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

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

Props:

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

Slops:

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

Other things:

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

Experience

Four years of NFA-LD and NPDA.

Summary

My goal as a judge is to intervene as little as possible in the round. This means that I will vote for any argument, even arguments that are obviously wrong, if they are won in round. This applies to theory arguments I personally disagree with as well. Because I don't want to intervene, it also means that I am not going to make cross applications for you. Signposting is your friend.

Presentation

Your presentation skills have no bearing on my ballot. I have a high threshold with speed and am more likely to have a problem with your clarity. Regardless, I will let you know if I have trouble following you (I have not yet had to do this). Other than that, my threshold is your opponent's threshold.

Evidence

I assume that your cards say what your tags say unless the card is questioned in round. That being said, I have a pretty low threshold for what I consider power-tagging, so if I card is questioned, I will take a close look at it.

I don't need evidence and am perfectly willing to vote on analytic arguments. I see evidence as primarily valuable for its warrants, so if you aren't reading warrants, know that I will typically prefer a well-warranted analytic over a poorly-warranted card.

DAs and case positions

I have no problem with large impacts and generally will prefer magnitude over probability on impact calculus(unless you win in round that probability should come first). I prefer to make decisions based off of offense, but am probably more willing than most judges to reject a DA based off of defensive arguments. I am also more willing to vote against an aff on presumption than most judges.

Procedurals

I don't need proven abuse to vote for T, unless the argument that proven abuse is needed is won in round. Abuse does make it easier for me to vote for a procedural. My threshold for vagueness is higher than my threshold for T, and my threshold for other procedurals is significantly higher than my threshold for either T or vagueness.

Kritiks

I don't have a problem listening to/voting for a K. That being said, I was always more of a policy debater than K debater and am not terribly knowledgeable about K literature, so if you run one in front of me be sure to spell things out clearly, because if I am unclear in what you are trying to do with your K, I am probably not voting for it.

I tend to prefer specific clear alternatives as opposed to "reject" alts. While I will vote for a "reject" alt, it is easier to win a K in front of me with something a little stronger.

K debaters will often get in trouble with me by getting up in a rebuttal and making an overview which implicitly responds to a large portion of their opponents arguments, but don't specify which arguments they are responding to. I am not going to make cross-applications for you so take 5 seconds at the end of your overview and tell which arguments you just responded to.

I do think that some K theory arguments have some merit, and I have voted for some in the past, but they are generally most effective when you can directly connect them to the K at hand. In nearly every circumstance, directly engaging with the specific K run in the round is more likely to net you my ballot. This goes the opposite way as well: the more a K engages with the affirmative, the more likely I am to vote for it.

Here's the tl;dr

Specifics > Generics

Substance and T > Rules and fake procedurals

Competitive PICS > Everything

Defending what you do > Aff Framework and Nonsense Perms

Link > Uniqueness

Offense > Everything

Always a risk > Terminal defense

Doing what you do best > Over-adapting

Things to know when debating in front of me:

1) I’m highly suspicious of arguments that have been debunked by contemporary debate theory or demonstrate weakness in preparation or strategy. I’ll vote on these if you win them clearly but my threshold is relatively high. Some examples include: Inherency, vagueness or any other non-topicality procedural, one conditional position bad, PICs bad, Aff framework against the K, non-evidenced analytics, and random NFA LD rules violations (the last one basically never). Otherwise, any argument is fine.

2) That being said, I love a good T debate. Sometimes topicality is the strategy. I default to competing interpretations.

3) I flow carefully. Technical drops are considered true in a relative sense.

4) Go as fast as you want, I can keep up as long as you’re clear. Speed is never ‘exclusionary’, it’s part of the game. You can critique the game, but in the absence of a well developed critique of debate practice, you should be able to cover. Smart and slow beats fast and nonsensical.

5) I have a strong preference for specific arguments and stories. The K and DA might turn case, but how?

6) I decide policy debates in the following manner

a. Decide the relative probability of each position in the debate. This means that you need offense on the major positions in the debate because I will almost never assign 0% probability to either a disadvantage or advantage. This also means that you should never assume you’re winning 100% probability of an argument. “Even if” statements are your friend. The amount of time you spend on a position will help me determine its relative probability.

b. Weigh the relative probability and magnitude of each position. This can get complicated in CP and DA debates, but I consider the degree of CP solvency to determine the probability of the affirmative’s advantages.

c. Attempt to describe the world of my decision. In other words, if I have a hard time wrapping my head around the world that either side describes in the last rebuttal, that’s a problem. I have enough argument critic in me that making sense (in debate’s already skewed and open world) is important.

7) I’m pretty open to any argument style. Love the K if done well, I’m likely familiar with the literature base. In K debates, I'm usually not into the perm unless it makes sense. If you're reading big impacts, it's probably best to impact turn and debate the alternative.

I don’t expect the aff to have a plan, but they probably need to talk about the resolution. I do, however, expect planless affs to defend their practices. You can go for T/Framework in front of me on the neg but you need persuasive answers to the impact turns. In planless aff debates, and K debates more generally, controlling the framing of the ballot is really important. I need to know what’s going on and what voting for you does or means.

8) Hate speech and racist arguments are a no-go. I’m good with weird extinction good arguments, however. Just don’t exclude individuals from the debate because of their identities.

My name is Christopher Hachet, and I am an assistant debate coach and judge from Capital University in Columbus Ohio. I competed in debate during high school and was the novice state champion for Indiana in 1982. Then I judged high school debate when I was in college. Working part time with collegiate debate for about five years now and a bit of back story is in order.

I graduated from Taylor University with a bachelors degree in education in 1989 and decided that I did not want to teach. After a short career in commercial sales, I decided that my real passion was working with my hands and building things. Thus I became a master licensed journeyman electrician and refrigeration mechanic. This proved to be a fabulous career choice for me , and I moved up to become a foreman running all sorts of interesting projects from a neurosurgery clinic to a large middle school.

As the economy slowed and my later forties loomed large, I decided that I wanted a change of pace and took a job at Capital in the Facilities department. My father had worked in higher education for most of his adult life, and I felt a strong desire to give back to the field of higher education. Dr Koch was kind enough to also let me assist with the debate team, and I have had a blast driving all over the country with CEDA, IFA LD and NEDA debate as well as various speech events. Your fifties can really be the best decade of your life, and I still love debate 35 years after my last round of actual competition.

My judging philosophy can perhaps be best summed up by a very short analogy. Were you to be at my work bench struggling to make a strait cut in a piece of wood with a hand saw, I would look at the most simple and immediate items to help you be a better sawyer. Your posture, how you clamped the work piece to the bench, and how you held the saw would be much more important than an esoteric discussion about how to set rake and fleem while sharpening a hand saw. In a like manor, I look for debaters to focus on a strong basic ontological understanding of the concepts they are working with, careful argumentation and analysis, and keen cross examination skills.

Follow Ockham's Razor with Ockham's aftershave and we are all set!

In terms of what my actual voting criteria are, there are perhaps 5 different models of looking at a debate and I borrow from all five. They are;

The Stock issues Paradigm;

Topicality seems to be the defacto concern regarding stock issues. Will vote on topicality with a fairly high threshold because I believe in Affirmative presumption and the right of the aff to approach the topic in whichever route they find pertinent. If you are claiming abuse on the Neg side I will be much more sympathetic to your topicality claims if you attempt to clash with the Aff in good faith. Most topicality debates fall down on the neg side in my experience because of inadequate in round work on why I actually should prefer the neg interpretation. Multiple forms of T arguments in the same round are not abusive IMHO but I often find them counter productive.

The Policy making Paradigm;

This most closely resembles how the older hairy guy sitting in front of you as your judge is going to view the next rather intense hour or so of your life. My personal philosophical world view is based in existentialism and realism, and I tend to view the world and judge policy through that lens. Student analysis and reasoning is much more important to me than evidence. Convince me that you understand the policy issues at hand and have done some original critical thinking on the debate resolution. Debate is not a clash of evidence cards, it is a clash of ideas. Bring me yours. I just drove a few hundred miles to hear them.

The Hypothesis testing/Social science paradigm;

I do allow multiple negative positions to be run even if they are contradictory in order to test the resolution and the Aff's interpretation of the resolution. If I grant the Aff presumption in terms of interpretation I also have to grant the neg presumption on how they will answer the Aff. If you disagree with this, please see Tabla Rasa and Game Theory below.

Tabla Rasa;

The driven sands of the Sahara and the emptiness of a blizzard are my models of thought in terms of both link story for things like negative disadvantage claims and aff solvency claims. I am neither Greek nor Tabla Rasa but I think there is much to learn from both schools of thought. If in doubt, spell it out. It would be unethical for me as a judge to to sit in the back of the room and make assumptions about the actual impacts of implantation of Affirmative's policy proposal. Also unwilling to concede anything along the lines of giving agricultural subsides to Bolivian beet farmers causing nuclear winter and extinction without some sort of plausible explanation.

Your approach to how you wish to approach the round is completely up to you. I have no preferred style of presentation.

Game player theory of debate;

Keeping it fair regardless of school being represented or reputation of debater is a top priority for me as a judge. I have a bad habit of voting down good debaters when they get sloppy.

I expect you to be highly focused on the flow of the debate and make arguments that lead to a proper clash of ideas. Several previous debaters would describe me as shameless at dropping a team on a ballot if a key argument is dropped and the other side catches it. You probably don't want to be that person.

Final notes;

Speed is fine...I have only ever had to ask a debater once to slow down. If you are in round and your opponent is speaking too quickly please get my attention by saying "clear" loudly enough for me to hear. I will acknowledge your request and signal the other debater to slow down a bit. If it is obvious a debater is using speed in an abuse way I reserve the right to down vote this as a form of abuse.

I am open to different philosophical approaches in debate. Upvoting or down voting things like Kritiques based upon actual in round work and explanatory power of ideas presented keeps debaters working hard and tournaments interesting. Most of all I enjoy it when people think hard and challenge my own thinking. By no means am I Elijah sent from on high to be the prophet of debate.

"The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas." - Linus Pauling-I prefer that you pull as much forward into the final rebuttal as reasonably possible. If you are winning an argument and do not bring it forward as a voter clearly I will not upvote you on that idea.

Do not be afraid to disagree with me, and I also am open to any questions before or after the round.

I debated LD and Parli for Hillsdale for 4 years.

I try to be as non-interventionist and tabula rasa as possible. I’m not going to give particular arguments/positions more or less weight or vote/not vote on them just based on my personal preferences. I have my defaults, but those are subject to change based on what’s argued in-round. If you want something extended, you better say to extend it. If you want something cross-applied, you better say to cross-apply it. If you want impacts weighed a certain way, you better do that impact calc.

One quick style note: I don't flow the cites of cards, so if you say, "Smith in '19." I won't know what card that is. If you do refer to a card that way, it's not the end of the world and I'll flow it as best I can and reference cards afterwards, but you're better off just saying, "The C card on Solvency" for clarity's sake.

Speed: I'm cool with speed. On the off-chance you're going too fast for me to write things down, I will say, "Speed." If I can't understand you, I'll say, "Clear."

Evidence: If you think your opponent's card is powertagged, you better make warranted analysis (it's not good enough to just say, "This card is powertagged") pointing that out. If you don’t, I will accept the tag as read in round. If your opponent says your card is powertagged, you better make a warranted response.

Procedurals: I don't think I have an abnormally low or high threshold on procedurals. My thresholds and ways of evaluating them are subject to change based on what gets argued on the flow. For example: My default is that I don't need proven abuse to vote on a procedural, but if the aff/neg wins on the flow that I need proven abuse, that becomes my new standard.

And yes, I will vote on RVIs.

Rules: I'll vote on them, but you need to explain why what your opponent does violates the rules and why that means they lose. I'll also vote on arguments that rules/specific rules are bad or ambiguous, or why they don't mean you should lose for violating them.

K arguments: I have or at least can get the SparkNotes version of most Ks. But make sure you give some sort of explanation in plain terminology so that everyone can understand what’s going on. I don’t need to know all the ins and outs of a particular philosopher’s thinking, but I need to get the general idea so that I can make an informed decision on the arguments in round rather than try to wade through a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand.

Also, be clear about how the ballot functions.

Impacts: I don't have any predisposition for or against any kind of impact. It's up to the debaters to tell me how to weigh them. Probability largely depends on what happens on the flow. If a DA or advantage gets dropped and extended, it has 100% probability. If there's a no link/no internal link that gets dropped and extended, it has 0% probability. But all of that needs to be done with clear, warranted, line-by-line analysis. Simply saying, “This isn’t probable” won’t help you much.

At the same time, simply saying, “I get a 1% risk” won’t do you much either. If you want to argue why your opponent’s argument is only mitigation, not a complete takeout, you’ll need to give me warrants as to why. Reading a plan text doesn’t mean you magically get a 1% risk of Solvency no matter what happens on the flow.

CPs: I’m fine with CPs. I’m fine with CP theory/procedurals. Just like anything else, it all depends on the flow.

Stock Issues: My default is that I will vote on terminal defense on Solvency or Impacts or for no Inherency. But again, it's all subject to what happens on the flow. What constitutes a complete Solvency/Impact/Inherency takeout and how much Solvency/Impact/Inherency you need is always subject to debate. And I will vote on net benefits or some other metric if that weighing mechanism wins on the flow.

I debated NPDA and NFA-LD at Hillsdale for 3 years. I did the 1's in Parli. I typically only judge once or twice a year so I'm not very current on the community writ large.

Quick and dirty overview; I try to be as non-interventionist as possible. I do not want to do your work for you and in your speeches you should be telling me where I should vote and why. I will not extend arguments for you. I prefer "A card on Advantage 1" when referencing your evidence but I'll do my best. Impact/impact weigh everything, preferably before your rebuttals; this includes your probability/magnitude calculus. Theory/critical arguments are just as valid as policy to me but I'll flow anything. I'm rusty on speed but I'll say "speed" if you're too fast and "clear" if you're not enunciating clearly. I think speed can be part of a good strategy but spreading someone out of a round is lazy. Time management and the ability to collapse are crucial skills and I will not punish you for forcing your opponent to exercise them. An efficient debater can beat a faster one.

Procedurals; Topicality is an a priori voting issue. Issue of the rules, not fairness/abuse. If there's abuse on the flow, it's probably a rules violation and I care more about that. Essentially, explain to me why the procedural violation means according to the rules they should lose the round, not that it skewed your research burden or made you sad. I don't think RVI's are an a priori voting reason but I can be convinced, I don't consider them inherently invalid.

Arguments need to interact and so do the warrants in cards. "My A card on Solvency is better than the Impact card on the DA" is not a full argument. Dig in to why your evidence is better and make the warrants interact. Claiming a card is power-tagged is also not an argument and I shouldn't have to read evidence to make a determination; explain why to me.

I don't think policy debate is inherently more valuable than theory/K arguments. Avoid arguments about how procedurals/critical arguments are destroying the activity. I will flow it and if I have to vote on it I will, but it would be dishonest to pretend that I am able to be completely objective about it.

Background:

I been involved in debate since my sophomore year of high school. I competed at Cameron University in undergrad and I am now the GA at Central Michigan.

I should also add that I am a very expressive judge. I will have several nonverbals that will tell you how I feel about an argument. Don't take it personally, I do it to everyone in basically every round and it might help you win a round.
Voting:

I will vote basically anywhere you tell me to. I like to keep an open mind about most things. The thing I love the most in debates is the impacts. I enjoy big impacts and I enjoy hearing them blown up (no nuke war pun intended) in the round. Small impacts are not immediately shot down, but I will say that it would be more persuasive to have evidence that tells me to prefer these impacts.

Topicality/Procedurals:

I have a moderately high threshold on T arguments. I would prefer in round abuse but I can be persuaded to vote on potential abuse. It is up to you as a competitor to impact out that potential abuse and explain why it is important especially if you have no ground loss in the round. This applies to all other procedural arguments. I have an extremely high threshold for disclosure theory. So high in fact I would recommend not running it in front of me.

Kritiks:

I'm open to K's. However there are two conditions: first that it's clear what the K is doing and how it functions in the round/with the topic. The second condition is for K AFFs: you must have a policy action. Not only is it in the rules, it's also a personal preference because I feel AFFs in NFA LD should have a policy action. If this is not the case for your K AFF then you will be very open to losing the round on a NEG procedural.

Speed:

I'm ok with most types of speed and I will let you know if I can't keep up. I will say that if you do speed, please be clear. Also, DO NOT USE SPEED AS AN EXCLUSIONARY WEAPON. That is the worst and your speaker points will reflect that.

Also: I hate it when people refer to cards by the author's name and year (EX: my Johnson in '18 evidence says....) I would much rather have it be that you say something like "they drop the third card that I read on their solvency." It makes for a less confused me and that is something that you want.

Disclosure:

I will disclose results based on tournament policy.

I am willing to discuss any specific questions you have in the round.

GLHF

I have been involved in debate for about 15 years. I debated for 2 years and have been a coach/judge for about 13 years. When I judge a round, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I tend to view the round as a court, where I am an actual judge, and the affirmative and negative are presenting me with a case. It is my job to judge the evidence and arguments as they are presented in the round. I am to assume no outside opinions or evidence which is not presented in the round. Under this theory, any argument can win. I will listen to and vote for any argument in the round, provided that it is well-evidenced and argued. Also, I tend to be a very standard judge, your average judge will probably vote the same way I do. The only thing you need to win is good evidence and impact calculus.

I feel as though debate rules are more like guidelines than a list set in stone. Proper debaters should strive to meet the rules or guidelines in front of them. However, unless there is a clear argument in the debate that the other team is violating important rules, I will not vote a team down for it. I believe it is up to the debaters to point out those rules and explain their importance in the debate. I will vote on properly laid arguments for or against the rules based on how the debaters handle these issues.

I will vote for any argument that a debater places in the debate, if I’m given a good reason to do so. Also, although I do like Topicality, it is a harder argument to win. The negative must really go for it and prove their violations, standards, and the impact it has on the round. Also I don’t like it when someone makes a bunch of Topicality arguments and then drops them with no given reason. Try to use Topicality strategically, and if it needs dropped, explain why and what that means for the round.

In the rebuttals, I expect debaters to give me clear voters and tell me why I vote on these issues. When a person does not give me clear voters, it is up to me to interpret the round and I don’t like doing that. I prefer clear cut reasons to vote for each side. If one person has clear voters and the other does not; the person with the clear voters and impact stories will usually win.

Prepping outside of prep time and being disorganized is not okay.

Basic Overview:

I believe it's your burden to tell me how and WHY (very important part) I should vote. If you give me a reason to vote on an RVI, and it goes dropped (I have a very low threshold for beating an RVI), and you go for that warranted RVI in your last speech... I will vote for it, regardless of how icky it feels. If neither team does the work to tell me how and why I vote, and I have to do a lot of work for you, don't be mad if that vote doesn't swing your way.

On LD rules:

For the sake of consistency, you have to tell me if something is in the rules if you want me to vote on it. So if you're going for "that type of counterplan isn't allowed in LD," then you obviously (and inherently) tell me that it's in the rules. The same thing goes for T... I don't NEED other voters, but you do have to tell me it's the rules. Also, I guess you can tell me the rules are bad, but you have to warrant it well.

Speed is also addressed in the rules, but I think that "conversational rate" is an arbitrary term. I'm fine with speed but I prefer that you annunciate. If your speed costs you your clarity, then slow down.

On Theory:

Absent you telling me, I defer to competing interps and potential abuse. That's just how I see debate, and is how I find myself evaluating rounds where no one tells me how to vote but the round clearly comes down to theory.

On Stock Issues:

It's technically in the rules that you have to have these stock issues, so if you're going for "no inherency" or "no propensity to solve" all you really have to do is cite the rules. Refer to my take on the rules.

On the K:

I'm comfortable with critical arguments. I often find that the Alt isn't explained well, and it's a pretty important part of the K because absent the Alt, your K is a nonunique DA. I still think you can claim K turns case absent the Alt, but of course that can be refuted back and forth so it's better to try to win your alt.

On 1AR/1NR/ Theory:

I never see it debated well because of time constraints in LD but sure, I'm open to it. If you're going for it in the 2AR, I imagine you'd really have to go for it.

I have coached and judged college debate for almost 15 years, and have judged hundreds (if not over 1000) intercollegiate policy debates in all formats: CEDA/NDT, NFA-LD, BP/Worlds, IPDA, and NPDA. I think all forms of debate have merit. I will generally judge a debate consistent with the norms and goals of the particular format.

You do not need to “adapt” to me. I will “adapt” to you. That is my role as an educator, and being an educator is the primary role of a judge / critic in intercollegiate debate.

You work hard doing this. You give up your weekends and substantial portions of your life to participate in this activity. It is my role to make sure you get rewarded, educationally, for that. Debate should be fun, and educational, and rewarding. I will do my best to make sure it is all those things.

I have judged all kinds of debates in all kinds of frameworks and voted for all kinds of arguments. I've voted for and against my own political and philosophical beliefs.

My general assumptions are: policy, critical, performance, and procedural debate are of roughly equal value.

I love a good policy debate. I love a good critical debate. I love a good performance debate. I especially love when the debaters agree on a style and go all in on it. Two policy teams running “5-off” and going fast and engaging in good issue selection in rebuttals is a beautiful thing. Seeking someone run a K, really well, and knowing the critical literature inside and out, is a beautiful thing. Judging in a magnificent “performance” debate, it a beautiful thing. Do what you do. Do it well. Do it with passion. Teach me something. Teach your opponent something. Teach yourself something.

I can't be "objective" or neutral about intentionally hostile and exclusionary speech acts (classism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism etc.)

I enjoy good theory and procedural debates. In competitive debate, I prefer competing interpretations and tend to believe conditionality is good. You can convince me otherwise.

T:Generally, T is a time suck. I have voted on T many times, however, if handled well or poorly. I have also voted for many “non-topical” and performance Affs. I do not require a debater to “role play” the USFG. An aff that does not want to debate in a traditional policy format can do so, the Neg must then convince me that this is not part of the Aff’s right to define, etc. It’s easier to win T if you can show in-round abuse than hypothetical abuse, although I’ve voted on both. In theory, I can be convinced T is a “reverse voter” and would vote on this in a rare case, when properly argued by one side and poorly rebutted by the other. Although if you are going for this, you are probably desperate on the flow everywhere else.

Aff, you needn’t necessarily have a plan (although your opponents might convince me otherwise) but you need a clear statement of advocacy. Neg, your advocacy must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy.

CP: You can have more than one (LD rules notwithstanding) although if are you doing this, then something odd is happening in the round. I will default to conditionality on CP’s unless convinced otherwise.

A “perm” is a test of competition, and not part of affirmative advocacy. I tend to default to the position that CP’s must be competitive.

I view the resolution an initial division of ground, and not the matter to be “proved.” Thus, I default to the position that PICS are OK. As with all theory, however, the debater can convince me otherwise and I have voted Aff on PICs bad before.

K: A K is not required to have an ALT, but certainly can have one. If there is no ALT, however, there needs to be a reason to vote for K, set up as a voting issue (usually through a framework). If you run a K, you need to know the literature – don’t run Ks you don’t understand. I do enjoy reading and listening to good discussions of critical literature.

I'm autistic and strictly speaking have a lower audio processesing speed. This only ever really impacts me on theory arguments happening at speed and in especially background noise-ful online debates. Prioritize clarity please. Make it very clear where you're at and what you're doing. I've been doing just fine recently (I think I became accustomed to online debate) but it never hurts to disclose these sorts of things

An update on the above, I honestly have begun to beleive that the shift to speech docs has shifted students AWAY from emphasizing clarity.

I only vote on what I hear you say, not whats in the speech document. I also do not read cards for you unless there is debate on what a card says.

About Me and Debate: I have been doing competitive debate in some capacity since 2007. In terms of reading me: Generally if I look confused, I am. If I am holding my hands in the air and staring at you that means I think you're making a brand spanking new argument in the NR or 2AR that I have no idea what existing argument to put it on. So if that's happening, please make sure I understand why this isn't new (so why its an extension of an existing arg or in the NR's case a response to an Aff arg). Reading your judge is a good skill to have. Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but I will be unhappy about it.

Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says.

Speed: I am fine with speed, but (especially in this activity) clarity is KEY, if both your opponent and myself can understand then we're all good. I have judged too many rounds where debaters will try to go quickly not because they can do it clearly/efficiently, but because I'm fine with it so why not. That is a terrible reason to spread and I will dock speaks accordingly. Additionally please slow down on your theoretical positions, no one can write that fast. If I don't get all those sick T arguments you're making then my ballot will probably reflect it. Most important thing is everyone in the round understanding you, but don't be that person who says 'clear' just so slow someone down then go that speed yourself. No one should be winning rounds strictly because one person was much quicker than the other or because one debater can't understand the words another is saying.

I will say clear once, and that it all.

Ethos: For the most part, your ethos will only effect your speaker points and not whether or not you win the debate. Just because I think you're a jerk doesn't mean you're not a jerk who won. Though keep in mind that often the things that ruin your ethos ALSO lose you rounds (like assuming arguments are stupid and not explaining why or not finishing your argument because the implications are clear enough to you). I will usually let you know if you have done something that damaged your ethos.

There is another surefire way of damaging your speaks with me in the back of the room: I can get a bit angry when debaters I know are smart make stupid decisions.

General Theory: The voting issue "The NFA-LD rules say X" holds exactly no weight with me. I do not follow/enforce rules simply because they are rules. You should at least explain why that particular rule is good. In fact, if you wish for me to judge based on what the rules say, then I can. Please disregard the entirety of this paradigm, I am now a stock issues judge. If you want me to the follow the rules I will.

There are SO MANY other reasons T is an a priori issue and I never hear most of them.

Topicality: Topicality is my jam. It is quite possibly one of my favorite arguments in debate. I have fairly low threshold for voting on reasonability on marginally topical affs. I think debaters are the ones who set the realm of the topic. Tell me why your aff deserves to be topical. Tell me why your definition is the best one for this topic. Tell me about it. If your aff deserves to be considered topical, TELL ME WHY. For my negatives, remember to tell me why the Aff is taking the topic in the wrong direction. Make sure you think through your position and all of its implications. Make sure you tell me why this aff hurts you. Try to force them into showing their true colors. Run that DA you claim they will No Link out of, worst case is they don't make that argument but now you have a DA with a conceded link. My brain breaks when you refer to things as limits DAs or education DA. Say links.

Kritiks: The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong. In fact, there is a good chance you will lose the debate if you just pull an NDT/CEDA K out of some backfile and read it. Keep your implications tied to policy action and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence.View the K as if you are a lobbyist for X cause and you want to convince congress (me) to vote against a policy currently on the floor (the aff) due to a negative assumption that policy is making. Explain to me what happens when we keep making policies that make this bad assumption. Reject the Aff is a fine alt, just keep the above in mind. If you start reading a K and look at me and I look extremely annoyed, its probably because you aren't adapting to me. Not an auto loss, just a rough go. DO NOT RUN LINKS OF OMISSION. I am extremely partial to the 'we can't talk about all the things all of the time' argument.

To my K Affs: Kritikal affs are my favorite thing. I think they're a lot of fun and are super educational. If your K aff doesn't have a plan text that is relevent to the rez you will never get my ballot, preferably it should be fiated but I have softened on that issue. However, I do not listen to Topicality Bad. Consider my position on the K in the paragraph above this one. There are plenty of excellent examples of this. Once I read a position that changed the definition of torture to include mental anguish as a form of torture as a staunch rejection of Cartesian Dualism. This both helped the people we're doing terrible things to in Gitmo and other places, but also began the break down of dualistic rhetoric in the government (and yes, my card did say that. It was a sick card). What I'm trying to stress here is that we are a policy making role play activity. To defend a position you do not believe in is to become more educated on that position. Debates about the political are important and I think the way we do them is especially important.

Please note all of my personal views on competitive equity and having topical and preferably fiated affs can be ignored if your opponent should not even be at the tournament. See: Is a predator.

Roles of the Ballot: The role of the ballot functions as a round framing and a focus. If you think that a particular minority group is underrepresented within the topic and you'd like the debate to be solely about their betterment, make THAT the role of the ballot. Use it as offense on that generic nonsense test the neg didn't bother to make more specific to your position. We can have the debate on whether or not that framework is a productive one. Hell, the neg can agree that you're right about that minority group and tailor their position to operate within it. And isn't that what we should all want, assuming we truly care for said minority group and the role of the ballot is not simply to box the neg out of all of their ground?

Speaker Point Assignment: My speaker point assignment system is mostly gut based to be perfectly honest with you, but there are a couple tips and tricks I can provide to get your 30. Ultimately the assignment is a combination of debate style, organization, ethos, and clarity of speech. A perfectly clear speaker with poor organization won't get a 30, but neither will an unclear speaker with perfect organization. In terms of priority, I suppose, it goes Clarity, Ethos, Organization, Style.

My Flow and You: I would describe myself as a good flow. If you have any experience that statement should ring a few alarm bells and I get that. I have trouble getting cites at times, especially if you're of the 'full citation' mentality where the author and the date are 20 seconds apart. To be honest I prefer people actually extending their positions instead of "Cross apply XY in ## " and it definitely helps with my flowing. If you're flying through things like theory or don't clearly enunciate your tags I will miss things and you may lose because of it. You have been warned.

Things I think are dumb/Pet Peeves: Disease extinction impacts, "The rules say so", State links, Kritiks without impact D, "99% of species that ever existed are now extinct" logical fallacies, the rest of the logical fallacies, Putting the burden of proof on the negating position, blatantly asking your opponent how they'd respond to a potential argument you may make in your next speech (like come on, have some nuance), caring about white nationalists and their feelings. "Just read my evidence" in cross ex.

You'd have thought living through a global pandemic would have put the kabosh on disease extinction impacts. It has not. :(

Other Thoughts: Debate is my favorite thing and happy rounds full of debaters who also love debate is my other favorite thing. Remember, THIS IS A GAME. As the great Abe Lincoln once said in a fictional movie "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!"

History: This is my sixth year out from undergrad and my second year judging NFA-LD on the regular. 2 years of CEDA/NDT debating, 2 years of NFA-LD debating. High school; Congress and Mock Trial.

Dear Trans Debaters (and judges): Please feel free to approach me at any time over any medium for any reason. I am happy and honored to give any support you may need. Seriously, do not hesitate or think you are being a bother or a burden. You are important and deserve support.

NOW LETS TALK ABOUT DEBATE

New Thoughts: I feel in the last few years Ive gotten a better idea of where I lean on a few things.

In round: You should generally ignore faces I make, I make them a lot. The one thing you should not ignore is if I make a point to lean back in my chair, cross my arms, and frown at you. I am making it obvious that I am not flowing because you are either a)making a completely brand new argument when you shouldn't be b) repeating yourself or c)being offensive.

KRITIKS: Kritiks to me are about questioning and attacking the assumptions inherent in the 1AC and proving that those assumptions cause policy failure and/or significant harms. Note that this does not mean I think the K needs to solve for the case. In fact, most Kritiks that attempt to do so *usually* have terrible Alternatives. Your evidence probably turns case, takes out solvency, or outweighs on impact on its own. Your alternative should be well supported by your evidence. Reject Alts usually don't. I prefer Ks to be as focused on policy making as possible.I probably won't vote for Ks based on links of omission 99.99% of the time, they put an obscene burden on the aff.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are great for education and fairness in debate. Topical counterplans are BEST for these things. If you run a counterplan, you should probably go for it because they take a lot of time to just not go for in an LD structured round. That said, if you somehow have another viable position, you should be able to kick the counterplan as long as you don't use the affs own answers to it against them ? Thats abusive and the one thing I will vote you down for regardless of how poorly the aff explains the abuse.

THE AFFIRMATIVE: I love both traditional policy affs and kritikal affs. K Affs should keep my K section in mind as it applies to them. You should be topical and you MUST specify an actor within the resolution. Technically its not impossible to get me to vote for an untopical aff, but you should be relevant enough to be able to pretend you're topical, and defending yourself as such, or at least that the educational importance of your aff justifies the deviation from the topic. But it needs to at least incorporate some core aspect of the topic, like bare minimum. If you aren't relevant enough to do that, you shouldn't be running this. If you're not heavily involved in the topic, and/or you are refusing to use the USFG, you are blocking your opponent out of the round. Switch side debate is vital for fairness and education and rejecting the USFG cuz its evil is firmly neg ground. This is a game. Without fair rules it devolves into madness and national tournaments where Affs win 90% of their rounds (lookin at you CEDA (yeah that actually happened)). Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, there is always radical lit discussing these issues within the topic, and that radical lit does not preclude USFG usage/topicality as much as everyone thinks it does.

Ultimately running the same thing every round is only robbing yourself of the educational value of switch side debate and learning about the system we are stuck in right now (valuable knowledge for a radical as well). If your opponent does not want to go for the arguments Ive stated preference for here, or doesn't actually win that debate I will still vote for you. It is very easy though to get me to vote on switch side debate good, fairness k2 debate survival. The fairly low number of statism/reject usfg affs does not justify my intervention on this matter, but I will definitely re-evaluate that position if it starts to crowd out topical traditional affs.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT: Roles of the ballot can be used as a great way to open up debate about priorities and whats important. They can also be used to box the neg out of their fair share of ground. The neg should be able to critic it's productiveness and/or work within it. Forcing the neg to run a counterproposal probably means I hate your FW/Role of the Ballot

TOPICALITY: The best way to get my ballot on topicality is a really good brightline and a really good argument on the lost ground and why you should have it. You MUST talk about fairness and education and the topic as a whole. Refer back to General Theory below. If you are going to run it, you should probably mean it.

GENERAL THEORY/PROCEDURALS: In order to vote for a theory/procedural and treat it as a voter I need a clear description of what they did wrong, a brightline/what they should have done instead, and why it matters. It should detail exactly why it is abusive, and how it effects fair/equitable ground and education in this round and debate as a whole. I am not against voting on potential abuse and in fact, you should probably have some examples of it in your impacts. HOWEVER, it is more of an uphill battle.

If all you say is "its abusive and a voter" with no abuse story and no impact on debate as a whole I will not consider it a voter and you couldn't convince me to vote for it even if they drop it. If you can't make a full procedural for whatever reason, don't be afraid to use the word abusive though. It could still make me more likely to drop the arg if you do it right.

Don't rely on the Da Rules. It will eventually come back to haunt you because the rulebook does not distribute ground fairly and is outdated (#sorrynotsorry). Its also a lazy non argument that doesn't develop your critical thinking skills and will lose you speaks.

FLOWING: My flowing capability is decent. I will write everything you say down, and will *probably* put it in the place you want me to, but you should *definitely* be clear about where that is just to be sure. I do not always (or often) catch citations (ya'll mumble them...I did too tho) so you probably shouldn't use just the cite and assume I know exactly which card you are referring to. Tags/Parts of the argument are preferable.

SPEED: I will understand most of what you say no matter how fast you go, but don't push my mediocre flowing to the brink ESPECIALLY if I am flowing on paper. I can only type/write so fast. If I can not understand you its probably an issue of clarity not speed. If I say CLEAR you need to CLEAR. If that requires you to slow down so be it.
You have the right to ask your opponent to slow down, but do not abuse this. I expect you to be able to keep up with above average conversing speed at bare minimum. If you ask someone to slow down, do not dare go any faster than that.

SPEAKS: There is not a very consistent speaker points range in this community. I am probably a bit of a fairy in this regards. Good oration skills will get you higher speaks. Good clear fast talk will get you higher speaks. Making it easy to flow will get you VERY good speaks. Best way to get good speaks is debate well and show you read this paradigm (or at least skimmed it).

My competitive background is mainly in parli, but I judged LD throughout the 17/18 season and have been head coach of an NFA-LD program since 2018.

Debate is ultimately a communication endeavor, and as such, it should be civil and accessible. I don't like speed/spreading. I can handle a moderate amount especially as I follow along with your doc (I want to be included on speechdrop, email chains, etc.), but there are two good ways to know when it's too much: 1) the point at which you’re gasping for air/doing big double breaths or 2) if you have to raise your voice an octave higher to maintain the pace. I will call speed if necessary, ignore it at your own risk. If your opponent asks you not to speed and you spread them out of the round, I will drop you -- even if you won the flow. Same with being rude or disrespectful. Debate is already scary and no one wants to be spoken to like they're stupid. Being a jerk in-round will lose my ballot.

I will vote on anything* (with one exception below). Topicality debates are fine. I don't like when it's used solely as a time skew, but when it is necessary, I want you to engage in the standards debate and make it specific to the round. Warrant your claims, give examples. I don't need proven abuse, but I do need a vision of why your interpretation is better for debate.

I will vote on Ks. I enjoy a good critical argument, but don’t assume I’m familiar with all of your literature. Make the link story clear and specific to the round in the 1NC. I want to hear a well-developed alternative, one that's not super vague. If your alt is essentially just to reject the aff, tell me what that's going to accomplish, impact it out. The role of the ballot is really important for Ks.

My favorite types of rounds are ones that engage in direct clash and cover the flow.

* I will not listen to an 'extinction good' argument. I will submit the ballot for your opponent and leave the room immediately. In addition to just being a bad idea, I find the argument to be violent and inappropriate for the debate space. Enough people (including myself) deal with suicidal ideation on a regular basis and no one should be subjected to that idea for a competitive win. It's gross.

michels.browne@gmail.com

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

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

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

Be smart, be civil, have fun.

Speed/Flowing: Speed is not an issue for me and both sides should be vocal about speeding preferences to each other to prevent abuse. I flow cards using letters so citing your author is not always helpful to me. If you want to bring attention to a particular card, numbers or letters are best.

K/Project Affs/CP's: I need kritical theories spelled out - I do not have in-depth knowledge on every topic and am not nearly as familiar with the topic as you are. CP’s need net solvency.

T/Procedurals/Theory: My T threshold is very high, but again, theories need to be spelled out.

Background: I competed in policy debate for four years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I coached policy debate for seven years, public forum for one year, and LD debate for five years.

Despite my policy background I am committed to the spirit of LD. This means that while you can speak quickly, you should be comprehensible and both debaters should be ok with going fast. I have seen too many debates where a varsity debater unnecessarily spreads out a novice debater.

Topicality is a voting issue. I am unlikely to vote on a reverse voting issue on topicality even if it is dropped. Arguments about why topicality is problematic may be reasons to include your affirmative, but are rarely reasons for you to win the debate. It is probably best in front of me to frame these as expanding the interpretation of what the topic can be, rather than rejecting a topic all together.

The citation rules are so widely disregarded that I would feel uncomfortable enforcing them, especially if there is no conversation between the debaters about reading them prior to the first speech.

Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate. This is not code for I do not vote on theory. I will vote on theory.

Negatives should narrow the debate in their second speech. Pick the arguments you are winning and go in-depth. I will give affirmative’s wide latitude in debate where the negative goes for everything in a messy way. Going for T and substance is usually a mistake, unless one or both are such a clear win that you have extra time (this happens rarely).

Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterplan presumption is up for debate). A negative can sometimes make a persuasive case that the affirmative has to prove solvency, which is a separate issue from presumption.

Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments. I wish I saw more of these types of arguments.

I don’t subscribe to an offense defense paradigm; good defense is in many cases enough, especially with theory debates.

I am increasingly willing to intervene in theory debates. Two speeches does not allow for proper theory development and gives both sides the ability to simply block out every speech. Counterplans like consultation and 50 state fiat require a very low threshold to defeat on theory. I am not a fan of conditional counterproposals in LD. Negative arguments like the affirmative doesn’t get permutations are generally nonstarters.

I will vote on kritiks but prefer them specific to the topic and with a hardy dose of explanation about why it relates to the specific claims of the 1AC. I am not a good judge for generic backfile checks with one card that is semi relevant to the topic area. Some additional clarification. Changes to how the round should be evaluated (moving from the question of the desirability of the policy) need to be made explicitly and early and should include substantive justification about why the change excludes or makes undesirable the aff.

Final speeches need to make choices and clearly identify their path to the ballot. One part of this is the order you present ideas in your speech.

Things that will get you lower speaker points/make it hard for you to win.

1. Be rude to the other team.
2. Not answer or be evasive when answering cross ex questions.
3. Be unclear in CX about the status of counter plans
4. Being unable or unwilling to explain your arguments in CX
5. Read unwarranted/unqualified evidence.

One way to get (perhaps unfairly) good speaker points from me is to be entertaining. Many debaters, who were not the best at debate, but nevertheless were pleasant to watch debate, (being funny, speaking passionately, being nice to their opponents) have received speaker points that would typically fall outside of their skill range.

Background:

I debated LD for Central Michigan University for four years. Wow !

Voting:

This is my first tournament judging so make sure you’re clear about your arguments and where they go on the flow. Speed should be used as a tool not a weapon, please respect your opponents and myself if speed or clear are called during a round.

Best senator wins yayy

I debated for four years at the University of Richmond using a variety of arguments.

My predispositions:

I weigh analytical argument - especially defensive analytical arguments - and evidence indicts higher than most.

I have no particular ideological ax to grind with any kind of argument, but in the past I have been a hard sell on affirmatives refusing to affirm the resolution in any way, but receptive to many different interpretations of the resolution and the topic.

On theoretical/framework arguments I am also hesitant to vote unless teams have been obviously and significantly disadvantaged.

I generally like intrinsicness permutations if they are adequately justified (e.g. do plan and ban the particle accelerator seemed to be to be quite real world and reasonable policy action). Generic arguments why they are bad that do not answer why the specific permutation should be allowed are given little weight.

Other stuff:

I am not an expert at flowing but try my very hardest, those who speak relatively slower and more clearly and are more likely to get their arguments down on my flow.

On speakerpoints I can be a little unpredictable and haven't judged in 3 years, so recent new standards and such and scales are a bit new to me. My aim is for my speakerpoints to not stand out in any way, but over the top rudeness will be punished. Trying to engage the other teams arguments in the most direct and/or clever way will be rewarded.

The California swing tournament is my first on the topic, so presume limited knowledge of the literature.

Years involved in collegiate debate: 35

Debated: NDT policy debate

Coached: NDT, NFA LD, Worlds style BP

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

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

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

I debated at Hillsdale College for 3 years in Parli and NFA LD. I've been judging since 2016, but very sporadically so I'm not as up to date on the norms of the circuit as I once was.

Overall, I try very hard to vote where I'm told to vote in the round. If someone tells me to make a voting issue of something, I will look there first. I will also try to go by the arguments that are made in the round rather than inserting my own opinion into the round. I especially appreciate impact calculus as it helps me figure out how to weigh everything in the round. If I have to make my own decision on how to weigh impacts and which impacts to vote on, you might not like the outcome. I try very hard to go by the flow when I make my decisions.

Speed: I haven't had any issues keeping up in most rounds even with my time out of the circuit, but I'll say speed if you're going to fast or clear if I can't understand you. I also do not approve of speed being used as a way to exclude your opponent (or a lay judge on the panel) from the round.

K's: I'm not hostile to them, but I usually don't understand them very well and won't typically vote on something unless I understand the argument. Imagine trying to explain your K to a toddler or your grandma. I don't have the background in the hefty philosophical arguments, so you'll need to walk me through it if you want me to vote there. I prefer policy alts or a clear role of the ballot.

Procedurals: I've probably got a lower threshold on procedurals than most judges. I don't need proven abuse to vote on them, but if you want to win it then you can't just shadow cover it and extend your violation. You'll need to win on the flow to win the procedural.