NFA 2024 UPDATE:These are the FIRST debate rounds I have judged on this topic and since last NFA. PLEASE SLOW DOWN. Argument or strategy complexity isn't a problem, but spreading will be. My resolve to keep NFA-LD debate accessible has only strengthened. I will give verbal warnings and your ability to heed these warnings will factor into my decision and speaker point allocation. As has been true in the past, I will find it very difficult to vote for "bad" arguments, even if they are substantially under-covered or in some cases even conceded.

Past Affiliation:Lafayette College
Years in Policy Debate: 3 years HS Policy, 4 years NFA-LD, 1 year coaching CEDA/NDT, 20 years coaching NFA-LD

Props:

-The NFA-LD rules
-Using standards to actively demonstrate why I should prefer your interpretation
-Reading a plan text and defending its implementation as a policy in good faith
-Even/if statements in rebuttals
-Moderating your speed
-Slowing down during analytics so I can actually flow your warrants
-Weighing and comparing impacts
-Comparing warrants in cards
-Internal Link arguments
-Unique impacts
-Doing the work to actually apply the framework to the impact discussion
-Slower rebuttals because you collapsed
-Case specific CPs and DAs
-Explaining and annotating where the Kritik links are on the aff flow

Slops:

-Excessive speed
-Card dumps with no contextualization
-Being rude and overly aggressive
-Using language and/or tactics intent on excluding your opponent
-Factually incorrect arguments about the topic
-Completely ignoring inherency
-BS theory arguments, like "perms are wrong"
-Conditional CPs/ALTs

Other things:

-I won't vote for an argument just because it is conceded, you have to justify WHY that argument is relevant to my ballot and decision. Arguments that are 'bad' don't get any better because they are conceded.
-I prefer rounds that are quick and smart to rounds that are fast and dumb
-I think the 1NR should collapse a lot - you should have time to say why you win the argument, why the argument is relevant to the round, and why it deserves consideration for the ballot.
-If you go for everything in the 1NR, I will NOT do extra work for you to answer the questions above. I will also be more likely TO do work for the 2AR as they struggle to keep up and cover everything.
-I believe that in NFA-LD, Topicality is primarily jurisdictional and prefer competing interpretations. Using standards to adjudicate which interp to apply is more important to me than proven abuse. If you win that your interp should be preferred AND that they violate it, I will vote on T without abuse.

I believe it is best to disclose the bad news first. I work for a government agency. As such, I cannot engage in behaviors that could call into question my non-partisan affiliation. What this means for debate is that if your argument would likely ruffle the feathers of a politician who has no understanding of thought experiments, then I cannot endorse it. Specifically, proposals that reject the state, reject capitalism, etc. There is no specific topic area this excludes, rather it excludes some arguments used to justify topical cases. Use your judgment, and if you have to think more than five seconds about it, either go with a different argument or strike me.

If you've made it this far, I have good news: you get to argue in front of a real-life government official who knows how things work in the real world and would be on the frontline(s) of your case impacts Congratulations?

In terms of specific debate mechanics, I have certain preferences. Conditionality itself doesn't bother me. Performative contradictions do. There is no reason one cannot assemble arguments that do not contradict across multiple worlds on a topic with this much literature. Also, if the affirmative makes a ‘conditionality bad’ argument, I interpret each conditional argument as a violation until I’m told to think otherwise. Another thing that rustles my jimmies is when people read into their laptop rather than into the room. I will say clear once, then the second time I will lay down my pen until you start making sense. This does mean I flow on paper, so rest assured that I am listening to your argument and not goofing around on my laptop.

Lastly, I'm not well-versed in much of the critical literature, so if you are going to run a philosophically-oriented argument above a 7th grade reading level it would be best to assume I have no idea what you are talking about because I probably don't. I'm not going to pretend I understand your argument for the sake of making myself look smart. If you need further clarification, feel free to ask before the round.

CatNats Update: Forgot to update this - oh well. The ensuing philosophy is dated. The bottom line is, "I have experience. It's your activity. Make good arguments."

Experience: 4 years debating at Marist, 2 years coaching at Pepperdine, intermittent coaching at UWashington and Seattle high schools. Currently at Dutchess Community College coaching full-service.

After a brief hiatus and exodus from the Northeast, I'm back! I think judging philosophies are a good thing, but I've been out for so long that it's difficult for me to put into words what I'm "looking for." Moreover, I don't think that debate is about what I'm "looking for" (debaters don't debate for my edification), but it's about what students want to get out of it.

So, here's the old 2011-2012 version with changes applied as needed:

"Despite my sincerest efforts, I am still not the fastest of flows. As a result, I tend to look at rounds/speeches in a more holistic fashion and am not super-persuaded by arguments about line-by-line drops as concessions. Conceptual drops, however, still apply. Keep it clear and this shouldn't really be a problem.

Also, a few thoughts on niceness... I might be one to say that a little bit of antagonism is good in debate but I place the emphasis on the "little" as opposed to "antagonism." Let's face it - you're competing and you don't have to be all buddy-buddy with the opposite team (if you want to be, awesome!). It's cool to show that you know what you're talking about in CX but it's an entirely different thing to be an outright jerk. The whole "eye rolling/raising the voice/acting generally disgusted by the other team" thing just doesn't fly with me. Your speaks will probably reflect this if it gets to be too much. Snarky comments during the RFD also don't fly (and it perceptually discredits your skills as a debater...).

I debated for Marist and we were kind of non-traditional in our lines of argumentation. But, this doesn’t mean that I’m all about the K or non-traditional debate. Make sense? I hope so.

Anyway, I’m a sucker for a good, well-warranted debate. You have two hours to make me vote for you – and I’m not going to do the work for you. This probably means that you shouldn’t run your blippy DAs, framework, or shallowly articulated Ks in front of me. This also means that you shouldn’t run a K and assume I understand what your author’s talking about or run a DA and assume I keep up with every current event imaginable. Debate is about understanding the “why”s of a situation – not about spitting out as many cards as possible.

If you’re running T or framework, give me tangible reasons why I should vote for you – none of this “potential abuse” nonsense. I typically don’t buy “fairness” as a valid argument. If you’re on the flip-side of the T/framework debate, impact turns are a good route to go. Tons of arguments about how the other team is “excluding” you? Not so much.

As for those of you wondering if you should run a K or a DA/CP… either one is fine. Just explain it well. See my call above for warrants. I'm relatively well-versed in critical literature (lots of crit. ped. and cultural theory...) and am usually up-to-date, current events-wise.

And, if you’re wondering if your performance/non-traditional arguments are “safe” in front of me – yeah, they are. But, just because you sing/dance/read a poem/talk about identity, it doesn’t mean I have to vote for you. Give me the reasons why this is important, just like you would for a straight-up position. To me, performance/non-trad needs “solvency”, like any other argument. An example? It’s fine to talk about why the topic is bad – now what are you going to do about it…?

I'm fairly expressive non-verbally as a critic. If I look absolutely perplexed or stop flowing, there's definitely a reason why. Take that in-round feedback and tailor your arguments accordingly. It might mean that you have to take a step back and explain your argument with a little bit more depth but it'll be worth it. I promise."

michels.browne@gmail.com

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

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

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

Be smart, be civil, have fun.

I competed in NPDA/NPTE for three years in college, in addition to high school IEs and Congress. I don't mind conversational or technical debate; both have benefits and limitations.

If I am judging you in IPDA: you should be reasonably topical; negatives have the right to redefine if you don't meet that threshold. Disclosure is fine, but it's not required- it's generally not a voting issue for me. Impacts and framing matter. If it's a policy resolution, I grant the aff fiat.

If I am judging you in LD: Speed is fine. I'll let you know if you need to slow down, so you don't need to try to guess. I'm fine with kritiks, theory, non-topical affs, etc. Just make sure you're winning the flow and framing the round effectively.

Overall: Be kind, try new things, learn from each round. Debate is about education.

Experience

Current Director for DFW S&D. I did LD/Policy/PF for HS (primarily Policy and LD) and so have experience with either format. I also competed for 4 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit with some policy here and there as well in college. Short of it is that I have experience with most argument styles and formats so you should be fine with whatever you want to run. I generally judge LD if I judge at all, so I've written this paradigm for that format. If there are any questions due to me not judging you in LD, feel free to email/ask about those prior to the round.

In addition, prior to anything about debate argument preferences, if at any time a competitor feels uncomfortable/unsafe, you are free to contact me via email or other means if you would prefer it to not be voiced in round.

My email for chains is ianmmikkelsen@gmail.com , please include me.

Important Notes

I'm using this section to note a few things that are probably important in terms of general style, more than specifics of arguments.

Speed - I'm generally fine with speed so long as it works for everyone in the round. I should note that between debate for however long and my time in various graduate programs, I now suffer from fairly consistent hand and wrist pain that sometimes flares up to the point that I can't type all of the arguments given at a top speed. To accommodate this, I will generally listen along while reading the speech document, and copy it over to my flow as it happens. If you are adding analysis or giving the rebuttal, I would recommend slowing down to a quick, but not spread, speed if you would like me to make sure to get all of the analysis you give. I have yet to be in a round where analytics are both understandable and not capable of being typed, but if for some reason that occurs, I will say clear/slow.

This all being said, as a personal preference, I do enjoy a single comprehensive strategy that is carried throughout the round more than a spread of options that then get whittled down through conditionality/kicking theory. Not to say that I'll be knocking speaks or actually upset/annoyed by the latter, just a personal preference.

Speech documents - Related to speed, but somewhat different, I have noticed that there are times where individuals will send a speech document that contains most of their analytics, but fails to include a few independent voters. If you maintain a top spreading pace, and simply blaze through a sudden independent voter analytic that was not included in record time, I'm unlikely to grant it to you. If you slow down for its delivery and note that it is not in the document, I will flow it and include it at that time. I generally dislike being forced into these types of judgement calls, but the convergence of tech issues, difficult in having consistent audio quality, as well as just accessibility concerns, means I'm not sure how to adjudicate a round where by the time a concession of these arguments happens it's too late to identify whether it was just missed or something else impacting the round.

Theory/T

I'm generally fine with whatever theory position so long as it is relatively well developed. I generally view it as whether it is a theoretically good as a precedent and not as an instance of this specific round (i.e., you can win potential abuse arguments), but only if the argument is developed to claim that there is a fundamental shift in strategy due to just the presence of arguments (didn't run x really good argument because y theoretically objectionable choice removes it as a viable option). That being said, that is typically only on more stock theory. The more specific the theory is to a condition that only happens under either the specific resolution or within a specific round the more I need the theory to focus on in-round issues.

Kritiks

I'm good with most critical arguments and theorists. I ran too much of Agamben, Cap, Lacan, and other language k's. Identity based frameworks are more what I've gotten into with my actual studies and research post-undergraduate, so I'm familiar with the authors (as well as having had researched them for debate), but generally only ran that literature when the topic for the round made it more related to the political as opposed to the ontological claims of the literature. I will listen to the ontological criticisms that come from it, but generally found that my attempts to contribute to that aspect was less helpful than preferred due to a lack of experience and understanding personally.

Tricks

I'll be honest, I'm not exactly sure what a "trick" is in debate. From what I can tell, it is either a fairly specific and complex bit of theory/logic that is predicated entirely in the game of debate (willing to listen to that) or the term that individuals use for one liners that come without the explanation of what precisely they mean or how to evaluate it. Due to the time differentials of speeches, spikes in the AC which are meant for expansion in the 1AR make sense to me, but if the argument is underdeveloped upfront my general reaction is to either 1) disregard expansion if it isn't explained until the final speeches and doesn't seem immediately obvious from what was said or 2) to give the expansion but also allow an expansion of arguments against it. I've voted based on not understanding or following arguments before and am generally willing to do so, but would vastly prefer being able to have the full argument as that generally makes everyone happier.

Philosophy

I've read most of the "stock" philosophers from traditional LD, gotten deep into Foucault, Hegel, Marx, and other European authors, and have used my time after debate to get into identity frameworks that I didn't focus on as much as I should've. I've noticed that some philosophy aff/neg will sometimes run entire cases that take works from well before the concepts of the resolution were even discussed and attempt to apply them to the recent developments. My general sentiment on this is that it can be done, but that it is probably preferable to spend the time of research on finding what philosophical arguments are based in the literature, and then find the foundational texts afterwards. It is difficult for me to accept an application of books written in the early 20th century (and sometimes prior) to the development of recent technologies, especially when the literature applying those theories to these developments is generally fairly rich itself, over someone who has more topic specific discussions of the literature. But, I can be persuaded otherwise on this.

IPDA DEBATE

This is my judging philosophy shown in my Tabroom judging paradigm.

ABOUT ME: I have been judging the IPDA debate for over four years now. This is my favorite and preferred type of debate to judge.

MY JUDGING PARADIGM AT A GLANCE: IPDA Debate is an audience-friendly style of intercollegiate debate. In stark contrast to NFA-LD, CEDA CX, NDT, or NPDA, I will not tolerate any heckling or spreading. I ascribe to the principles of IPDA as mentioned within the IPDA Constitution and its By-Laws. Hence, I expect a highly rhetorical and oratorical-based style/approach from both debaters. This means you lose my ballot if you insist on excessive speed, "spreading" or stacking too many contentions, not being cordial, or using unnecessary meta-debate jargon and techniques.

PREP TIME: Preparation time occurs before the actual debate round. The 30-minute prep-time period shall commence upon the first negative strike. That means you’ll need to choose your topics wisely but promptly. I also advise debaters to prep ALONE without the presence of other fellow teammates or coaches to limit distractions. Plus, I believe that students should be crafting their arguments and evidence without assistance.

DISCLOSURE: Normally, I don’t coach debaters to disclose their weighing mechanism or argumentation framework to their opponents before the round since it could give the other side an unfair advantage. Nevertheless, I recognize that debaters from different regions may exercise their ability to disclose their side to their opponent as a courtesy gesture. Therefore, if you want to announce your argumentation framework and weighing mechanism to your opponent, you are more than welcome to do so.

DEFINITIONS: AFFIRMATIVE has FIAT POWER and has the right to define the resolution and to provide a useful framework that will guide the entire debate round. The AFF has the right to limit the parameters of the resolution but must do so reasonably. Suppose the AFF provides resolutions that are extratropical (definitions that go beyond the scope of the resolution) “non-topical” (definitions that bear no relevance to the resolution at hand), or abusive or difficult to comprehend. In that case, the NEG has the right to provide alternative definitions that fit the resolution better.

CRITERIA/WEIGHING MECHANISM: Once again, the AFF has FIAT POWER. That means the AFF has the right to set the parameters of the debate that they think is best. However, the AFF must do so reasonably. The AFF must also take time to explain to me why they chose that weighing mechanism. I’ve witnessed many rounds where the AFF provided a weighing mechanism that didn’t fit the resolution or failed to explain their criteria choice adequately. This act resulted in a loss for the AFF for that round. The NEG is more than welcome to provide an alternative criterion if they disagree with the AFF’s weighing mechanism.

ROADMAPPING & SIGNPOSTING: I highly encourage debaters to roadmap all their arguments before the debate round and signpost between main ideas and their subpoints. I expect debaters to keep their argumentation “taglines” concise and intuitive. Moreover, I want to hear organized and detailed debaters and respect their own time limits.

ARGUMENTATION & REFUTATION: For AFF debaters, I expect well-developed definitions, criteria, and arguments with well-reasoned evidence. Since AFF has fiat power and has the “burden of proof,” I expect a thorough explanation of arguments (your claim), evidence (your warrants), and any logical connections to the resolution at hand (your impacts). To the NEG, I expect a direct “clash” of the AFF’s claims and warrants in your constructive case. Since the NEG has a “burden of clash,” you are free to provide disadvantages (DA) or counter plans (CP) to the AFF’s contentions. The NEG should link any off-case positions to whichever NEG philosophy they espouse. To both AFF and NEG debaters, your evidence must have the 5 “R’s”: RECENT, RELIABLE, REPUTABLE, RELEVANT, and REPRESENTATIVE. Your proof must be well-sourced and referenced throughout the speech

ETHICS: I expect both debaters to be courteous and to refrain from heckling or interrupting each other. I expect debaters to refer to each other as “my opponent” and call their names directly. I also expect both debaters to follow the rules of IPDA debate, refrain from looking at other web pages, and have their phones on “airplane mode” during the debate round.

TOPICALITY & META-DEBATE: At times, I understand that their side must present topical arguments addressing their opponent’s deviation from the debate topic at hand. However, I don’t want debaters to spend most of their speaking time issuing topicality arguments or mentioning topicality violations. I also don’t want debaters to regurgitate complex debate terms and jargon that a lay judge cannot easily comprehend.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS SPEECHES

ORAL INTERPRETATION

I have coached many oral interpretation rounds and developed specific tastes for observing and watching these rounds. I highly value oral interpretation performers that make their performances their own! As a seasoned forensicator, I can quickly tell someone is immersed in their performance piece instead of wholly detached from it.

Don’t just perform for the sake of performing. I want to hear WHY your piece matters. As of late, I feel that oral interpretation has become a lot more persuasive, where performers have added a great deal of advocacy and activism within their performances. Your blocking, facial expressions, posturing, volume, accent, voice, eye contact, and cadence must all be highly expressive and illustrative of your chosen theme, storyline/characters. I will also judge how well your initial teaser, explanation, tension, buildup, climax, and conclusions flow within your piece. I also expect a clean binder technique. I have deducted many speaker points from oral interpretation performers who exhibited sloppy binder techniques and page turns. Lastly, I expect page-turn transitions between scenes and characters to be smooth, not choppy or disjointed.

PROSE: I expect Prose performers to have an illustrious array of Prose literature cut from various texts. I also expect Prose pieces to be centered on storytelling based on a first-person narrative. I will judge what theme(s) your piece is about and how well you chose to interpret your story. I enjoy well-developed Prose performances with an interesting teaser, explanation, tension, build, climax, and conclusion with seamless transitions and highly expressive blocking. I have judged and witnessed many Prose performances resemble DI pieces and vice-versa. This should not be so. As a follower of the AFA-NIET rules and guidelines, Prose and DI categories should be kept separate! I will rank down any Prose performance that resembles a DI piece. Your Prose should focus on storytelling and illustrate how that story develops from a first-person narrative.

POETRY: I love judging this speech event because I witness creative performances. I will judge Poetry rounds based on poetic literature cut from various sources. You are welcome to present a poetry performance either through a first-person or third-person narrative. I will judge what theme(s) your piece is about and how well you chose to interpret your story. I enjoy Poetry performances that are well-developed with an interesting teaser, explanation, tension, build, climax, and conclusion with seamless transitions and highly expressive blocking

DRAMATIC INTERPRETATION: As per the AFA-NIET rules, I will judge DI performances based on the character-driven themes you’ve chosen to perform during the round. I expect DI performances to be derived from a play script cutting that features different characters that evolve within the piece. I will judge what theme(s) your piece is about and how well you chose to interpret your story. I enjoy well-developed DI performances with an interesting teaser, explanation, tension, build, climax, and conclusion, seamless transitions, and highly expressive blocking. I have judged and witnessed many DI performances resemble Prose pieces and vice-versa. This should not be so. As a follower of the AFA-NIET rules and guidelines, I believe that DI and Prose categories should be kept separate! I will rank down any DI performance that in any way resembles a Prose piece.

PROGRAM ORAL INTERPRETATION: This is my favorite oral interpretation speech to judge. Here, your piece can be centered on literally anything! Therefore, I expect a vast and diverse array of cuttings from many literature sources. Newspaper articles, Tiktok videos, song lyrics, poems, free verse, slam poetry, current events, novels, biographies, and more. This is your opportunity to get very creative about how you construct and interpret your piece. Just as long as it’s organized, free-flowing, and within the 8-to-10-minute limit format. I have witnessed many solid POI pieces get ranked down because the performer either went overtime, under time or wasn’t expressive enough. I will judge what theme(s) your piece is about and how well you chose to interpret your story. As with the other oral interpretation speeches, I enjoy well-developed POI performances with an interesting teaser, explanation, tension, build, climax, and conclusion with seamless transitions and highly expressive blocking.

DUO: As one performer once said, “DUO is like DI, but with friends!” A true and funny statement. Please refer back to my comments on DI performances. I will also judge how well the partners’ roles enhanced the performance and the synchronization of the two performers. Duo partners should look directly at each other but must always maintain eye contact with the audience and the space around them.

LIMITED PREPARATION

IMPROMPTU: I expect Impromptu speakers to ask me their time hand signals before the round. I also don’t allow extra time for speakers to read the quotation after flipping the prompt on the desk. Speakers generally use up about 2 minutes to prepare their 5-minute speech. I will rank down speakers who go vastly under time or overtime. I will also rank down speakers who take excessive preparation time and rely on their notecards too much during the round. “Canned” attention getters (AGD) and examples will also be ranked down. I will judge speakers based on the merits of their interpretation of the quotation, their taglines, arguments, relevant supporting examples, and summarization at the very end. Speakers should keep their arguments and supporting examples succinct because this is a limited preparation event.

EXTEMPOREANEOUS: I expect Extemp speakers to report to their designated extemp draw location on time. I also expect extemp speakers to have a cursory knowledge about the question they’ve selected. I appreciate extempers who tell me what their question is before they begin speaking. Extemporaneous speakers should always ask me what their time hand signals are before they commence their speech. I will rank down speakers who do not adhere to the 7-minute speaking time limit and who don’t adequately explain their arguments and examples. I will also rank down speakers whose arguments are poorly developed or deviate from their chosen question. “Canned” attention getters (AGD) and examples will also be ranked down. Like IPDA debate, I value speakers who explain their arguments and examples in an audience-friendly format with no spreading or speed talking.

PUBLIC ADDRESS SPEECH

Public Address (PA) speeches have always been fascinating to me. During my competition days, I used to compete in only PA’s! I expect PA speakers to have their speeches completely memorized and rehearsed before the round. I will rank down any PA speaker who is not fully memorized or relies on notecards during their speech. I expect PA speeches to be thoroughly referenced with at least 8 – 10 recent sources from within the past calendar year. Speeches should be centered on topics that pertain to each speech category ascribed by the AFA-NIET rules and by-laws. PA speeches must be at least 8 minutes long and should go over the 10-minute limit.

INFORMATIVE: Informative speeches are designed to inform the audience about a new scientific innovation or discovery, historical events or individuals, or informative speeches about social causes or issues currently happening within our society. Therefore, I expect informative speeches to be topical, timely, and intriguing. I will rank down informative speeches with old and recycled topics or poorly conceived themes. Generally, I expect info speeches to 8 – 10 minutes long with well-constructed implications.

PERSUASIVE: Persuasive speeches are designed to change and alter the audience's beliefs, attitudes, and opinions about an important subject. These speeches are a form of advocacy. Therefore, I expect your Persuasive to highlight the depth/extent of the problem(s) and explain how that problem came to be before finally explaining solutions. I expect your solutions to be practical, plausible, and plausible. These speeches must also be 8 – 10 minutes long.

AFTER-DINNER SPEAKING: After-Dinner speaking speeches (ADS) are often modeled in a persuasive speaking format. Like my comments for Persuasive, I expect ADS speeches to change and alter the audience's beliefs, attitudes, and opinions about an important subject. These speeches are a form of advocacy. Jokes should be unique and must be done in good taste. I will rank down speeches with excessive swearing, references to sexual objects or genitalia, or jokes that are racist or offensive. I will also rank down ADS speeches with too many self-deprecating jokes. I expect your ADS solutions to be practical, plausible, and imaginative. These speeches must also be 8 – 10 minutes long.

COMMUNICATION ANALYSIS: Communication Analysis (or Rhetorical Criticism) is a factual speech about an artifact explained through a theoretical framework centered upon a research question. Therefore, I will judge your CA based on the merits of your artifact, your explanation of the theoretical model, the application and implication of the model, and your research question. I will also critique how well you explained the significance of your artifact to me. I will rank down any CA that doesn’t adequately describe what their artifact is and why it matters. CA speeches should be topical and informative about artifacts worthy of analysis.

General Information

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Inquiries

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

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

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

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

3. Final Thoughts?

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

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

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

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

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

Years involved in collegiate debate: 35

Debated: NDT policy debate

Coached: NDT, NFA LD, Worlds style BP

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

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

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

1. General Information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. LD Rules.

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

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

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

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

3. Critiques.

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

(a) be unique,

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

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

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

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

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

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