I do not time speeches, always time yourself because it's better to have it in front of you, rather than stopping in the middle of your speech to ask how much time you left.

I want to be able to understand and flow your arguments; speed reading is fine as long as you can articulate your arguments clearly. If I cannot understand you, I'm not flowing.

Otherwise, just don't curse in speeches or cross ex, and be polite. Debate is more fun when everyone is polite. Don't expect high speaker points if you do either.

jorman.antigua@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

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

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

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

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

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

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

theory: sure

short & sweet

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

Updated 3-7-24

Congrats on attending Nationals. Being at a university with the resources to send you cross-country to represent them is an immense privilege Thank those responsble including partners, teammates, coaches, parents & especially your opponents. People matter. Celebrate, respect and appreciate them while you can.

(NEW) TLDR: K Affs, FW, DA/CP strats, K strats, Procedurals - Fine. You do you. Condo- Ok w Limits (read CP stuff below) Base points - 28.7 If you care about pts a) look at who got 29.4+ from me to see what I like. b) 2NRs that don't spend time on case do so at their own risk. When I'm online, a) get verbal/visual confirmation before you speak b) slow down 10%. Won't litigate past debates, social media beefs etc on my ballot. PRE-EMPT- Read no further at your own risk.

General Approach: Add me to the chain if you have my email already. Start the rd when your opponent has the doc up once you confirm all parties are ready. I don't follow along with your speech docs. Flowing on paper. Pen time good. Be organized, Be considerate. Be ready. Recuts of opponents' ev need to be read in round not just inserted into the doc to be assessed on my flow. Good debaters work extremely hard so I will make every effort to be very thoughtful and conscientious as your judge. Whatever decision allows me to inject myself the least into the interpretations of issues in the round is the one I will attempt to make. Compare positions, ev and tell a story in your last rebuttal that frames the round the way you wish me to decide it. I’ll vote where you tell me if it's coherent. If you have multiple stories, prioritize them. Don't rely on my post-round reconstruction. If you only spend 10 seconds on a key point in your last rebuttal, don't expect me to spend much more than that evaluating it. Most rounds come down to impact assessment and warrant comparisons. An author’s name is not an argument. Provide warrants for why your ev is better than theirs.

Tech vs. TruthTech over truth is an inflection point not a value system. My voting record reflects a tech leaning apparently but that's more reflective of how truth is framed in the 2AR vs. my role to protect the neg. My ballot really comes down to the skills and execution of the particular debaters.

The Aff: Do what you want in terms of policy, K or performance. Explain advantages to your model over theirs. Tell me how to evaluate your affirmation prior to the 2AR if you are performing. Make sure that the role of the ballot is articulated and extended and not a 2AR surprise. My evaluation will come down to offense on the FWK flow based on impacts identified by the debaters unless it's one of those rare rounds where the neg has a viable, specific strat.

The Neg: Well-developed, evidence-based strategies are awesome and will be rewarded. 90% of affs, both kritikal and policy have lit that goes the other way. Cut cards and forward options along with T/FW. If you want to defend your right to a Deterrence DA link or a certain interp, go for it. Presumption matters and is underutilized.

TOPICALITY/FWK: I’ll vote either way on T/FW if you win the relevant impacts to your model of debate e.g. EXTERNAL (why is it or is it not productive?) or INTERNAL (what does it communicate or provide you with in the debate space of importance?). You're more likely to have faith in the credibility of your definition and implicit approaches to the topic than I am so be prepared to defend them. Not a fan of: violations that morph in the block unprovoked, crummy counter-interps or generic TVAs that disregard this 1AC. T against policy affs is underutilized. Elevate your answers from the crap you read in HS. It's disingenuous for experienced debaters to say K-affs about AB, Set Col. or Trans Life were unpredictable or that FW is the ultimate form of violence in the world.

DISADS Fine obviously. Providing reasons why the DA turns case is always a good idea. CAVEAT - Including this since it's come up 2x this year. If there is an Existence question relating your DA or aff story (e.g. a rumored "secret" weapon system, Aliens are coming, etc), try or die only kicks in if you win the Existence question as a precursor.

CPs Smart CPs with solvency advocates improve your strat. If you regularly read CPs with conditional planks leading to 10 different versions or more than 3 conditional advocacies in a rd, I'm not the right judge for you. New or undisclosed 1ACs lend credence to more condo options. Feel free to take advantage of teams that read & react without studying your CP text carefully. Sympathetic to "1AR gets new answers" vs CPs with no 1NC solvency ev. or process CPs with no relqtion to how the US government works. I welcome solvency deficits if the AFF is correct on function indicts. I don't judge kick without specific instruction.

K: For teams that generate links from messed-up, in-round behaviors or focus on the debate space-all good. If teams defend external claims and impacts, winning anti-blackness is a superstructure or capitalist gov't solutions have failed on-balance is necessary but not sufficient. Quality examples are essential and readily available whether you're discussing micro-political movements, capitalism, racial injustice, colonialism, sabotage, disability and/or militarism. Your arsenal needs solid answers to scalability, empirical solvency, and why gov't action will not inevitably be needed. Include good reasons why the K turns case. 3 page long cards don't equal explanations.

Topic Specifics Spent 4 years working with Rev Vernon Nichols at the UU-UNO when he chaired the NGO Committee on Disarmament learning about prolif, movements and miscalc. As far as the 2023-24 topic, I read lots of topic lit from both traditional and nontraditional sources and have judged too much.

Pet Peeves that lower points: 1-STEALING PREP TIME -It's a nasty habit. You are taking time from my life that I will never get back. 2-POOR TECH PREP- I have sympathy for unexpected tech issues not poor preparation that delays the tournament. If you're debating online: a) Check your tech between rds for charge etc. b) Have a back-up (phone, tablet, etc.) in case of lmid-speech malfunctions c) Get verbal/visual confirmation everyone is back before starting speeches d) don't record people without permission e) slow down 10-20% because it's hard to hear/decipher stuff online 3--OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE in your speeches. Don't have a bright line but if you need to ask, you're probably excessive. 4--SLOPPY SOURCING. You say “Read the Jones 10 ev after the rd!” I read it and it sucks. In the post-round, it becomes “I meant to say Roberts, not Jones,” or “There were 3 pieces of Jones ev I meant the 1AR card.” That's a "you" problem. Effective communication good.

What you should know about me and how I judge.

If you want me to vote for a particular argument, please give me an identifiable reason to do so. I don't care if it is a policy argument or critique or performance, I need a reason to vote the way you want me to. Whether it is the utilitarian value of a disad versus the case advantage to why a particular k is a sufficient reason to win my ballot, I value and reward clear argumentation on important issues.

My flowing skills are adequate. I will strive to write down as much as I can but understand that my skills have eroded over the years. I may verbally tell you to slow down. If you are incomprehensible to me, I will say "Be clearer". Clear signposting is extremely important to me. Provide more than a 3 word claim. Arguments that have full claims and warrants and when necessary evidence are much more persuasive.

Evidence is very important. Each piece of evidence should have a claim, warrant and backing to it. Please do not clip evidence. If I detect it, it will result in a significant reduction of speaker points and potentially a loss. Over the years, I have become more convinced that information literacy is critical. Having sources that are credible with source qualifications is also a good way of winning arguments and increasing your speaker points.

Judging ideas

In a perfect world, I would hear a good case debate with good disads. I am a pragmatist in real life. I evaluate whether doing something would be an improvement over what we currently are doing or if the neg offers a counterplan, what we should be doing instead of the affirmative plan. Strategies that focus on doing this provide the path to victory. I am willing to vote on there being zero solvency to the case. I am willing to vote on there is zero link to a disad. The best debaters will frame the debate with a series of "if, then" type of assessments. The clearer you make these types of arguments, the more likely you are to win my ballot.

Specific Arguments

T-I evaluate this argument primarily through the lens of how fair the aff/neg interpretation is. This is my default position, however, I am willing to let the debaters figure out what standard should be used.

Case- Big impacts are good, small impacts can be compelling. Make sure you have good internal links to your positions.

Disads-They should have good links, uniqueness, internal links and impacts. Link turns are fun and are a very effective means to winning a round. Make sure that your arguments are clear. Statements like "We control uniqueness" are meaningless. At minimum, have a warrant to your argument.

Counterplans. As a default position, I want the negative to provide one counterplan that competes with the affirmative plan. Non USFG actors are not my favorite cp but I have voted for them numerous times. Conditional cps are not my favorite either especially when the aff can demonstrate that the conditional nature of the cps puts the affirmative in an untenable position.

I copied the following from Adrienne F. Brovero. She says it much more clearly than I could.

Critiques/Performance:

Adjudicating critique or performance debates is not my strong suit. Most of these debates take place at a level of abstraction beyond my comprehension. If you have a habit of referring to your arguments by the author’s name (e.g. “Next off – Lacan”), I am not a very good judge for you. I don’t read very much in the advanced political philosophy or performance studies areas. This means, most of the time, I don’t know what the terms used in these debates mean. I am much more the applied politics type, and tend to think pragmatically. This means if you want to go for a critical or performance argument in front of me, you need to explain your arguments in lay-speak, relying less on jargon and author names, and more on warrants, analogies, empirical examples, and specifics in relation to the policy you are critiquing/performing for/against – i.e. persuade me. It also helps to slow it down a notch. Ask yourself how quickly you could flow advanced nuclear physics – not so easy if you aren’t terribly familiar with the field, eh? Well, that’s me in relation to these arguments. Flowing them at a rapid rate hinders my ability to process the arguments. Additionally, make an effort to explain your evidence as I am not nearly as familiar with this literature as you are. Lastly, specifically explain the link and impact in relation to the specific aff you are debating or the status quo policy you are criticizing. Statements like "the critique turns the case” don't help me. As Russ Hubbard put it, in the context of defending his demining aff many years ago, “How does our plan result in more landmines in the ground? Why does the K turn the case?” I need to know why the critique means the plan’s solvency goes awry – in words that link the critique to the actions of the plan. For example: Which part of the harms does the critique indict, with what impact on those harms claims? What would the plan end up doing if the critique turns its solvency? In addition, I find it difficult to resolve philosophical questions and/or make definitive determinations about a team’s motives or intentions in the course of a couple of hours.

Misc.

Here is some background on me. I coached debate for over 25 years and was the head debate coach at King's College while they had a program. We competed on the CEDA/NDT circuit while I was coaching. While my teams ran a variety of arguments, we primarily used a policy framework to advanced arguments. I am pretty well up to date on political matters. I tend to read a variety of newspapers and magazine to stay up to date.

Finally, debate is a wonderful activity and by and large the people that you interact with are some of the best people you will ever meet. Debate has given a lot to me and has positively impacted my life and world view. Please treat others with kindness and respect, be competitive and enjoy the activity as much as you can.

If you have more specific questions, please ask and I will do my best to answer them.

First, yes. Please include me on the email chain: angela.cammayo@gmail.com. Thank you.
Experience: NYU Debater 2013 - 2017, Coach / Judge 2017 - Present

Overview

"If you want to achieve enlightenment, you're gonna have to go through me"
I'm just kidding on this one, my friend sent this meme to me and said it'd be great to include on my paradigm

Whatever you do well. I will do my best to listen and evaluate those arguments fairly in the context of the round. Feel free to run whatever you're comfortable with, but remember that you are responsible for your scholarship. I strongly believe that debate offers so many valuable skills -- research and critical thinking being some of the most important.

Remember, debate is game. So have fun.

Details
T- Great if you run it and go for it, but you need to win the topical version of the aff and a violation of your interp to have a shot. I will not vote on it just because the other team drops it. Note: FW is about how you debate. T is about the terms you debate. They're not the same thing. Don't conflate them.

Ks- Have a clear alt, explanation of external impacts and how it solves.

DA/CP- Have fun. But if your CP contradicts other positions in the round, it's fair for the aff to generate offense about your advocacy choices.

Non-traditional---Foregrounding identity to advance scholarship is great, using identity claims just to commodity the ballot is not (you know know who you are).

Ballots
Yes, as with most judges, I want the easiest ballot. However, I believe the Role of the Ballot free to debate. So debate it in round and if you win, I will view the round through that lens. If you go for too much in the 2NR or pick a strategy that takes out your own offense, I will not vote on it just because the aff drops it.

Here is my email for the email chain:

Williamc0402@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

Also, some other things:

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

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

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

I debated for CUNY for three and 1/2 years so I ran a decent amount of arguments dealing with policy but not so much in the critical aspect of debate rounds. I vote on anything as long as it is given to me in the rebuttals clear, concise and logical. Even though I am not profound in certain kritiks, as long as they are explained to me then I will most likely vote for it, unless I disagree with the viewpoint of that kritik. My viewpoint deals with race arguments and how it prevents certain impacts such as genocide. I am really patient so I will not take time for jumping files but please make sure that it doesn't prolong the round for too long. Please be sure to accommodate for the other team if all your files are on the computer and you flow on it as well.

Email: gregdrakewestpointdebate@gmail.com

My debate experience is pretty limited to losing a lot the first year I debated, then going to debate camp and then it finally clicked. Basically, try not to make me do mental gymnastics. I'm an overworked Cadet who is probably very sleep deprived.

Like most judges, I prefer debates that have a lot of clash where debaters adequately respond to each other's arguments.

I love kritiks that have alternatives that can be understood simply and succinctly. I love kritikal affirmatives that have plans that can be understood simply and succinctly too.

I'm generally cool with speed as long as it is clear.

Most importantly, don't be rude and take your opponents arguments seriously. Don't belittle them. I will destroy your speaker points if you do.

Please use debate as a learning activity and try to get something out of it. The future of our society depends on it.

Nicholas Fiori

Hunter College/The New School

Policy Debate Coach

Years judging: 13

Feel free to run whatever you want in front of me. I believe that judging is about evaluating the arguments made in the round while recognizing the impossibility of strict objectivity. Adjudication inevitably involves filtering the round through one's ethical lens and orientation towards debate and the world at large. Debate can only stay relevant and generative by responding to challenges leveraged against it by debaters and coaches. These challenges require my radical openness and fair, thoughtful consideration of the arguments made in the debate.

I will evaluate my flow and then call for relevant cards.

If you think an argument is a round winner it should be in your final rebuttal, do not assume I will evaluate an argument implicitly extended in a piece of evidence. Extension of specific warrants, not just tags and cites, is preferable. I am not the best at flowing author names so make sure evidence is referenced in some other way as well.

I will try to list my predispositions below. If you believe the debate or an argument should be evaluated differently make that part of the debate and I will adjust my calculus accordingly.

Framework: I enter the debate assuming that the affirmative should have a plan/advocacy/political position from which contestation can be grounded. I default to whatever framework is presented, explicitly or implicitly, by the affirmative. The negative gets whatever the aff doesn’t do and should argue why the aff is a bad idea and/or offer a competing policy/alternative advocacy/political program.

If you believe the debate should have an alternative framework, the outcome of the debate over that framework will ultimately determine my lens for evaluating the round.

Topicality: I will default to evaluate topicality based on competing interpretations if no other lens for evaluation is presented in the debate. Topicality arguments that are divorced from a discussion of the actual debate season are increasingly unpersuasive.

Theory: When logical, my default on theory is that it is a reason to reject the argument not the team. If you think it is a voting issue, say that and give me a good reason. Slow down on individual arguments. If a theory argument is dropped but he offending team, extended properly, and actually applies to something the other team has done in the debate, it will most likely determine the way I vote. However, dropped theory arguments that do not actually respond to something the other team has done in the round will automatically determine by ballot.

Impact Evaluation: I think offense/defense is mostly inevitable and that the arguments in the debate either fall into that matrix or change how they are evaluated. However, that does not mean I do not believe that a team cannot win zero risk of a scenario. My threshold is relatively high, but I find 100% defense argument increasingly persuasive.

If you disagree with any of my own pre-dispositions, you should make that part of the debate. The above is merely for you to understand where I start from as a judge, not where I end up when I go about deciding the round.

Years of Experience: 10+ (coaching and debating)
School affiliated with: Bedford Academy High School

I am a teacher at Bedford Academy HS, coaching a brand new team. I have debated and coached on every level: HS, MS, and college. I tend to see myself as a judge who is open to what you tell me to vote on. However, I want clean debates, clearly articulated arguments, and good decorum. In saying that, I like very specific debates on many of the issues that plague this nation's education system. Leave you generic strategies at home and come with some creative strategies that really push the critical thinking skills inside of the round.

• Topicality: T is for me is a hit or miss. If it is explained well and the argumentation is strong, then I will vote on it. I will never default to judge intervention. The topicality debate should develop itself. Abuse stories, especially, need to be proven to me, i.e. in order to win on topicality, I need an explicit description of how the abuse manifests itself in the round. If none of these things happen, I will not vote on it. Make the extra effort to explain either:

a. Why the affirmative's interpretation of the resolution is problematic OR

b. Why the framers' scope of what immigration reform should look like is a problem for the focus area.

• Kritiks: As I get older, I find that there is little to no creativity when it comes to making these arguments. Everyone is saying the same thing, which is pretty boring. The Kritik is by far my favorite position. So by default, I am looking for an excellent debate. This means a couple of things:
  • The explanation of the K needs to be done outside of the jargon of the author: for example, if you are running D&G, don't drop the term rhizomatic expansion and think that I know what that means. Explain it. Nothing gets me upset than a K team that drops terms and does not explain how those terms interact with the argument.
  • The more specific the link the more likely I am going to vote on it. I HATE GENERIC LINKS WITH A PASSION! Generic links illustrate lazy K debating. C'mon Son! If you are going to run the K, make sure that there a substantial and qualitative link scenario.
  • The alternative, I feel is the most important mechanism of the K. Therefore, take careful consideration as to what the alternative will be. I have voted on simple reject alternatives. I don't like voting on these alternatives too much. I like an alternative that does something more than just reject.
  • Be reminded that I am a teacher. You should be able to explain what your alternative looks like in the world of the classroom. Take that extra step to contextualize your alternative. It's nice (I guess) to say historical materialism, but to not explain it in the world of immigration reform is a sure fire way for me to ignore the alternative.
• Disadvantages: Even though I and DAs are not the best of friends, I have and will vote on it. I don't like shallow disad debates, which includes nonstop card reading and no real argumentation. This rings true for Politics. I prefer specificity on the DA. If I don't get that, then don't assume that I will vote on it.
• Counterplans: The CP has to make sense especially since the topic is education reform. The CP text needs to be stated clearly along with any planks that are added to the CP. Comparative solvency debates are the best way to get my ballot. Explain why your mechanism is the best one to solve the problem described in the 1AC. A good CP is able to create doubt as to why the aff's plan is needed in the first place, so as debaters you should create that doubt.
• Performance: Over the years, I have seen some performance arguments that dealt with the resolution and others that ignore the resolution altogether. In saying that, PLEASE ensure that your performance is at the very least resolutional. It's alright to talk about the resolution and its underlying assumptions. This is a good way to ensure that I am engaged in the round and makes you sound credible. If you are not going to talk about the topic in any way, I'm probably not the judge for you. When debating these arguments, please have an argument that makes sense. Framework is not a position on its own: it is just a way for me to look at impacts. You still have to answer the argument.

Ultimately, the last two speeches in the debate should help me in writing my decision. If that does not happen, then you leave me to my own devices in terms of looking at the flow and interpreting the flow for myself

Additional Things to know:

• Prep times end when the flash drive leaves the computer.
• Feel free to add me to your email chain: andrewgeathers@gmail.com
• A 30 speech does not exist (at least at the HS level) so don't expect one.
• Do not ask me what my preferences are: I will tell you how I like my steak, which sneakers I am going to buy, etc. Ask direct questions, assuming that you read this paradigm.
• Real world examples of how the aff/neg works help you.
• I am okay with speed....just make sure I understand you. I will make faces if I don't understand you.

Any questions: feel free to contact me @ andrewgeathers@gmail.com.

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)

Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:

1. Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
2. Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
3. Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
4. Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
5. Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)

Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.

1. Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
2. Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
3. Be rude (-.5 point)
4. Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
5. Steal prep (-.5 point)

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.

Heather Holter Hall

Hallheather8@gmail.com

Salem and Tallwood High School Debater 1990-93

Liberty University Debater 1993-96

Liberty University Assistant Debate Coach 20+ years

I love this activity and I look forward to meeting you.

For novices:

Congratulations on being at a debate tournament! I like debates with a few pieces of quality research that you can explain well plus some smart logical arguments. You should focus on good explanation of arguments and on getting better at flowing.  Putting lots of extra pieces of research that you have never read before into your speech is a waste of your time. I would much rather hear you explain research that you understand, compare that research to your opponent’s research and arguments, and tell me why the plan is either a good or bad idea.  The most important comparison in the debate you can make is to tell me whose impacts are bigger, come first, or are more likely. 

I will flow what is spoken in the debate, not the speech document. You should highlight and read complete sentences. I do not count sentence fragments as arguments.

If it is an online debate, please make sure you SEE or HEAR me on the camera before you begin your speech. Please say out loud when you are done with prep time and post how much you have left in the chat. When you say prep time is done, you should be ready to email the speech document immediately. 

For everyone else:

I have spent the majority of the last 20 years coaching novice debate.  I also judge a lot of novice and jv debates. This means that I am not deep into the lit base for most arguments. My days are full of explaining and re-explaining basic debate theory. You should view me as someone who loves learning something new and the debate as your opportunity to teach me. If you want me to assess arguments based upon previous in-depth knowledge of a particular lit base, you will probably be very disappointed. I love the strategic use of each student’s scholarship but get me on the same page first.

Likewise, the theory debates I am used to judging are pretty basic. I would love to hear a well-developed theory debate at a high level, but you will need to slow down, give full warrants, and not assume that “lit checks” means the same to me as it does to you.

About preferred types of arguments—smart strategy with good support that is clearly communicated usually wins. I prefer consistent, thoughtful strategies with a few well developed arguments, but, sadly, I have voted for negatives who won simply by overwhelming the 2AC with skimpy highlighting of 7 off case positions.

I have voted for everything, but I do not judge alternate formats of debates often so you will probably want to slow down, make well developed arguments, and assume I do not know. As long as I am judging and there is a win to assign, my main assumption is that every team is playing the game, maybe in different ways, but still just playing the game. I can only make decisions based on words or actions in a particular debate. I will not begin to speculate about another person’s motive or intentions--that is a job for someone else.

I will flow what is spoken in the debate, including cx.  I will reference the speech doc, BUT if I can’t understand your words or if the words you say do not make grammatically complete sentences, they won’t make it on my flow and only my flow counts. Likewise, if you are hedging the debate on a warrant buried three sentences deep in the fourth card by Smith, you will need to say more than “extend Smith here.”  The more concrete and specific your warrants are, the more likely you are to persuade me.

If it is an online debate, you need to SEE or HEAR me on the camera before you begin your speech.  Yes, this has happened more than once lol.  Don’t steal prep—it is obvious and annoying.

Feel free to strike me. I am not offended at all if you think I am not a good judge for you. Hopefully, I still get a chance to meet you at a tournament and chat.

Finally, I hope you all have a great tournament, learn new things, think deeply, speak well, meet fascinating people, and win lots of debates (unless you are debating my teams)! Have fun and please say hi in between debates!

Michael Hall - Updated 9/15/22

Liberty University

28 Years coaching

Upfront, you should know that I've only judged a handful of debates over the last two years and those were intrasquad practice debates Second, I've developed slight hearing loss that makes it harder for me to pick out voices when there's background noise.

For the email chain: mprestonhall@gmail.com

The comments below reflect how I'm likely to things left to my own devices, but I do my best to evaluate the debate on the arguments made in the round.

Theory: I am not tabula-rosa. Minimally, each argument should contain a claim, some support (evidentiary or otherwise), and an impact. That said, I do my best to minimize my substantive preferences and therefore find myself voting for positions I don’t particularly like. I attempt to use the decision calculus most persuasively advocated by the debaters.

Topicality: I tend to see topicality as a contest of competing interpretations. I probably vote on T more often than most judges and have no problem voting against "core affirmatives" when the negative has a superior interpretation of the topic. I'm most easily persuaded to vote on T when the negative team develop arguments based on a comparison of ground offered under each interpretation of the resolution. I tend to find in-round abuse arguments less persuasive as its hard to determine whether the negative should have a right to those arguments without first establishing a coherent division of aff/neg ground. I am usually more persuaded by arguments about the quantity and quality of affs allowed by each interpretation and the negative's ability to access a core set of negative arguments. Topicality is by nature exclusionary.

Counterplans: I enjoy debates with creative counterplans tailored to specific affirmatives. The affirmative should be prepared to defend the entirety of the plan, and plan inclusive counterplans are one way of making them do so.

I’ve found myself voting against conditional counterplans a little more often in recent years, which I attribute to the quality of the negative’s defense of conditionality rather than a change in my CP leanings. If the negative justifies the conditional nature of the counterplan, other theory arguments are reasons to reject the counterplan not the team.

The text of the counterplan and all permutations should be written out. Trying to win a perm that doesn’t include all of the plan or that contains action not contained in the plan or counterplan is nearly impossible.

Kritikal Debate: I've found myself becoming much less dogmatic about the need for affirmatives to have topical plan texts. I don't know if I can pinpoint why, but I think it's partially due to conversations with various Liberty coaches and debaters and partially due to my own reading interests gravitating more toward critiques of the enlightenment and religious critiques of capitalism. I can certainly be persuaded to vote negative on framework but debaters should no longer assume it’s a hard default.

I don't think much has changed about the way I evaluate negative K strategies. Like any other part of the negative strategy, the more you tailor your link arguments to the affirmative in question, the more likely I am to find your arguments persuasive. Likewise, an overview that details how the kritik turns the affirmative’s solvency, outweighs the case, etc. would be more helpful than several more impact cards.

Style: Given what I wrote in the first two sentences, this is section of my philosophy almost certainly the most important for you remember during the debate. Things you should know in descending order of importance: (1) I am a better critic for those who collapse the debate in the block and 2NR than for those who go for most of their 1NC arguments into the 2NR. (2) I am a better critic for debaters who emphasize clarity over speed. I’ve found this to be especially true in paperless rounds where everyone in the debate except for the judge is reading along with the speech doc. Again, my hearing isn't what it used to be making the need for clarity even more important. I’ll give you verbal and nonverbal signals if I can’t understand you. (3) I have come to the conclusion that the more evidence I read, the less my decisions have reflected the arguments made by the debaters. As a result, I try to read fewer cards after a debate and am more easily persuaded to see a debate through the lens that allows me to do so. (4) If you think an argument is important, find a way to set it apart from the rest of the debate.

Prep time: Prep time stops when the speech doc is emailed.

Email: ritikaaiyer@gmail.com

Please add me!

It's my first year judging, but I debated with NYU for 3 years. My regular strats have included T, K, DA, CP and case with me often taking FW/T, case or the CP/DA in the block.

I default to 2 conditional options for the neg, reject the arg not the team, and presumption goes neg unless the aff argues why it shouldn't.

DA -- Explain the link and internal link, the clearer it is, the easier it is for me to vote on it. Impact framing helps, too.

CP -- Go for it. Have a clear net benefit + explain solvency.

T -- Go for it. You need to win the topical version of your aff and a violation of the interp.

FW -- Explain why your fw matters, win the TVA, explain your impacts, and use the case. I'm happy to vote on it, either way.

** FW is about how you debate. T is about the terms you debate. They're not the same thing.

Ks -- Assume I don't know your literature. Have a clear alt, explanation of external impacts, and how it solves.

Performance -- Not super familiar with it, but I'll do my best to evaluate it.

Whatever you do, I'll do my best to listen and evaluate the arguments in the context of the round.

John Katsulas, Director of Debate, Boston College
30 years coaching

Here are the rules for debate:
1) The affirmative side must advocate a plan of action by the United States Federal Government. If you merely read poetry, dance, or play music, you will lose.
2) The negative side must defend a consistent policy position in the debate. The negative may choose to defend the status quo, or the negative may advocate an unconditional counterplan.
3) Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.
4) Conditionality is prohibited.
5) The resolution is worded as a policy proposition, which means that policy making is the focus of debate.
6) Kritiques are not welcome.
7) Performance-style debate belongs in theatre productions.
.
Here are suggestions for debating in front of me:
1) The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical.
2) Agent counterplans are fine. Don’t waste your time arguing PICS bad arguments against them. The legitimacy of international fiat is debatable, but I definitely believe there are far stronger arguments favoring limiting fiat to U.S. governmental actors.
3) Politics disadvantages are welcome. I like to hear them. Affirmatives should attack the internal link stories on many of these disadvantages. This is frequently a more viable strategy than just going for impact turns.
4) Both sides should argue solvency against affirmative plans and negative counterplans. Both sides should attack the links and internal links of impacts.
5) If you are incomprehensible, I won’t re-read all of your evidence after the debate to figure out your arguments.
6) Negative can win my ballot on zero risk of affirmative case solvency. Many affirmatives cases are so tragically flawed that they can be beaten by an effective cross-examination and/or analytical case presses.
7) I am very strict on 1ARs making new answers to fully developed disadvantages which don’t change from the 1NC.
8) Cross-examination answers are binding.
9) ASPEC: I won’t vote on it UNLESS you ask in cross-ex and they refuse to specify an agent.
10) Too late to add new links and impacts to your disadvantages during the first negative rebuttal.

I have a low threshold for dismissing non-real world arguments like nuclear war good and wipe-out.

SHORTEST VERSION: THINGS I BELIEVE ABOUT DEBATE

_______________________________________________________

Lawful Good -----|----Neutral Good -----|----Chaotic Good

1AC Plan Texts, ----|----- Case Debate,------|----Performance Debate,

Open Debaters -----|----Novice Debaters----|----JV Debaters

_______________________________________________________

Lawful Neutral ---|---True Neutral------|---- Chaotic Neutral

Topicality -----------|----Counterplans ------|------Dispositionality

_______________________________________________________

Lawful Evil -------|----Neutral Evil ------|-----Chaotic Evil

Framework args ---|----Standard Nuke ----|----- Baudrillard

from 1996 that ----|---- War Disad

say no K's

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHORT VERSION:

You are prepping and don't have time to read everything, or interpret. So this is the stuff you most need to know if you don't know me :

1) I run The New School program. The New School is in the Northeast, around the corner from NYU where I actually work full time. (CEDA has Regions, not Districts. The NDT and the Hunger Games have Districts.) I care about things like novice and regional debate, and pretty much only coach for resource poor programs. You need to know this because it affects how I view your ETHOS on certain "who are we" arguments.

2) Email: vikdebate@gmail.com. Skip the rant below about want/need to be on chain.

3)SLOW THE HELL DOWN, especially ONLINE. I flow on paper. I need PEN TIME. I am not reading along with the doc unless the connection gets bad or I have serious misgivings.

4) Do what you need to do to make the tech work.

5) Do what you do in this activity. Seriously, especially in novice, or on a panel, you are not 100% adapting to me, so change how you debate those things a bit maybe, but not what you debate. To help with that:

6) Yes, my threshold for "is there gonna be a nuclear war" is WAY higher than it is for "what we talk about in the debate round going to affect us personally". I will vote on the wars, but I don't enjoy every debate about prolif in countries historically opposed to prolif. That isn't "realism" - that's hawk fetish porn. So if this IS you, you gotta do the internal link work, not read me 17 overly-lined down uniqueness cards.

7) I am more OFTEN in K rounds, but honestly I am more of a structural K person than a high theory person. Yes, debate is all simulacra now anyway, but racism and sexism - and the violence caused by them - ARE REAL WORLD. Your ability to talk about such things and how they relate to policies is probably one of your better portable skills for the modern world in this activity.

8) Performance good. Literally, I have 2 degrees in theater. Keep in mind that it means I am pretty well read on this as theory. All debate is performance. (Heck, life is performance, but you don't have time for that now...). My pet peeve as a coach is reading through all the paradigm that articulate performance and Kritikal as the same thing. It.Is.Not. Literally, it is Form vs. Content.

9) Winning Framework does not will a ballot. Winning Framework tells me how to prioritize or include or exclude arguments for my calculation of the ballot. T is NOT Framework (but for the record I err towards Education over Fairness, because this activity just ain't fair due to resource disparity, etc, so do the WORK to win on Fairness via in round trade offs, precedents, or models.)

10) Have fun. Debate can be stressful. Savor the community you can in current times.

PS: I am probably more flow focused than you think, BUT I still prefer the big picture. Tell me a story. It has to make sense for my ballot.

---------------------

Previous Version

The 2020 Preamble relevant to ONLINE DEBATE:

1) Bear with my tech for September for the first round of each day - I work across multiple universities and I am still sorting out going across 3 Zoom accounts, 5 emails accounts, and 2 Starfish accounts for any given thing. Working from home for 6 months combined my day-job stuff into my debate stuff, so I may occasionally have to remember to do a setting. This is like the worst version of a Reese's peanut butter cup.

2) Look, it would be great if I COULD see you as you debate. I am old - I flow what you say and I don't read along with the speech doc unless something bad is happening (bad things include potential connection issues in 2020, concerns over academic integrity/skipping words, and you don't actually do evidence comparison as a debater when weighing your cards and theirs). I don't anticipate changing that in the online debate world. But also, tech disparity and random internet gremlins are real things (that's why we need so many cats in the intertubes), so I ALSO understand if you tell me the camera is off for reasons. That's cool.

3) Because of connections and general practices - SLOW DOWN. CLARITY is super important. (Also, don't be a jerk to people with auditory accommodation needs as we do this). Trade your speed drills for some tongue twisters or something.

4) Recording as a back up is probably a necessary evil, but any use of the recording after a round that is shared to anyone else needs explicit - in writing, and can be revoked - permission of all parties present. PRACTICE AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT. See ABAP statement on online debate practices.

5) I have never wanted to be on the email chain/what-not; however, I SHOULD* be on the chain/what-not. Note the critical ability to distinguish these two things, and the relevance of should to the fundamental nature of this activity. Email for this purpose: vikdebate@gmail.com .

(Do not try to actually contact me with this address - it’s just how I prevent the inevitable electronically transmitted cyber infection from affecting me down the road, because contrary to popular belief, I do understand disads, I just have actual probability/internal link threshold standards.)

((And seriously Tabroom, what the F***? First you shill for the CIA, and now you want to edit the words because "children" who regularly talk about mass deaths might see some words I guarantee you then know already? I was an actual classroom teacher....debate should not be part of the Nanny State. Also this is NEW, because the word A****** used to be in my paradigm in reference to not being one towards people who ask for accessibility accommodations. ARRGGHHH!!!))

-------

Things I am cool with:

Tell met the story

Critical Args

Critical Lit (structural criticisms are more my jam)

Performative strategies - especially if we get creative with the 20-21 format options.

CP fun times and clever intersections of theory

A text. Preferable a well written text. Unless there are no texts.

Not half-assing going for theory

Case debate

Reasonability

You do you

Latin used in context for specific foreign policy conditions.

Teaching Assurance/Deterrence with cats.

Things that go over less well:

Blippy theory

Accidentally sucking your own limited time by unstrategic or functionally silly theory

Critical lit (high theory … yes, I know I only have myself to blame, so no penalty if this is your jelly, just more explanation)

Multiple contradictory conditional neg args

A never ending series of non existent nuclear wars that I am supposed to determine the highest and fastest probability of happening (so many other people to blame). You MAY compare impacts as equal to "x number of gender reveal parties".

Not having your damn tags with the ev in the speech doc. Seriously.

As a general note: Winning framework does not necessarily win you a debate - it merely prioritizes or determines the relevancy of arguments in rounds happening on different levels of debate. Which means, the distinction between policy or critical or performative is a false divide. If you are going to invoke a clash of civilizations mentality there should be a really cool video game analogy or at least someone saying “Release the Kraken”. A critical aff is not necessarily non Topical - this is actually in both the Topic Paper for alliances/commitments and a set of questions I asked at the topic meeting (because CROSS EX IS A PORTABLE SKILL). Make smarter framework arguments here.

Don't make the debate harder for yourself.

Try to have fun and savor the moment.

--------------

*** *** ***

--------------

*Judges should be on the chain/what-not for two reasons: 1)as intelligence gathering for their own squad and 2) to expedite in round decision making. My decisions go faster than most panels I’m on when I am the one using prep time to read through the critical extended cards BEFORE the end of the debate. I almost never have the docs open AS the debaters are reading them because I limit my flow to what you SAY. (This also means I don’t read along for clipping … because I am far more interested in if you are a) comprehensible and b) have a grammatical sentence in some poor overhighlighted crap.) Most importantly, you should be doing the evidence comparisons verbally somehow, not relying on me to compare cards after the debate somehow. If I wanted to do any of that, I would have stayed a high school English teacher and assigned way more research papers.

Please add me to the email chain: s1143602@monmouth.edu

Please speak clearly. Speed is good but I need to understand what you are saying.

If you cut a card, keep track of where you stopped and be ready to answer where you stopped.

Be passionate but also be respectful.

Thank you.

Updated for 2014-2015 debate season.

I am no longer awarding points for people taking the veg pledge. However, I still strongly believe that if you care about the environment, racism, or injustice that you should register at tournaments vegetarian or vegan. Tournaments will provide for your nutiritional needs and you will have abstained from using your registration fees paying for the slaughter of sentient creatures whose death requires abhorent working conditions for people of color, massive greenhouse gas emissions, and the death of individuals. 

What people decide to consume is a political act, not a personal one. Deciding to consume flesh at debate tournaments continues the pattern of accepting violence and discrimination. This happens for workers, for people living in food deserts, people living in countries across the world, and for the non/human animals sent to slaughter. Tournaments are not food deserts. Your choice to consume differently can make a tangible impact on debate as a community and beyond. Your choice has global and local ramifications. I urge you to make the correct choice in registering your dietary choice even if it has no impact on your speaker points. Several people said that they didn't want to be coerced into making the decision to go vegetarian or vegan at tournaments for speaker points. Now is your chance to make that choice without the impact of speaker points.

All that being said, how you choose to debate is a political choice as well. You can debate however you like but you should realize that the methodology and the content you put forth are not neutral choices. Whatever choices you make you should be ready to defend them in round. “As Stuart and Elizabeth Ewen emphasize in Channels of Desire: The politics of consumption must be understood as something more than what to buy, or even what to boycott. Consumption is a social relationship, the dominant relation-ship in our society – one that makes it harder and harder for people to hold together, to create community. At a time when for many of us the possibility of meaningful change seems to elude our grasp, it is a question of immense social and political proportions.” (hooks 376).

If it is not already clear, I will say it outright: I view debate as a space for education, activism, and social justice. This does not mean I won't vote on framework or counterplans. What it does mean is that the arguments that I will find most appealing are those arguments that speak to how traditional approaches to debate are beneficial to us as individuals to create a better world. It is not that fairness is irrelevant, but that fairness is relevant only to that extent. Fairness plays a part in constructing meaninful education and activism but is not the sole standard to enable good debate. Concepts of fairness are not value-neutral but it is a debate that can be defend and won in front of me since I do not think fairness is irrelevant either. For teams breaking down such structures, you still must win the debate that your approach to debate is better for advacing causes of social justice. If you like policymaking and are running counterplans you merely need to win that your counterplan is a better approach. The same applies for theory violations. I will vote on them if you win that the impact to the violation is important enough for me to pull the trigger. The same is also true for kritiks and other styles of debate. Win that your approach and your argument deserves to win because of the impact that it has.

Again, to be clear, this does not mean that I intend to abandon the flow or vote based upon my personal beliefs. My belief is that debate is more than a game and that the things we say and do in it are not neutral-choices. This does not necessarily mean that so-called traditional policy debate is bad but that the way it should be approached by those teams should not be assumed to be neutral.

Whether it is what you eat, or what you debate, your choice is political. Our world can change. It is up to all of us to make it happen. Movements are already happening all around us. Don't let the norms dictate what you debate or what you consume. Debate should be at the forefront of these initiatives. Use the education you gain in debate to say something and to do something meaningful both in round and beyond.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Yes, include me on the email chain. zhaneclloyd@gmail.com

Brooklyn Tech: 2011 - 2012 (those three novice UDL tournaments apparently count), 2017 - 2021 (coach)
NYU: 2014 - 2018
The New School: 2018-2020 (coach)

***I used to keep my video off for rounds, but I've since learned that it's a mistake for the morale of the debater as well as for confirming whether or not I'm actually in the room. If my camera is off, I am not in the room. Please do not start speaking***

I currently work a full-time job that has nothing to do with debate. I still judge because that full-time job does not pay enough (does any job nowadays?) and I've built community with people that are still very active in debate, so seeing them is nice. It is also means I'm VERY out of touch with what the new norms in debate are. But everything below still applies for the most part.

In case you're pressed for time

1. Do you. Have fun. Don't drop an important argument.

2. If there is an impact in the 2NR/2AR, there's a high chance you've won the debate in front of me. I like going for the easy way out and impacts give me the opportunity to do that. Impact comparisons are good too. NEG - LINKS to those impacts matter. AFF - how you SOLVE those impacts matter. Outside of that context, I'm not sure how I should evaluate.

3. I flow on paper, so please don't be upset if I miss arguments because you're slurring your words or making 17 arguments/minute.

4. Don't assume I know the acronyms or theories you're talking about, even if I do. This is a persuasion activity, so no shortcuts to persuading me.

5. Obviously, I have biases, but I try not to let those biases influence how I decide a round. Usually, if debaters can't accomplish #2, then I'll be forced to. I prefer to go with the flow though.

6. If at the end of the round, you find yourself wanting to ask my opinion on an argument that you thought was a round winner, know that I have one of two answers: I didn't consider it or I didn't hear it. Usually, it's the latter. So try not to make 5 arguments in 20 seconds.

7. There's no such thing as a "good" time to run 5+ off, but I'll especially be annoyed if it's the first or last round of the day. 10+ off guarantees I will not flow and may even stop the round. I'm not the judge for those type of rounds.

8. I've grown increasingly annoyed with non-Black debaters making "helping Black people" as part of their solvency. A lot of you don't know how to do this without either a). sounding patronizing as hell or b). forgetting that "helping Black people" was part of your solvency by the time rebuttals come around (#BackburnerDA). I'm not going to tell you to stop running those arguments, but I strongly recommend you don't have me in the back of the room for them.

**ONLINE DEBATE**: You don't need to yell into your mic. I can hear you fine. In fact, yelling into your mic might make it harder for me to hear you. Which means you may lose. Which is bad. For you.

If you're not so pressed for time

I debated for four years at NYU and ran mostly soft left affs. I think that means I'm a pretty good judge for these types of affs and it also means I'm probably able to tell if there is a genuine want for a discussion about structural violence impacts and the government's ability to solve them or if they're just tacked on because K debaters are scary and it makes the perm easier.

I do think debate is a game, but I also think people should be allowed to modify the "rules" of the game if they're harmful or just straight up unlikeable. I've designed games from time to time, so I like thinking about the implications of declaring debate to be "just" a game or "more than" a game. Now to the important stuff.

Speed: Through a card, I'll tolerate it. Through a tag or analytics, I'll be pretty annoyed. And so will you, because I'll probably miss something important that could cost you the round. When reading a new card, either verbally indicate it ("and" or "next") or change your tone to reflect it.

Planless affs: Even in a game, some people just don't want to defend the government. And that's perfectly okay. But I would like the aff to be relevant to the current topic. Though I do understand that my definition of "relevant" and a K debater's definition of "relevant" may differ greatly slightly, so just prove to me why the aff is a good idea and why the lack of government action is not as relevant/bad/important as the negative's framework makes it seem.

CP: Wasn't really much of a CP debater and I don't really coach teams that run CPs, except the basic novice ones that come in a starter kit. I think they're a fine argument and am willing to vote on them.

DA: You could never go wrong with a good DA. DAs, when run correctly, have a really good, linear story that can be extended in the neg block and could be used to effectively handle aff answers. Feel free to go crazy.

Ks: I can't think of a neg round where I didn't run a K. I've run cap, security, queerness, and Black feminism. But please, do not talk to me as if I know your K. If you're running pomo, I most definitely don't know your K and will need to be talked through it with analogies and examples. If you're running an identity K, I probably do know your K but expect the same from you as I expect from a pomo debater. Cap, security - you get the memo.

T: My favorite neg arg as a senior. I'm always down for a good T debate. I do think that sometimes it's used as a cop-out, but I also think that some affs aren't forwarding any sort of plan or advocacy. Just stating an FYI and a neg can't really argue against that. So T becomes the winning strategy.

Framework: Not exactly the same as T, but I still **like** it. Please just call it framework in front of me. I've heard various names be used to describe it, but they're all just arguments about what should be discussed in the round and how the aff fails to do so.

Theory: Important, but the way debaters speed through their theory shells makes me question just how important it is. Again, slow down when reading theory in front of me so it's actually an option for you at the end of the round.

Finally, halfway through the year, copying my philosophy over from last year. I will say, there are a few big additions are up at the top. Those of you that pref me regularly probably know about them already.

1. I'm flowing on paper again. This means you have to spend time on the arguments you want ink on. This was a deliberate choice. It's meant to make you exlain things. Teams that think they can say a word (statistics, scholarly consensus, winners win, bioptix good are frequent ones I hear) and think it's a full argument will suffer. Sorry, life ain't kind.

This also means I'll, more than likely, show up to the round looking for a pen and paper. Sorry.

2. Lately, if you remind me, I'll give you a movie to make references to for extra speaker points. More often than not, it will be Good Will Hunting. 

3. paperless debating -- I don't know why anyone would make you kids use prep to flash. paperless debate seems to be one of the few things our community has managed to get right about practicing what we preach, so I'm willing to put up with the extra few minutes of waiting. I'll more than likely use the time you folks are flashing things and make bad jokes, and silly puns like "all the cards they're jumping you are so stupid, they might as well call that thing a 'JUNK drive!'" and then dock your speaks when you don't laugh.

4. I've been thinking more and more about deleting all of this crap and just posting one line as my paradigm: I'm a banana. 

I dream of the debates I would see. I envision young, smart, indifferent people all preffing me highly -- like at every D8 tournament there's a secret room somewhere where intensely smart performance debates are happening, but they only allow the craziest, snarkiest, least socially adjusted in the pool to judge it. 

Then I think about the other possibility -- I don't get preffed at all. That idea doesn't bother me either, really. The only thing that really deters me from doing it is not being able to say "just look up my paradigm" to people when I walk into a room and debaters, frustrated that another judge pulled the trigger on limits in their last round and wanting to know if I care that they're not topical, ask my "do you have any preferences?"

I mean, I would prefer not to, I guess. I'm not sure I can tell them that though. I prefer that debates happen where there is significant impact analysis, a point of stasis about the issues being discussed (srsly, in these deleuze v zizek debates, it'd be helpful if you could help me resolve what capitalism even is)  and depth on a few key issues.

*****

So, I debated at Vermont from the ag topic to immigration. I didn’t really run a plan my last few years debating, so those of you who are looking just to see if I'll listen to your business even though you don't have one, I will -- but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to vote on framework , either. make sure you’ve got a legitimate answer to it that’s a little more nuanced than an impact turn -- some topic specific defense is generally clutch in a situation like that. 

Everyone who's rolling their eyes now because you think I'm a k hack, hold up before you take out your heg impact and substitute in some security k advantage you 

a) aren't familiar with or 
b) don't really feel like running. 

I’d rather hear you do what you feel comfortable with. 

It occurs to me I should begin by telling you what types of debates I enjoy watching. I’d say I probably enjoy watching what more and more people are calling “non-traditional” debates best -- no offense to those running the EU counterplan, it’s just slightly boring to me. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think a beautifully run terror disadvantage isn’t fun to watch -- but when it’s not done really well, it can be agonizing. 

So, because I ran more critical args, I’m more familiar with them. I also think knowing your bias and admitting it is better than pretending I don’t have one and then not really understanding a teams arguments when you’re in round because you expect me to be deep into the realism lit -- so, you may have to slow down and be a little more explanatory. On the flip side, don’t expect me to know what’s going on with your k just because I ran a couple of them. 

Now we’re hitting the part of the judging philosophy where people list types of arguments and people say “I like them!” or “ehh, I’ll listen to it, but whatevs” -- since I’m assuming as a coach my first year out I’ll be hearing a lot of novice debate, I’m going to do you one better and tell you what to do with each of these args to get my ballot, or at least higher speaks than you’d have gotten. I’m operating under the (maybe faulty) assumption you’re a novice reading this, and not just a coach trying to decide to pref me or not. 

topicality -- think of T as a disad. just because you can prove their business doesn’t fit your definition of substantial doesn’t mean you get my ballot. your interpretation is an example of how the resolution should be interpreted in not just this particular debate round, but every debate round. People lose sight of this I think, and because of that, impact analysis can fall to the wayside. Admittedly, this is what would happen with me, at least. If you’re going to go for T, make sure you outline what args are permissible and impermissible under your interpretation, and what this means for the negative. It helps to have contextual examples specific to this topic, and as the year goes on, it becomes more important. 

Theory -- I probably have an abnormally low threshold for voting on theory, to be honest. If you are going for it in front of me, make the same impact analysis I’m calling for in a T debate, please. Lay out the worlds of debate, which is better, which is worse, and why. 

Case -- Not sure what to say here. Put something on. It’s easier to pull the trigger on a k or d/a if there’s a solvency deficit arg that’s persuasive on case. 

Kritiks --zero point of the holocaust is not an impact. It’s cool if you want to go conceptual, I’m down, but you want to 

a) have specific examples of the way your impacts play out that have some bearing on the topic, and what that means for people, and 

b) a clear idea of what the alt is, and how to explain it in simple terms. Be careful about assigning a role of the ballot, because that can get confusing fast. 

Other than that, this year it’s going to be easy for k debates to get stale, because the topic seems to lend itself to stale/generic links. Points for creativity. 

When answering a K with a straight up aff, the link turn is key -- use your 1ac please -- I won't be persuaded by a block of cards and then a brand new 2ar that articulates the link turn. It also helps your partner out when he/she is giving the 1ar, and helping your partner out is a good thing. 

D/A’s, CP’s -- These are way less conceptual, just make the smart argument and justify your business. Aff people who are answering these, remember to isolate the parts of case the cp can’t possibly solve for, and make that the most important thing in round, be it an ethic, an ontology, or a gw advantage. If you’re going for the d/a in the 2nr, make sure you’re weighing the impacts, and probability and magnitude are probably most important in the end. that doesn’t mean drop timeframe though. 

performance -- I don’t think I really have separate advise for this because I don’t think of it as a different category of argument from the above per se. Make sure you’re making those basic arguments about what your performance does to disrupt x problem. Do me one favor though, don’t use your performance as a reason why you don’t answer obviously important business because of your speed is exclusionary, going multiple off is bad, or whatever other generic arg you’re making is. Plenty of good teams are slow and don’t brush off important arguments. That also doesn’t mean I’m not persuaded by speed is exclusionary, it just means you’re going to have to be smart with your time. 

That being said, there are things people will tank your speaks for doing but in good humor, I think you should totally do them in front of me as long as you’re not being serious -- I’ll give you an extra speaker point or two, just because. They include, but are not limited to: 

1. using the phrase “jack taco.” 
2. saying “don’t do the work for them” 
3. stating “this was cold conceded” -- bonus points if it was not conceded. 
4. calling a piece of evidence “on fire.” 
5. saying “I don’t get a 3nr” 

But, in all seriousness, you should be respectful to those you are debating, and your partner as well. And have fun! Debate is hard, might as well enjoy yourself while you’re doing it.

Roberto Montero, Bronx Science ’16, Binghamton ’20. I debated 4 years in high school and broke at the ToC if that means anything to you.

There are two types of arguments in debate (and their inverses): smart arguments and good arguments. Some arguments happen to be both but most of the time they are neither (thus either a bad argument or a not-so-intelligent argument). A smart argument is well-researched, nuanced, and interesting. Good arguments are strategic and effective at winning debates. For example, the politics disad is a ‘good argument’ in that it wins a lot of debates and can be executed and deployed to perfection in the correct hands. That doesn’t make it a smart argument because every novice can tell you that it doesn’t reflect real politics outside of a basic uniqueness claim (which half the time is cut out of context because news articles aren’t written as conclusive as cards are purported to be). A smart argument isn’t always good however. If you have a critique that you’ve put a grad thesis amount of work into, it might make some interesting observations about the world/aff but may not be the most strategic.

Understanding the distinction between these two types of arguments is a recipe for combining them and developing the most well rounded arguments and a higher quality of debates. However, it isn’t my job to sit behind my laptop and mock the quality of your arguments, rather it is up to you as debaters to develop and articulate your arguments as such. When judging I do my best to let debaters do the debating so regardless of what my opinions/thoughts on your arguments are, as long as they are warranted, impacted and clearly extended throughout the speeches. This is also important for understanding how I judge debates—framing your rebuttals with important technical concessions on the line by line is valuable in making my decision easier and not make me sift through dropped arguments on both sides.

The biggest problem in most debates starts with that whole line by line thing. Teddy Albiniak taught me that one of the ways that high schoolers develop bad habits is through imitating prominent college debaters. The thing that bothers me the most is the reliance on 7/8 minute overviews. While this may be something that works for some very talented college debaters, generally it shouldn’t be a tactic employed by most. There is a place for an overview, and it serves a valuable and strategic function but there is such a thing as excessive. This is one of the biggest tradeoffs with engaging in the line by line in general which is pretty important.

*This last portion, like most of my paradigm, assumes a basic model of debate. This means that if you present an alternative model of debate and a different metric for evaluating arguments I will accept that. To quote Alain Badiou It’s only a principle, it’s not a programme. Debate isn’t standard and that is one of the things that makes it such an enjoyable and valuable activity, so take this with a grain of salt.

The second biggest problem is case debating. ~~Newsflash~~ most affs are bad. Not even most, definitely all of the affirmatives are bad. One of the best way to satisfy judges (and me) is by exploiting that on the case page. The threshold for smart 1nc case analytics is a little high but by the block some smart engagement with the warrants and internal links of the 1ac, especially at a basic, logical level, can only help you in the long run. This is particularly important for me as a judge because I can easily justify pulling the trigger on a presumption/0 risk of the aff type argument if mishandled by the affirmative and well-articulated/nuanced by the negative. This is not to say it’s impossible to be aff or that even that the standard is higher but that you should be prepared to defend the 1ac against larger level solvency questions.

We also need to talk about presumption. It is important, especially versus critical affirmatives. If your aff cannot answer the question of why the ballot is key or implicate it in any sense, you have abdicated my role as an adjudicator. All I can really do is enter a team that is victorious on a ballot, just saying that this is obvious does not mean the issue goes away. Perhaps this contradiction is too much to overcome in 8 minutes of a 1ac, and maybe is a problem with how we construct affirmatives but something persuasive needs to be said that doesn't amount to "You're right nothing we said or do matters but you should vote for us anyways" in 1ac cross-x.

Tl;dr please debate the case. Just do it. Like cigarettes and overviews it’s not cool just because the big kids do it.

As for specific arguments I don’t have much to say on all the ~nuances~ of agent counter plans or the intricacies of politics disad theory. I think the go through every issue thing is cliché and generally just a waste of time. If you have any specific questions about my thoughts on some random thing I’d be happy to answer it but I won’t bother to write down an arbitrary opinion on the 7th subpoint of some condo block from 2006. The only issue worth addressing (and what I’m almost confident is the only thing people look at) is framework.

Framework

The biggest problem with framework is that a lot of 2nr’s seem to forget to extend an impact. And when they do remember to extend an impact it turns out to just be a really bad impact. Although I’m willing to vote on a dropped fairness argument I’m still skeptical that the age old phrase ‘Debate is a game so fairness you broke the rules you lose’ meets the necessary threshold of an argument. If you plan on going for this impact in front of me make sure it is clearly articulated and not the same circular claim without a warrant.

What I think the so called ‘intrinsic’ value of debate is can be loosely understood as clash. The ability for two teams to debate the merits of competing positions seems valuable not only for education but is just plain fun. Not to say that clash is an impact in it of itself because at some level it’s fundamentally inevitable, but it’s a question of what that clash looks like. This should structure how you articulate a framework impact (or answer one for that matter) most likely to get my ballot. If framework is a question of competing models or visions of debate then you just have to prove comparatively that your model produces better debates, skills or education.

The second biggest problem with framework debates is that negative teams let affs get away with too much. If the 2ar gets to stand up and weigh the entirety of the 1ac versus framework it puts you way behind. The easiest way for an affirmative to defeat framework is to complicate and problematize the way they have constructed the world. This means if you win some truth claims about your aff and the way the world operates through your theory or interpretation then it nullifies a lot of their arguments. For example if you read an affirmative that says the global system of capitalism is bad and the 2nr doesn’t answer the case debate, then what do their skills matter if they can only reproduce a system of capital you have critiqued. This, like any good framework rebuttal, requires a lot of framing and contextualizing the line by line through these bigger picture questions.

The best way for negative teams to check back against this is to just reduce the risk of the aff. You can look back up to that whole portion about case debating, it applies to K affs as well. The other necessary piece is a topical version of the aff. Obviously not helpful against an anti-topical aff but in a majority of framework debates a persuasive and nuanced topical version of the aff goes a long way in resolving a lot of their offense. It still requires a larger impact in conjunction because at the end of the day it is still a defensive argument.

Tl;dr don’t waste time, make good arguments, do line by line, debate the case, extend a framework impact, don’t say talks about how.

.

i debated at umw & now im a gsa at liberty

add me to the email chain virginia269(at)gmail(dot)com

top level

• i will tell you to slow down if i cant understand you
• read quals, i need more than smith 5 to understand what argument you are talking about
• i debated policy but i am familiar with most k’s
• i will judge the debate on what was grounded in the debate, i will not read your cards/follow along during your speech

t

1. there needs to be a detailed mechanism for how the aff solves

disads

1. love politics das

cp

1. i mostly ran uniqueness cps
2. condo? im ok with it but not when it gets too messy e.g. multiple cps

k/theory

1. dont just read blocks
2. need a clear alt/how the aff links

plan vs no plan

1. be able to defend an advocacy statement

email me if you have any questions

Email: jeleesa.omala@gmail.com

I am currently a third year law student at SJU Law out in Queens, NY. I debated all four years of college from 2014-2018. I’m so excited I get to hear you all debate!

A little bit about me: I started as a novice for the Liberty University Debate team and I debated in all three divisions over the course of my four years. I was a CEDA Quarterfinalist in 2017 and a Second Round bid to the NDT in 2018. I started off reading soft left aff's, then blackness theory-based aff's, and even tried some performative things toward the end. I've been both a 2A and a 2N, if that info helps any.

I'm open to listening to any arguments as long as you clearly explain them to me and you look like you know what you’re doing.

Have fun!

I debated for 3 years at Cornell University and Coached for 3 more at NYU while I was in law school. I no longer coach and judge only sparingly, so do not expect me to be well versed in either the minutae of the topic or what arguments teams have been making so far this year.

About debate itself: Debate should be fun. Doing things that make debate less fun will make me sad. Berating someone in c/x, stealing prep, stealing the other team’s evidence, yelling at your partner etc. will be reflected in your speaker points. There is NEVER a reason to yell at or get visibly frustrated with your partner in the round. Sarcastically mocking the other team is okay, but sarcastically mocking the other team’s ridiculous arguments and shoddy research is better and encouraged. If you make me laugh I will give you higher speaker points.

Winning the debate in front of me: Control the meta level issues. Are human rights more important than stopping nuclear war? Should we view ourselves as policy makers? Competing interpretations or reasonability? Education or fairness? Watch me during the debate, if I’m nodding, then I understand what you’re talking about. If I make a face that looks like I’m in a lot of pain, you’ve made a poor strategic choice. I believe strongly in letting you see what I'm thinking beacuse I think it leads you to make smarter choices.

Evidence: I will read it if you tell me to in the last two rebuttals, but make sure you tell me to read the right card. Don’t say after the round, oh I know I said Khalizad but I meant these 10 cards. I also don’t really care about the source unless it’s a question of fact. The DOD card saying there are 2,000 special forces troops in Afghanistan is more credible than the random blogger who says there are 10,000, but if it’s K literature or just an argument, I really only care about the warrant.

My preferences: I will vote against these if you win the argument, I promise, but people want to know anyway, so here it is. I think T should be decided on reasonability, but that an unpredictable interpretation of the resolution may not be reasonable even if it offers plenty of ground. I do think affirmatives should have to be topical, but I won’t interject that into a debate. I love theory and T, I went for them all the time when I debated.

Theory: I believe dispo is okay and that conditionality is cheating, but I also will hold you to a high standard if you go for conditionality bad because I went for it a lot and was pretty good at it. Good pics are good, and stupid pics are bad (says the guy who is responsible for every time Cornell ran the “Iran should be called Persia” CP on the middle east topic). Tell me why their strategy is unfair and/or destroys education, and then tell me why I should care.

A not-so-brief note about counterplan competition: while I’m perfectly fine judging functional and textual comp debates, my personal belief is that a counterplan is competitive if a person or governmental body could reasonably be deciding between the two options. Under this interpretation, pics are competitive, even consult would be competitive (although it might be cheating for other reasons), but international fiat or agent counterplans are NOT competitive. While you’d still have to win this argument in a debate, it’s what I personally believe makes sense. This is because there is no point in debating plan v. counterplan if nobody has the agency to implement both. If there were a cabinet meeting with Obama and his cabinet about some foreign policy initiative, and somebody said, I think the EU should do it instead, they’d be laughed out of the room.Those two policy options could never compete because nobody could ever be deciding between them, so it’s not a competitive counterplan.

The K: I think good K’s are good, and bad K’s are bad. If you can run the exact same 1nc shell every neg round, it’s probably a bad K. I went for Normativity a lot and am very familiar with the literature, but that’s the only K I can say that about. (By the way Normativity is a bad K). I like K’s of capitalism, I think they’re interesting, but I hate Zizek. A lot. Make sure you establish what the Alt does and what the world of the Alt looks like. The more specific the better, both for the link and for the alt solvency. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR SOMETHING I DO NOT UNDERSTAND, but I will try very hard to understand.

DA: Good DA’s with specific links are awesome, generics are bad. (there’s a pattern in this philosophy). I am very, very familiar with politics scenarios both in debate and in real life so please do not try to BS your way through one. If you tell me the plan will cause the senate to flip their vote on a bill then I'd like you to tell me the vote count w/o the plan, which senators will flip, and why. If you think the passage of X bill will destroy the economy and lead to nuclear armageddon, you should probably really know what that bill does and why anyone would actually want to pass it. I will vote Aff on defense alone if you’re stone cold winning it, but offense is better. Unless uniqueness is predictive ("bill will pass in the squo") there is not a “risk of uniqueness.” If it's something like "relations with china are good now" you can't win a "risk" of that. You win an argument like this or you don’t, and if you don’t then there isn’t a “risk of the disad.” Bad DA’s can be beaten with analytics alone, and if you’ve overtagged a bunch of evidence and you only read a sentence on each card in the 1NC I’m not giving your argument a lot of weight.

Case: Love it, who doesn’t? Impact turning or solvency turning someone’s case in the 1nc is a great strat that not enough people go for.

Performance: If you are affirmative you should affirm something and that something should be topical. But I actually care more about you affirming something than whether it is topical. I will listen to and frequently vote for arguments about why affirmatives should not have to be topical. I am much less sympathetic to arguments attempting to justify affirmatives that are really just negatives. If you run the same thing on the affirmative and negative then I think you're missing out on the most valuable part of debate. Also if you're performing, I want you to explain why your performance is uniquely valuable in a way that mere words would not be. If at the end of the debate I’m left thinking, “Okay that’s a good argument but why didn’t you just say it, why did I have to sit through your interpretive dance?” your speaker points will suffer.

Go for what you’re good at, not what I like. I’d rather see a good debate on stuff I hate then a bad debate on stuff I love. Debate well, have fun, and good luck!

Joe Patrice

USMA

Paperless Policy:I'm at joepatrice@gmail.com. Or I can do the situational dropbox thing. Whatever. Regale me with your evidence. I don't read it during the round, I just want it all for post-round evaluation and caselist obligations. I still flow based on what you SAY so don't cut corners on clarity just because I have your speech docs in my inbox.

Flowing: Seriously, I’m not reading your evidence during your speech. Why doesn’t anyone ever trust me on this? Did I do something in a past life that makes debaters pathologically incapable of believing me? Anyway, if you’re not articulating your distinct arguments, you’re taking your chances that I’m not getting what you’re trying to put out there. I consider debate to be a contest between teams to communicate to me what should be on my flow and where, so orient your argumentation accordingly.

Everything Else: I characterize myself as a critic of argument, which is the pretentiousway of saying that I listen to everything, but that, all else equal, certain things are more compelling than others.

NOTE: Do not necessarily interpret any of my preferences as bans on any kind of arguments, or even guides to how to select down. It's a threshold of believability issue.

Policy Debates: Compare your impacts, weigh them, and tell me a story of the world of voting Aff vs. voting Neg. I’ll choose the one that’s comparatively advantageous.

I prefer fewer positions withlonger evidence, clearer scenarios, and more analysis of impact probability ratherthan harping on the massive scale of the impacts. If I hear that a slight increase in spending collapses the world economy triggering a nuclear war, you may as well tell me aliens are invading. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll vote on it, but I’ll die a little inside and there’s frighteningly little of my soul left to kill – I’m a lawyer.

I’m not particularly excited about the world of flinging 4 CPs at the Aff and just playing the coverage game. It’s just not the makings of a compelling debate, you know? Pick a lane! And it doesn’t seem especially cool on a topic featuring legal scholars proposing almost infinite specific counter-proposals to research. I’ve got no preferences on CP/Perm theory arguments other than it bugs me that people don't feel compelled to explain the abuse story like they would on T. I do not think the blip "the Perm is severance" is enough to get the job done and if I’m going to vote on it, I’d really prefer if, before the round is over, I can comfortably explain why it severs and preferably a reason why that is uniquely disadvantageous. But given that caveat, I'm more than willing to vote on these args because people all too often don't answer them well enough, probably because they don't know how to flow anymore. NOTICE A TREND!

In other words, if you're going the policy route, you’ll make me so happy teeing off with specific arguments tied to the real academic/policy debate over the subject.

And if you’re reading this harsh criticism of policy debate with a smug look on your face, slow your roll there Kdebater...

Kritik Debates: Kritiks challenge the advocacy of the other team in salient ways that could be lost in a pure utilitarian analysis. Issues of exclusion and oppression ingrained in the heart of a policy proposal or the representations of the other team can be called out with kritiks ranging from simple “-ism” args to a postmodern cavalcade.

It is NOT an excuse to say random pomo garbage that sounds cool but doesn’t bear upon what’s happening in the round. Esoteric ramblings from some dead French or German thinker can – and often do – have as little to do with the debate round as the hypothetical global nuclear wars that have killed us a million times over in this activity. Look, I actually KNOW what most of that garbage means, but that's not a reason for you to not make sense. Make the K relevant to the specific policy/issue discussion we’re having and I’ll be very happy.

Again, I vote on this stuff, but see above about killing me inside.

When it comes to K/Performance Affs, I’m pretty open to however you justify the Aff (metaphorically, as activism, as some kind of parable), so long as deep down you’re advocating that all things equal, “giving rights or duties to the things listed in the topic would be good.” Faint in the direction of the topic and you’re in good shape.

With that caveat, if you outright refuse to "affirm" anything in the "topic," that's all well and good, just be a really good T/Framework debater. I'll vote for a compelling justification — I’ve recently been told that according to Tabroom, I’m almost exactly .500 in K v. Framework debates over the last few years. I don’t know if that’s true, but it sounds right. Frankly, I'd rather hear "we can't be Aff because the resolution is broken and we'll win the T/Framework debate" than some squirrely "we're not topical, but kind of topical, but really not" thing.

But who am I to judge! Oh right... I'm the judge. Kinda my job.

An honest pet peeve (that I can be talked out of, round-by-round) is that I don't think “performance” means acting out the argument in-round. For example, Dadaism is an argument, not a reason to answer every question with “Fishbulbs!" You job is to sell me that people answering questions with “Fishbulbs” would be good – if you’re doing it in-round you’ve skipped the foundational part.

Topicality: I feel like I've told enough people in enough rounds about this that I'm comfortable putting it here: if you're running this Scalia evidence as a definition of "vest" despite the fact that it is EXPLICITLY not about rights and duties and solely about Article II power or if you're running the "rights are 15 things" from a definition about how the Indian legal system makes distinctions between constitutional rights and statutory legal rights, you're engaged in an act of such intellectual dishonesty that I think I'm willing to vote on that alone if the other team mentions it.

Every time you steal prep time will also kill me a little more inside. But you’re going to do it anyway.

my email for email chains is arevelins@gmail.com

Quick update 2018 - some years ago I drafted the rubric for speaker points that you see below. Since then I have monitored developments in the debate community on typical speaker point distribution across all judges/tournaments, as discussed online by people who keep track of such things. I don't really dwell on this data much, but I do try to be mindful of community tendencies. Also, I notice how my own debaters read judge philosophies in crunch-time right before a round, and realize debaters reading this want a tl:dr.

Therefore, note that I probably now give speaker points that inch higher than what I initially suggested. This means in most cases I'm giving 28 and above, for debaters who seem to be doing elim-level debate it's usually 28.5 and above, and for especially impressive debate it's 29 and above. I do still dip into the mid-to-high 27's in occasional instances where I want to make it clear that I think the particular speeches really could use some work. At the time of writing (Jan 2018) my average speaker points are about a 28.5.

*******Paradigm Edited 11/10/13, prior to Wake Forest 2013 *******

** Scroll past speaker point scale to get a shorter philosophy explanation **

Speaker point scale:

0 = the debater committed some sort of ethics violation during the round (e.g. clipping cards)

26 to 26.9 = one or both of the following things happened: a) the debater made some kind of major tactical mistake in the debate, such as a completely dropped off-case position, without any attempt to address how they might still win the debate even if that argument is charitably given the full weight that the opposing team prefers. (more leeway on this is given to novice debates) b) the debater was hostile or rude towards competitors in the debate such that opportunities for respectful discourse concerning different ideas devolved into a breakdown of communication. Debaters have different personalities and approaches and I encourage you to explore ways of comporting yourself that express these personalities and approaches (be proud, indignant, cunning, provocative, etc), but please at all times also communicate with each other as students from different schools who respect each other for taking the time to have a lengthy debate round, in whatever part of the U.S. where you may presently have journeyed for such an encounter.

27 to 27.4 = the debater's overall strategy made sense, but various parts of the debate could have used more depth when instead those parts were fairly 'paint by numbers' (e.g. addressing certain arguments with generic/block answers instead of dealing with them more specifically). Evidence comparisons were fairly sparse, but the basic story on a given sheet of flow paper was clear enough.

27.5 to 27.9 = the debater did a solid job of debating. A coherent strategy was executed well. For certain key issues, initial clash advanced into higher forms of assessment, including a charitable understanding of why your opponent's arguments might be good yet your argument is ultimately more important/relevant.

28 to 28.4 = the debater did a solid job of debating across all the flows that were alive in the round. The debater focused on what mattered, was able to swiftly discount what did not ('closing doors' along the way), and took initial clash on key points to highly advanced levels. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this advanced to early elimination debates (e.g. double octo's)

28.5 to 28.9 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but was also able to do this with incredible organization: the most important things were in rank order, the crucial arguments were made without repetition/with cogent word economy, and I felt that the debater's communication seemed to guide my flow along with me. If cards/evidence are in question, you're able to speak of the overall ideologies or motivations driving a certain scholarship/movement, thus "getting behind" the card, in some sense. If a point is made without evidence or without a traditional claim/warrant structure, the debater does so in way that requires translation/interpretation on my part, yet the manner in which I should translate/interpret is also elicited from me/taught to me over the course of the debate. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this could advance past early elimination debates.

29.0 to 29.4 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but approached a sort of fluency that amazed me. The debater not only did what they needed to in order to match or outclass their opponents, but I furthermore felt that the debater was connecting with me in such a way where your arguments trigger understanding almost as a gestalt phenomenological experience. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if you did well in any of your other debates, prelim or elim.

29.5 to 30 = If memory serves, I have rarely if ever given speaker points that inch this close to 30. This is because 30 is perfection, without any umms, ahhs, odd turns of phrase, instances where you just lost me or where, given a rebuttal redo, you yourself would probably have done that part of your speech differently. If you are this close to 30 then you have perfect command of your opponent's position, of whatever gap you have to bridge in order for things to 'click' with me, and you are able to talk about your research and core arguments in a way where you yourself are clearly ready to push the scholarship/performance that you draw upon to its next heights, if you are not doing so already.

Objectivity and consistency is an elusive ideal: the reality is that subjectivity and some variability is inevitable. I think a good judge should be attentive in debates and vigiliant with self-assessments, not solipsistically but in light of evolving encounters with others. One of the biggest lessons I got out of my philosophy work was the extent to which all humans are prone to habits of self-deception, on many levels.

***** Debate experience

- Debated policy 4 years in high school (won the TOC)

- Debated policy 4 years at University of Southern California (4-time NDT qualifier, elims in my senior year)

- I was away from debate while in graduate school for philosophy

- I have coached Policy and PF debate at two high schools (Notre Dame and Millburn)

- I have coached Policy debate at two universities (Binghamton and Cornell)

- I am currently Assistant Director of Forensics/head debate coach at Cornell University

***** Some views on certain arguments

Any kind of argument is fine by me: I wait to see how debaters respond to what happens in the round and try not to import any predispositions concerning the default way that I should evaluate things. There are various harms/impacts that can orient a given side’s concern, plus various meta/framing/sequencing arguments that grant, reorient, or block my access to consideration of those harms/impacts, depending on how these issues play out in a debate.

Various kinds of challenges to the resolution and norms of the community are fine by me.

Kritiks: I ran them often in high school/college. I studied philosophy in graduate school.

Counterplans can take various forms: bring it on. See below about having full cp/permutation text for the entire round (to check against ‘morphing advocacies’).

Topicality debates: if an affirmative is trying to present a topical example of the resolution being true, but the negative thinks the aff is not topical then it is the negative’s right to go ‘all in’ on such an argument.

I debated policy advantage/da/impact debates almost as often as kritiks. Any politics link and link turn debates need to be laid out pretty clearly for me - mind your jargon please. The same goes for impact scenarios: who, what, against what country, etc.

For any asserted advocacy or test of competition, the plan text, permutation, etc needs to be clearly articulated in the round and written down so that it can be evaluated. For any card that you want me to read in last rebuttals, you should be telling me what I will find when I read that card and why it matters for the debate. I won't sift through a series of cards if you have just mentioned them/rattled off the citations without making use of them.

***** final notes

I have an aversion towards 'cloud clash', i.e. rattling off 2-3 minutes of overview and then basically hoping that the judge plucks out whatever applies towards some later part of the debate. Line-by-line debate and the elegance of organization that it offers is in decline lately. This has a lot to do with recent norms and computer-debating. This is at the cost of clash and direct refutation, and can come across as being aloof/wanting the judge to do the work for you. So, overviews should be short and then get on with actually responding to individual arguments.

I prefer the email chain over jumping flash drives, when possible. One click of ‘send’ and there is no longer the agonizing wait of flash drive driver installation, throwing jump drives around, etc.

Please communicate with each other, instead of yelling at each other (see my speaker point scale above for the under 27 range).

At the end of any round, I will vote for one team over the other and indicate this with my written ballot. This will be the case for any debate round that I can presently imagine.

That is all I can think of. Feel free to ask me more questions in person.

- Please add me to the e-mail chain - sabcsaenger@gmail.com

- I'm open to hear and vote on any argument as long as it's presented clearly and carried throughout the round.

- Please speak clearly, clarity over speed.

- Impact Calc - tell me why you should win.

- Have fun!

I would like to be on the email chain. sms569@cornell.edu

I think that debate is an amazing educational space, and I always want debaters to have a good time and learn something, regardless of whether they win or lose. I think competition is an important aspect of debate, and I always appreciate some good snark in round, but please do not be rude. If you are excessively rude or dismissive towards your partner or opponents, your speaker points will reflect that.

I have not been very involved in debate this year, and I am not familiar with specific arguments related to this resolution. Please keep that in mind if you're using topic-specific shorthand in front of me.

My thoughts on specific arguments:

Case: case debate is the best kind of debate. I will always like you better if you can talk about why the specific plan and evidence of the aff is bad, and not just das. I won't read evidence unless I need to after the round, so if you take the time to compare the warrants of your evidence you will always be better off. I think a lot of affs are poorly written and internal link chains can be very sketchy, pointing that out can be a very effective strategy. I am also not entirely persuaded by "try-or-die for the plan" type arguments, you need to win that your internal link chain is at least somewhat likely.

DA: DA debates are fun, just make sure that you tell a complete story in every speech. I will vote on 0 risk of a link.

CP: CPs are a great strat when you don't have a lot of offense on case. Please read some kind of solvency advocate for your CP, I'm not a huge fan of theory, but that doesn't mean I like multi-conditional-plank, 10-plank CPs.

T: I am not usually a huge fan of T, and I really don't like cheap shots, but I am open to voting on it if you have a good abuse story.

K: Ks should have a specific link to an affirmative. If it's a link of omission I will almost always vote that the perm solves. I think many k's tend to fall apart when it gets to alt solvency, and aff teams should press alt solvency. When reading a k in front of me you should make sure to include some kind of explanation of how your alt solves your impacts, and what my ballot means in the context of your K.

ROB: I think ROBs tend to be self-serving and I am very unlikely to vote on them. That said, if you are kritiking norms within debate, please include some kind of explanation of how my ballot interacts with those norms.

K affs: all affirmatives should have some kind of advocacy statement. K affs are fine, but you should have a clear explanation ready for how you engage with (or reject, etc.) the topic, and you need to advocate for something. You should also have a clear explanation of neg ground. FW is not neg ground.

Performance affs: again, all affs should have an advocacy statement. If you're neg vs. a performance aff, ask in the cx of the 1AC how you should engage with the aff. Aff teams should be prepared to answer this question.

FW: FW is a good argument against K affs. Fairness is an internal link, not an impact, and you should have fleshed out examples of to education. TVAs are your best friend, and aff teams need to answer why the TVA doesn't solve their disads to FW. The TVA does not need to solve the entirety of the aff.

Theory: I am not very knowledgeable about theory arguments, and I am not a huge fan of cheap shots. Spreading a single sentence and calling it a voter is insufficient for me to vote on that issue. You should dedicate large portions of multiple speeches to a particular theory argument if you really want me to vote on it.

I am a former policy debater at both the college and high school levels. I debated for Army from 2016-2020 and for Chattahoochee High School in Georgia from 2012-2016. While debating in college, I debated at both the NDT and CEDA as well as a variety of other national tournaments.

I believe in good argumentation but delivery and in-round behavior have an impact on the quality of the argument you deliver.

I do not need to be included on email chains.

Please time your own prep. Please be nice in general and everyone will have a positive, educational experience in the round.

Please do not be disrespectful to your partner or your opponents during the round.

Key things to do are:

1) Speak clearly. Focus on clarity over speed.

2) Have coherent arguments. Every argument should explain exactly how you win the debate.

3) Have fun. If you aren't enjoying yourself, you won't argue well. Be willing to take risks and be confident.

I recently (time is a void) graduated from NYU after three years debating for the policy team, and coach for them occasionally, as I really love my team. In previous years, I also coached for Mamaroneck high school. I am open to most arguments - I tend to kind of adopt the style of my partner, so while I was running performance my last year, I still jive with straight policy.

I'm sure I make the wrong decision some times, but I do care about debate, and I do care about people, and I'll try my hardest to be as fair as I can.

Like to be added to the email chain: erinszczechowski@gmail.com.

For the Affirmative:

Give me what you got. Like I said, I've run both performance and policy affirmatives before, and see the value in each kind of debate. For performance debates, at least have some sort of relation to the topic, even if you don't endorse a plan. Other than that, go wild. Woo.

For the Negative:

Kritiks:

Enjoy them. Make sure the link story is clear. When I debate on negative, I often run Ks, but if you're not winning the link then you're not going to win the round. I prefer links that are actually contextualized to the affirmative, and not just links of omission. Make the alternative clear and consistent throughout the round. While I'm familiar with the basic Ks - biopower, cap, security, etc - if you're reading more obscure kritiks or high theory Baudrillard-type stuff then do yourself a favor and make sure that I understand what you're talking about.

Topicality:

Despite not always being the most topical, I also tend to enjoy T debates (when against non-topical teams, that is,...when you run T against a policy affirmative I'll begrudgingly vote on it if the other team terribly mishandles it, but I'll hate myself a little bit). I am willing to vote about equally for either affirmative or negative in performance rounds: just comes down to who is winning on the flow. In general, I think education slightly outweighs fairness, but you can convince me otherwise. A well-thought out TVA will make me much more likely to pull the trigger for you.

DAs:

I enjoy zany DAs that aren't just the same boring politics DA. That said, I will vote for that same boring politics DA. Make sure impact calc is tight, and good evidence comparison will notch up your speaker points.

CPs:

I really enjoy a smart CP! Pair it with a clear net-benefit (not just oooooh we solve the aff better) and I'll be intrigued.

Agent CPs and Consult CPs tend to make me sad.

I think PICs can be both really cool and really abusive. Figure it out for me on the PICs Bad/PICs good debate.

Theory:

Hmm. Don't spend most of my nights analyzing my views on various theory arguments, so not too much to say here. Conditionality is the first one that springs to mind. In general I think condo is good for a couple positions, but if we're getting to 3 and above then I'll be more receptive to your condo bad claims, even if it physically pains me to vote for conditionality (although if the neg drops conditionality bad even when they're running 1 or 2 positions, I'll still vote on it if you blow it up in the 2AR, and will likely laugh about it later). If you plan on going for condo bad in the 2AR then make sure the 1AR is already fleshing out the proper arguments.

In General:

Listen to your opponents arguments, and make sure you are responding to them, and not just re-establishing your own positions (although you should do that too). I'm a pretty easy-going person, and I stop prep time before you send out the email. If you offer me gifts of caffeine, I will not be anymore likely to vote for you, but I will like you as a person. Sometimes, those long debate tournaments with 3 hours of sleep can get exhausting, so if you're sassy without crossing over to asshole territory it might entertain me and boost your speaks.

Bio - Former CUNY Debater (2013-14) and current high school coach

For the e-mail chain: julwash@gmail.com

For PF: You're getting a judge with some policy background and policy (let's just face it) is a more rigorous form of debate. This means you have liberty to run more than the CBI and debate blog vetted positions in front of me. You will be better off taking advantage of that. However, I don't appreciate the mental gymnastics it takes to understand many policy positions and you folks get less speech time to spin arguments so please keep it relatively simple.

For Policy: I'll try my best to be a fair judge and vote based on the merit of the arguments presented in a given round. That being said, I think that debate (at least the way it's done at tournaments) is a game and thus do not appreciate teams who try to avoid being topical or enjoy running far left identity arguments. Beyond that, what you would deem as wise strategy and advice from most circuit judges applies for me as well. Some side notes though....

- I lean generally on the side on Condo good in theory debates.

- Any type of competition works for a counterplan. Explain the net benefit clearly if you plan to go for a CP

- Affirmative teams should spend as much time as possible on the case debate explaining why the aff is a good idea and outweighs the negative

- Good impact calc is necessary to resolve close debates and can clean up messy link clash on the off case flows.

- Politics DA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nearly every K

I competed for NYU successfully after taking an Argumentation and Debate class from Will Baker. It was novice so I ran the team aff and neg files rather than anything that reflected a disposition towards policy, critical or performance args. Since I graduated shortly afterwards, I wasn't able to compete as much as I hoped but enjoy the activity especially seeing new students discovering debate. While I've discussed the space topic, seen practice speeches and attended NYU's recent full-day workshop, I've judged zero rounds on the topic and have not watched debates at full speed in the last several years.

Here are the implications:
a) If you can explain it and defend it, I will vote for it. Read innovative critical affs, IR theory and current-events based affs, whatever you do well.
b) Don't get lost in the weeds on terms and evidence, spend time explaining to me the way your solve, your link and impact stories and how it compares and interacts with your opponents disads and kritiks.
c) If I don't understand it, I can't vote for it. When in doubt, slow down. It behooves you to slow down on your tags, read cards coherently and put emphasis on arguments that are important to you
d) Likely to be a truth over tech judge until I get my flowing sea legs back. I'm not likely to vote on technical theory args like condo, severance, etc. That doesn't include topicality if you have a clear abuse story and win your violation.

Compete hard but be respectful of your opponents. Good luck and have fun.

I'm the assistant director of forensics at the University of Rochester. I'm also a history grad student. I think more debaters should be historians.

There will very likely be a pigeon judging with me. You are free to bring seeds to give to him if they're not covered in sugar or salt. No speaker points or anything, my birds don't get paid to judge debates.

Any and all styles are great since I love it when folks that come out swinging strong for their positions. When y'all can actually be RESOLVED, that's that kind of debate speech I love to see.

A few loose thoughts:

- I don't like it when people ask for high speaker points. If you want a 30, give me a speech that makes me think you're better at debate than Gabby Knight or Kaine Cherry. I'm going to ignore any requests for high speaker points, even if your opponent tells me to follow your instructions. My immediate thought when someone makes this an argument is めんどくさい

- There's a trend of teams not sending out taglines/plan texts on email chains/docs, don't do that. While I still have an aversion to paperless debate, if we're going to be debate cyborgs, be open with what your evidence/positions are so your opponents can engage in good faith.

-I do my best to keep a tight flow, but that said, please slowdown for interps/counter-interps/plan texts, especially if you're not emailing those out and you expect me to say something about that debate.

- I tend to think conditionality is good, since I think Affs should be able to beat the squo or a counterplan/alternative but I have voted on condo bad in the past.

- I'm generally not persuaded by new affs bad theory. Not saying I won't vote on it, but I'm not a fan.

For LD:

In the off chance I'm in the LD pool, I did conservative value-criteria debate during my time in high school and I'd be lying if I said I liked it. That said, I heard rumors of circuit LD and how y'all seem to have a low threshold for theory arguments and that sounds appalling. I like substantive arguments. I like kritik arguments.

Read that as you wish.

Policy > LD.

Also, I strongly suggest y'all check out Keiko Takemiya's To Terra. It's really good.