP is net better than the plan. *Bonus points* if you run a CP that isn't "plan +". If you run a perm argument, I need a clear vision of what the perm is and why you as aff should get the perm.

K/Theory:

I ran Ks and soft-left policy in debate, so I'm down for that too if y'all are. I ran security normally, but I have read lit for queer pess, antiblackness, and a few other major k areas.

Miscellaneous:

Please read tags, interns, etc. clearly for me to flow; it you want me to have it on my flow, and you don't see me writing it, that probably means y'all need to be clearer. I generally believe debate works as an educational activity and that it is good. That being said, I will totally vote against any framework args you have that impact debate out. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask me before round. Spreading is welcome if you want to.

Best of luck and catch y'all in round.

General Debate Thoughts (S/o Michael McCabe from LSCHS for this format):

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

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

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

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

States CP good-----------------------X--------States CP bad

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

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

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

Fairness is a thing-X-----------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact

Try or die-------------------------------X----------No risk

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

Clarity------------X--------------------------------I’ll just read the docs

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

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

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

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X I read what is read in round

Hey, my name is Justin Thomashefsky and I'm a coach at Truman High School. I competed in LD/PF from 2008 - 2010 and Policy during the 2010-2011 season. I've been judging / coaching debate since 2012 and have circuit Policy/LD experience

General debate things

I'm good with speed.

I'm good with K's (see policy for more info)

Disclosure theory is pretty meh to me. But if you make good arguments on it I guess ill vote for it.

Please analyze warrants in your evidence! This should go without saying.

Policy

I'm much more comfortable judging a policy round but I have a decent amount of experience judging critical rounds.

T - I default to reasonability but you can definetly convince me to evaluate competing interps if you win it on the flow. You need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. This goes extra for theory

K - I'm familiar and comfortable with standard K's (security, capitalism etc.) but you may lose me with high theory literature.

Please frame my ballot in your last speech. It should be clear what I'm voting for at the end of the round.

Open cross is fine but let your partner speak!

LD

For lay rounds: Debate warrants! Don't waste time on the Value/VC (Meta-ethic/standard) debate if you're both functionally the same framework. All the framework debate should come down to is what lens I should evaluate the round through

For circuit rounds: I'm not huge on the squirrel theory stuff that's been going on in circuit LD. I'll try to evaluate whatever you put in front of me but just like with T you really need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. For the rest just read policy stuff

I prefer to see lay rounds in LD. So if you're at a tournament with me that has a weird mix of lay and circuit you might want to default to lay. BUT I'll weigh whatever arguments you put in front of me in any style.

Did PF for 4 years at Unionville, overall I'm a pretty normal flow judge

- spreading/theory: no thanks

- tech: over truth but it's easier for me to buy arguments that are more grounded (the more out there your argument is there more warranting you should have)

- final focus: all offense should've been in summary

- evidence: don't lie about it

- warranting: do it

- collapsing: do it

- weighing: yes please

- be: nice

feel free to ask questions!

Bozho, Rachel ndezhnekas. Bodewadmi ndaw, Shishibeni ndbendagwes. Gkendasgemgek emikchewiyan. Hi, my name is Rachel, I am Citizen band Potawatomi and I work at the CPN department of education.

Pronouns: Ask, if you're curious. Otherwise call me judge or Rachel or Watson. Ask for others' pronouns in-round or default to they/them. I personally default to they/them until I'm told otherwise.

I've been coaching and competing in LD and policy since 2008. I started in middle school. In college, I debated at Central Oklahoma from 2015-16, and if you're thinking about that program or Wake Forest, ask me about why I left. I got my master's from Penn, and I coach at Holy Ghost Prep.

If you have an email chain add me: r.erinwatson@gmail.com  (Catholic League tournaments don't usually have chains but DON'T add me if you do. It's against the rules.) 

Email me about other stuff too, if you feel unsafe in round, if you want to know more about my paradigm, ask about arguments, get a better understanding of the RFD, etc. Also feel free to contact me at my day job if you would like to talk about going to college, debating in college, or translating your speech and debate experience into a college application essay!

Respect your partner and your opponents. Respect every judge, too, even if you've decided you don't need that ballot to win the panel.

NFCL top level edit- In LD I do absolutely love trad debate so please don't go full circuit thinking that's how you'll get my ballot. All the big picture points below still apply! 

Brief guide to getting my ballot (if you have 1 minute before round read the bolded on this list):

1. Be kind. Show empathy. Everyone in round is human, we are not debate robots, and it’s alright to bring your personality with you into the room. And this is #1 for a reason, kindness and recognizing our mutual humanity is the most important part of being a member of the debate community.

2. Read arguments and debate in a style that you enjoy. I like judging good rounds, and your round is almost always better if you like your argument and know it well. I have voted for poetry, and I have voted for politics DA.

3. Have a claim, warrant, and impact for every argument. I know 1ARs are hard, but you can be fast and efficient without being blippy. Don't be blippy!

4. Clash. Engagement with the other side's arguments and ideas is the one thing that makes this not a speech event. Not all arguments clash automatically! You must produce it in round.

5. Weigh all the impacts. Compare the impacts on the different sheets of paper and tell me why even if the other team’s argument is 100% true, I should still vote for you. Do this even if you and your opponent have completely different styles (i.e. trad v progressive LD, kritikal or policy based args, etc.). Don’t make me weigh things for you, chances are you won’t like the result. I am like most judges and I vastly prefer rounds where debaters tell me how to evaluate and how to write my RFD.

6. Focus on offense and framing (meaning how I should weigh or evaluate the round, or the debate's BIG question). In my head, there’s almost always a chance that the plan/alt/CP will solve. Terminal defense might be useful, and you probably can win that in front of me, but I’m much more comfortable voting for offense than defense or muddy techy stuff somewhere deep in the line-by-line.

All the below was written with policy in mind, but it applies to progressive LD as well.

Affs:

Run what you know and what you're prepped for. I will vote for almost anything.

Topicality and Theory:

I’m plenty happy to vote on topicality and theory arguments if debaters are willing to go all in and can defend that one model of debate or of the topic provides more education/learning opportunities. However, if the negative provides an overly exclusionary interpretation on Framework, they are going to have to work a lot harder to convince me that an exclusionary based model of debate is good.

AC UNDERVIEWS/THEORY (LD): Saying you get to have an RVI is not the same thing as having one... If you want one you have to tell me what the threshold is for making something an RVI and why that means I should vote on it, don't just say you get to have one. Sorry policy kids but you don't get an RVI, esp not on T.

Counterplans/Kritiks:

I generally prefer negative strategies that don’t contain a performative contradiction, like reading counterplans that link to a K of the aff. Other than that, please try to make it clear in round the ways in which your Kritik or counterplan function differently from the affirmative. Counterplans need competition and a net benefit, and k debaters should be prepared for impact framing arguments, especially in a round with a policy team. From the aff, be prepared to explain how a perm functions to achieve the net benefit/not link to the Kritik.

My K experience has mostly been with identity arguments; I know critical race theory- including afropess and set col best. I read and keep up with indigenous scholarship because I am Potawatomi (Citizen band). Yes, I am legally a citizen of this sovereign nation. Yes, I hate authenticity testing. This means I'm probably more willing to listen to speaking for others/commodification/etc. claims about why non-indigenous folks reading set col is bad than other judges might be. That Evans 15 card is probably also true of indigenous lit, sure, but Evans was very specifically speaking about afropessimism and white afropessimists.

Baudrillard, Foucault, Delueze, high theory abstract stuff, aren't my strong suit so develop good, clear, consistent explanations about your K/alt so my ballot can be clean.

I’m happy to answer debater's questions on specific issues/arguments prior to the round. I will also respond to emails after the fact if you have questions about my decisions. I try really hard to write long, detailed ballots, because I believe that even with a lengthy RFD after the round having a record is good for debaters and coaches! And also, no judge is perfect. But if you think I'm wrong, DON'T do the postrounding thing with me. Email me when you are back in school if you're still mad on Monday.

yes I want to be on the email chain: junewearden05@gmail.com

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '18

Pitt '22

WARNING: I have only been peripherally engaged with the immigration topic - if you're going to use acronyms / do in-depth law analysis you're going to have to slow down and explain it to me

When I debated in high school I primarily ran soft-left affs, but I don't (think) I have a strong ideological preference. I'm not going to pretend I'm tabula rasa but there are very few arguments I will a priori vote down. (For instance, I'm never going to vote for racism = good)

As long as you can provide me with a coherent explanation of your world-view and how that relates to what is being said in the round you'll be okay.

If you have questions about more specific arguments/positions feel free to ask.

Background: I’m a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Gender Studies & Communication, and I did both LD and policy (with a brief stint in PF) for Dallastown High School in Pennsylvania. I competed on both traditional and progressive circuits, so I’m pretty much cool with whatever you want to run. However, as a competitor, I mostly ran non-t affs, soft-left affs, and kritiks.

pronouns: she/her/hers

email chain: emiwhite@sas.upenn.edu

* I care a lot about respect and safety in-round. Debate has a tendency to be a really toxic/hostile environment sometimes, so please don't contribute to that. Similarly, if at any point during the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, feel free to stop the round and let me know. I will not tolerate debaters being egregiously disrespectful or inconsiderate of their opponents. This applies to actions done knowingly that make the round inaccessible (e.g. not flashing your case when spreading, not giving content warnings for sensitive topics, etc.) as well as how you speak to/about your opponent (e.g. excessively interrupting them or being overly condescending). TLDR: just be nice y'all, it's not that hard.

**If you spread, EMAIL ME AND YOUR OPPONENT YOUR CASE. Ideally this applies to prewritten analytics as well (or really anything that is typed out and sendable). I cannot stress this enough! If you don’t, I’ll probably dock speaks and be a much less happy judge. I like to think I’m pretty good at flowing at high speeds, but there’s always the chance that I miss something if I don’t have a copy of it, especially since audio can cut out on virtual platforms.

Kritiks: I love them! This was about 80% of what I did in debate, so I love seeing a good K round. However, a bad K debate is probably my least favorite thing to watch, so don’t think that I’ll vote for any kritik no matter what - you need to explain your position clearly, especially your alt.

Non-T affs: I read these for most of my junior and senior year, so I’m very comfortable rejecting/reinterpreting the topic as long as you tell me why I should and what your aff does instead. As far as T vs. a non-t aff — It’s not my favorite thing to see (I personally think reading a K or counter-method is more interesting and creative), but if it’s what you’re good at, go for it. aff still has to explain where they get offense and why topicality is bad, neg has to justify why the aff’s non-topical position is uniquely harmful/abusive, not just why defending the topic is good generally.

Phil/framework: I’m familiar with the basics (deont, virtue ethics, and consequentialism) more so than any other FW authors (especially really obscure ones). I’ll gladly judge other phil - I just may not have any experience with them, so you’ll have to explain it clearly and weigh well. If you could give a quick overview of the theory in non-jargony language during your 1ar/2nr that would also be super helpful. Know your position well and clarify exactly what offense does and doesn’t count under your framework, and you should be fine.

Theory: I generally find it to be unnecessary and used to make the round inaccessible. If there is legitimately no other way for you to respond to your opponent and/or they've done something really really abusive, then read theory. Otherwise, be creative and use logic to tell me why their argument doesn’t make sense - don’t rely on tricky wordings or surprise interps to get my ballot. Also slow down a bit and explain - I will miss something if you rattle off 3 standards in 5 seconds with minimal warranting.

Tricks: I'm ok with one or two spikes in an aff, but as far as a completely tricks case - please just don’t. I will not be amused, I will dock speaks, and you probably won’t get my ballot.

email: tyler.wood973@gmail.com

prefs:

I feel comfortable judging: Policy, Trad, T, neolib/cap, MM, Sec, set col, theory

I feel not comfortable judging: PoMo, pess, phil, most non-t affs, 

I hate judging: trix, friv theory

also, I am no longer involved in argument formation or prepping debaters, I have very little background info on the current topic

you must send: interps / plan texts / standards (in a theory shell) / alt text / etc...

it would be nice for everyone if you sent: prewritten analytics / summary of standards (or the whole text) / overviews

I think it's also worth mentioning that I do not like disclosure arguments. I do not think the judge should have jurisdiction to vote on things that happen outside the round, as this is an infinite burden. Of course I can be persuaded otherwise

Bronx: I've started to realize that despite me indicating I'm not involved in prep, debaters continue to read 1ac arguments that require extensive background knowledge and research on contemporary global events, without explanation in the 1ac. I will no longer go on a wikipedia binge to attempt to understand the arguments you are making, I'll simply not evaluate them if the 1ac evidence is insufficient to explain the concept.

If you only have 30 seconds

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

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

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

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

States CP good---------------------------X-------States CP bad

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

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

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

Fairness is a thing-X------------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact

Try or die---------------X--------------------------No risk

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------I’ll just read the docs

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

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

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

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

Judge kick good-------X----------------Judge kick bad

3 minutes of theory preempts-----------------------X-a short U/V seems fine

Quick thoughts

Hi, I'm Tyler, I debated for La Salle College in PA for 3 years and am a second year out. When I debated I was mostly a disclosure/T/Plan debater. I ran some Kritiks, like cap, neolib, and a brief stint in MM and security, but not much else. My favorite 1a was 1-2 advantages, plan, framing, short UV. My favorite 1n was t/theory, 2 da, 1-2 cp, case. 

For online tournaments:

please don't go top speed. I haven't judged circuit tournaments recently, and I have a really difficult time understanding things over zoom. It's much easier if you start slower and work up to 200-250 (please nothing over that). I'll say clear 2-3 times but after that I'll flow what I can hear and won't look at the doc.

Debated 4 years in high school, graduated 2016. Experience at several NCFL national tournaments. Been consistently judging every year since graduating, including national tournaments.

Experience in CX, LD, PFD, Parli, some speech events

Flow judge, love to see clash, framework debate, and legitimate voters in final speeches. Debaters should do warrant analysis and weighing.

I see speech and debate as a scholarship event. I will take evidence quality into account. Research papers are more credible than politicians or news sources that are notoriously biased.

Will listen to any argument. Competitors must validly prove abuse if present. Don't wait until the 2AR to make a spreading unfair argument. If you think you’re winning on T, feel free to go for T

Extensions should be carried through the round. Extensions do not mean new carded evidence.

Email: czurmuhl@gmail.com

Feel free to email me about questions regarding the RFD or for general advice