3 years of Congress in high school, 4th year collegiate policy debate.

Congress

Present your arguments clearly, articulately, and with a source if possible. DO NOT REHASH PAST SPEECHES. I WILL MARK YOU DOWN FOR IT. Touching on a past speech's point to strengthen your own is fine, but don't just repeat it.

REBUTTAL OF PAST SPEECHES IS HIGHLY ENCOURAGED. Rebuttal should happen as early as the first negative speech. The Session is not a debate without rebuttal. Remember that I have been a policy debater for the last 4 years.

I grade on both presentation and argumentation in Congress. Good use of hand motions and body language will be rewarded.

I love impact calculus. Why is what you're talking about most important in the round? Weigh your impacts against those of the opposing side.

Policy

I am a K debater overall, mostly ran cap, set col, coloniality, black nihilism, and queer theory a la Halberstam. I'm a sucker for good impact analysis. If you have solvency, and your impacts outweigh, you win.

Case Debate

Case debate is wonderful. Use case cards that are consistent with your off-case positions (condo is fine, but be sure they're not contradictory). 2As, explain your aff. If the neg has good case cards they are applying, you need to tell me why they don't apply to your aff or why your aff solves them by EXPLAINING YOUR AFF. Use the 1AC and 1NC extensively through the debate, that's why they're there.

Topicality

I am neutral on topicality. I'll vote for it if you go for it and win your arguments. We meet and counter-interp are not mutually exclusive. Counter-definitions are a powerful tool for the aff.

Theory

You better spend 80% of your last speech on theory if you want me to vote for it. I need substantive reasons why they should lose the round and why any other team doing the same thing should lose the round. If you can't provide those, don't go for theory. I hate theory as a time suck. I think it's indicative of bad debating. Only go for theory if you plan on using it strategically besides as a time suck, please.

Framework

The last time I ran a topical aff was my novice year of policy. Generally, I will vote against framework if both sides are evenly matched on the flow because that's my bias. I will vote for framework if you are winning your arguments. I am generally more persuaded by arguments for education than for fairness, but I think aff answers to education are much stronger than aff answers to fairness (perm you get policy education in every other round definitely solves the education flow). I think structural unfairness is real, but you still have to prove it to me. Neg, tell me why debate will always be structurally unfair regardless of the ability to run atopical affs.

CPs and DAs

Pretty neutral on these. Explain your DA link chain clearly, and explain how the CP solves both the DA and the case. I need you to not use tons of acronyms or general policy-based lingo; I am a K debater, so while my knowledge of US government is still very good, it's probably not wide or deep enough to know what you're talking about from the acronyms in your CP/DA.

Ks

I love the K. I think Baudrillard is much stronger on the aff than the neg, but I think most other Ks are equally strong on either side. I don't like the Death K. I still want real-world impacts to your K. Explain how the alt solves the K. Explain how the alt solves the aff, if you can. If the alt doesn't solve the aff, but solves the K, be sure to explain why the K outweighs the aff. Aff teams, press the neg on their alt. Most neg teams have a really hard time explaining how their alt solves the aff, and sometimes even how it solves the K.

IF YOU ARE PRESSED FOR TIME READ THIS: I am a former debater and coach who loves this activity. Read whatever strategy you want. Be clear. Be kind. Bumping your favorite jams before a round is encouraged (considerately, and within reason).

*****

Background

My debate career spanned from 2012 to 2016. During that time I competed for the University of Florida and served as the Associate Director of Forensics for Oak Hall School (Gainesville, FL). I’ve been “retired” since 2016, but I have judged and researched intermittently since.

My email is evan.j.cartagena@gmail.com. Feel free to email me questions about my paradigm. Please put me on the email chain.

I did some research for OHS before the season began, but I haven't done anything debate related since.

Big Picture

Debate is a communication activity that places a premium on research. Or maybe it’s the other way around. Either way, evidence quality matters. So does oratory skill. Thinking is important too. Use that big brain of yours! CX matters.

Speed is fine, but not at the expense of clarity. Slowing down for emphasis is not a bad thing, especially if you are reading your plan text, 5-plank counterplan, or multisyllabic alternative.

Write the ballot for me. Give me a basis for deciding the debate in front of me, and tell me why I should decide it in your favor. I am not picky about how you do this. I prefer—but certainly don’t require—that the topic play some role.

As far as strategy goes, do what you do best. I am equally happy judging technical debate about government policy as I am judging debates about high theory. There are two caveats to this. First, topicality may not be your best bet because my knowledge of the topic is limited. Second, jargon is always bad, regardless if it's from a think tank hack or dense postmodernist. Please keep in mind that my knowledge of the literature base may not be as deep as yours. Regular debate jargon is fine.

Please be nice to your opponents, and please look at me because I tend to wear the ballot on my eyebrows.

Specifics

I have some predispositions, but predisposition does not mean “Truth.” I will list them here so that you can adapt or overcome.

- Solvency (specifically, the "how" and "why") matters;

- Judge kick is whack (I'm happy to kick the CP for you but at least explain why that's good for debate);

- Alternative solvency doesn’t matter if the kritik turns case;

- “Cheating” (e.g., weird CP's, stealing 1AC's etc.) is fine, but you'll need a substantive (i.e., researched) defense of it;

- Counter-permutations don’t make sense;

- The role of the ballot is to vote for the team who does the better debating.

- Framework operates as a CP/DA strategy, and it is a viable strategy at least some “non-traditional” affirmatives;

- Conditionality is probably good, but probably abusive after a certain point;

- There is a meaningful difference between "Competing Interpretations" and "Reasonability."

Good luck and have fun!

Procedurals:

 T-I have no artificial threshold on topicality. I will vote on abuse. Typically, cross x checks back on T.

 Ks-framwork is paramount and the alternative. Please do not run "Vote Neg" as the sole alternative. There

      should be more thought on the alt.

 Speed. I have a high school and college policy background. I coached CEDA from 93-00 and coach NPDA, parli style

  from 01-present

  Counterplans--PICS are fine. Agent CPS are fine. In the end, I am tabula rasa and will default to impact calc to resolve plan debate

  Das--uniqueness is key. Internal links are important. Please watch double turning yourself in the 2AC. I do not like performative contradictions and will vote against them

 Performance/Project-I am progressive and liberal here. Run it and defend it. If you are on the other side, debate it straight up. A counter-performance is a legit strategy.

Have fun. I dislike rude debaters. I will vote on language abuse if a team calls it (ex: sexist, racist, etc lang)

General Judging Philosophy

• Speed: I'm usually okay with speed, so I'm okay with you spreading, but you need to articulate. I will yell, "Clear!" as necessary, but not repeatedly.
• Flowing: I have no problem with this, but it would be helpful if you emphasized your tag lines so that I can clearly delineate your arguments. Also, it helps if you pause between the end of your card and the beginning of your own analysis so that I know where your source's words end and yours begin.
• Topicality: I will accept topicality arguments only if there's (1) clear abuse established and (2) it's presented as a clear RFD in the 2NR in Policy or the NR in LD.
• Kritiks: I hate kritiks. Please don't run them.
• Research Burden: I despise the argument that, because it's hard to do research, you shouldn't be expected to be prepared on the AFF case. It's a waste of my time and your opponent's. You will lose if you seriously push this argument.
• Rebuttals: The 2NR and 2AR in Policy, the NR and 2AR in LD, and the Final Focuses in PF need to have clearly delineated voting issues.
• Off-Case/Disadvantages: These are fine only if they are presented clearly and are related directly to the topic and/or AFF case; I will not necessarily accept them as prima facie voters.
• Jargon: Shouldn't be an issue, but it might behoove you to lay our your argument with as little as possible.
• Cross-Ex/Crossfire: Please use cross-examination time to set yourself up for arguments in future speeches, and not to make stump speeches of your own. Please also avoid using prep time before cross-examination. I will not penalize you for failing to do these things, but you will make me much happier if you do.

Policy Debate Judging Philosophy

• Criteria: Stock issues. The AFF needs to identify: (1) inherency, or, that a problem exists in the status quo; (2) significance, or, that the problem inherent in the status quo warrants action by the United States federal government; (3) solvency, or, that the proposed plan solves the significantly inherent problem; and, (4) desirability, or, that the proposed plan is the most desirable means of solving the significantly inherent problem. The NEG may attack any and/or all of these, but need only win one in order to win the round.

L-D Judging Philosophy

• Criteria: Framework. The AFF needs to define key terms in the resolution and have a clearly established, well-warranted framework, with contentions that advance that framework, in order to win. If the AFF shows that its framework best encapsulates the issues implicated by the resolution - more so than the NEG's counter-value - then the AFF wins the debate.

PF Judging Philosophy

I was around when Public Forum was first invented, and perhaps it is for that reason that I consider myself an "old school" PF judge. I don't even feel like I should have to spell out a PF judging philosophy.

I frown on the use of a Policy/LD style framework in PF cases. Ultimately, my PF judging philosophy is similar to the question that the NFL proposes that judges use in evaluating PF rounds: "If I had no prior beliefs about this resolution, would the round as a whole have made me more likely to believe the resolution was true or not true?" Historically, I have found that the answer to that question typically rests on one argument that is primarily contested throughout the debate.

Basically, treat the round as PF was intended: communicate your arguments in a manner persuasive to the non-specialist or "citizen judge," i.e. a member of an American jury. If you think that you could persuade a lay judge with your case, then you'll persuade me.

Student Congress Judging Philosophy

Again, this is an event for which I don't feel as though a judging philosophy should be necessary. This is a mixed speech and debate event, and I therefore place equal emphasis on the speech and debate portions of the event.

In terms of the speech aspects, I am looking for, e.g., eye contact, facial expressions, body language, variation of tone and pitch - really, all of the hallmarks of a good orator.

For the debate aspects, I understand the purpose and nature of constructive, refutation/rebuttal, extension, and crystallization speeches, and expect you to fulfill your intended purpose(s). As noted in my "General" comments above, speakers best use their questioning time to set themselves up for a future speech, and not to make stump speeches or score points of their own.

For presiding officers, I truly appreciate how difficult this role is, so an able performance is guaranteed a spot on my rankings. In determining where on my ballot, I measure the P.O.'s value in the round against the contribution of the speaker to the round; if the P.O.'s value outweighs that of the given speaker, then I rank the P.O. higher than that speaker.

Basically, there's nothing here that you should surprise you if you read other judges' Student Congress paradigms. If you know how this event is supposed to work, and conduct yourself accordingly, then I'm sure you'll be fine as far as I'm concerned.

About Me

_____Professional Experience_____

• Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York, New York
  Principal Appellate Court Attorney, November 2021 - Present
  Senior Appellate Court Attorney, May 2018 - November 2021
• Hausman & Pendzick, Harrison, New York
  Associate, February 2015 - May 2018
  Law Clerk, December 2014 - February 2015

_____Education_____

• Juris Doctor, 2014, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, New York
  Concentrations in Constitutional Law & Rights, General Litigation, and Criminal Law & Procedure
• Bachelor of Arts cum laude, 2011 Florida Atlantic University, Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, Jupiter, Florida
  Concentrations in Law & Society and Spanish
• High School & International Baccalaureate Diplomas, Eastside High School, Gainesville, Florida

_____Debate Background_____

__________Professionally__________

• Professional Speech & Debate Association (Professional Division)
• Prepared Debate - First Place (Season 3, Qualifier 1)
• Spontaneous Debate - Fourth Place (Season 3, Qualifier 1), Third Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 1 and 3; Season 2, Qualifier 3), Second Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 2 and 5, and Championship; Season 2, Qualifier 1 and 4), and First Place (Season 1, Qualifier 4; Season 2, Qualifier 2 and 5, and Championship)
• Prepared Speech - Third Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 1 and 2, and Championship; Season 2, Championship), Second Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 3, 4, and 5), and First Place (Season 2, Qualifier 2, 3, 4, and 5)
• Spontaneous Speech - Third Place (Season 1, Championship; Season 3, Qualifier 1), Second Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; Season 2, Qualifier 3), and First Place (Season 2, Qualifier 1, 4 and 5, and Championship)
• Prepared Acting - Third Place (Season 1, Qualifier 4, and Championship; Season 2, Qualifier 1), Second Place (Season 1, Qualifier 3; Season 2, Qualifier 2, and Championship) and First Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 2 and 5)
• Toastmasters International - District 46
• Goodwill Toastmasters Club (Rotary-Toastmasters Alliance) (member since March 1, 2022; Vice President Education, July 2022 - June 2023): Presentation Mastery Level 3
• La Voz Latina Toastmasters Club (Bilingual English/Spanish Club) (member since July 1, 2022)
• Advanced Debaters Toastmasters Club (advanced Toastmasters Club, specializing in debate) (member since July 1, 2022)

__________Law School__________

• Competitions Editor (2013-2014), Moot Court Honor Society (2012-2014), Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, New York

_______________Moot Court_______________

• Quarterfinalist and Second Place Brief, Jerome Prince Memorial Evidence Competition, Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York, March 2014
• Second Place, Appellate Lawyers Association National Moot Court Competition, Chicago, Illinois, November 2013
• Second Place and Second Place Oralist, Appellate Lawyers Association National Moot Court Competition, Chicago, Illinois, November 2012

__________College__________

• Founder and President (2007-2011), Debate Team, Florida Atlantic University, Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, Jupiter, Florida

_______________Parliamentary Debate_______________

• Semifinalist and Runner-Up Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, February 2011
• Champion and Champion Speaker, Marks Invitational, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida, January 2011
• Champion and 5th Place Speaker, Star Invitational, Florida State College at Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, November 2010
• Runner-Up Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, Florida, February 2010
• Semifinalist and Champion Speaker, Marks Invitational, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida, January 2010
• State Champion and State Champion Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida Southern College, Lakeland, Florida, February 2009
• Octafinalist and National Champion Speaker, Novice National Championship, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida, March 2008
• Runner-Up and Runner-Up Speaker, DSR-TKA National Championship, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, March 2008
• Runner-Up Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, February 2008
• Runner-Up Speaker, Star Invitational, Florida Community College at Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, November 2007

_______________NFA Lincoln-Douglas Debate (not the same as high school L-D!)_______________

• Champion and Champion Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, February 2011
• Champion and Champion Speaker, Star Invitational, Florida State College at Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, November 2010
• Champion, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, Florida, February 2010
• Champion and Champion Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida Southern College, Lakeland, Florida February 2009

__________High School__________

• Captain (2006-2007), Webmaster (2005-2007), PowerPoint Producer (2004-2006), Forensics (Speech & Debate) Team, Eastside High School, Gainesville, Florida

_______________Student Congress (selected)_______________

• Finalist, National Catholic Forensic League Grand National Championship, Houston, Texas, May 2007
• Fifth Place, Florida Forensic League Varsity State Championship, Niceville High School, Niceville, Florida, March 2007
• Second Place, Crestian Classic, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, January 2007
• Seventh Place and Best Preliminary Presiding Officer, Florida Blue Key Speech & Debate Tournament, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, October 2006
• Fourth Place, Winter Springs Invitational, Winter Springs, Florida, September 2006
• Semifinalist, Florida Forensic League Varsity State Championship, Western High School, Davie, Florida, March 2006

Judge Paradigm for Frank Irizarry, Suffolk University

Name: Frank Irizarry

Email:firizarry@suffolk.edu

College: Suffolk University

Current Profession: Professor/Debate Coach

Judging for: Suffolk University Debate / The Boston Debate League

My experience:

I was a CEDA debater at Marist College (1989-1993) and I coached at the college level for 15 years (Northern Illinois University, Syracuse University, Pace University, University of Florida, Suffolk University). I have been actively involved with the Boston Debate League for the last 14 years and I judge periodically for the BDL. I have judged policy debate for a long time.

After a 14 year "sabbatical" from coaching, I am back coaching college debate for Suffolk University. I am looking forward to this next act in my debate journey.

I am fairly open to whatever debaters want to do stylistically in a debate round. I wasn't always like that but time away gives you some perspective and I realize that this activity belongs to the debaters so I try to create minimal interference in their argument/advocacy strategy.

If you'd like to know about my thoughts on the typical things debaters generally like to ask about, here goes:

Rate of Delivery: You need to slow it down a bit. The hand speed is not what it once was. Additionally, when you are reading blocks of analytics, it is difficult for me to catch everything that you said. Also, the way some debaters underline/highlight their cards doesn't make sense to me as I'm listening to the debate. And I am listening. I actually try to flow and not just construct the round from your speech docs.

Start of the Debate: You do not have to countdown "3..2..1." You're getting ready to read the 1AC, not launch a rocket ship into space."

Quantity of Arguments: I prefer a few well developed arguments but if your strategy involves making lots of arguments early in the debate, so be it.

I am willing to vote on: Topicality, Counterplans, Generic Disadvantages, Conditional Negative Positions, Debate Theory Arguments, Critical Arguments.

I am probably in the minority here but I dislike multiple counterplans in a debate. I think it makes for bad debate. I have voted for teams reading multiple CP's but it never makes me happy.

Ultimately, I like well reasoned arguments, a defense of those arguments and clash on the arguments in the debate.

I dislike rudeness directed toward me or your opponent.

If you have any questions, just ask!

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

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

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and are their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

I am currently an assistant debate coach with both Montgomery Bell Academy and George Mason University. This is my 15th year in policy debate.

I use he/him pronouns.

Last updated: 1/31/2024

Please put me on the email chain & make me an ev doc at the end of the debate. NJL1994@gmail.com.

Set up and send out the 1AC 10 minutes before the debate begins. Please avoid downtime during debates. If you do both of these things without me needing to say anything (send out the 1AC 10 minutes early + avoid downtime) you'll get higher speaker points.

If I'm judging you online, please slow down a bit and emphasize clarity more than normal.

Top level things:

I think about debate in terms of risk (does the risk of the advantage being true outweigh the risk of the disad being true?). I am willing to vote on presumption, particularly when people say really ridiculous stuff or people's cards are highlighted to say nothing.

I like specificity, nuance, and for you to sound smart. If you sound like you've done research and you know what's going on, I'm likely to give you great points. Being specific, having nuances, and explaining your distinctions is the easiest way to get my ballot.

Judge direction is a lost art. If you win the argument that you're advancing, why should it matter? What does this mean for the debate? What does it mean for your arguments or the other team's arguments? This is the number one easiest way to win my (and really anyone's) ballot in a debate. Direct your judges to think a certain way, because if you don't, your judges are likely to go rogue and decide things that make sense to them but not to you. So impact your arguments and tell me what to do with them. I think it's way more valuable to do that than include one more tiny argument and almost certainly the easiest way to get me to overcome any predispositions.

Decorum is very important to me. If your strategy is to belittle, upset, talk down to, yell at, escalate, curse at, or otherwise be rude or mean to your opponents, then you can expect me to give you terrible speaker points. I also reserve the right to end the debate early if I find the behavior particularly atrocious or potentially threatening to anyone in the room. I am very uninterested in the “I know what you did last summer” strategy or any personal attacks. You certainly don't have to be best friends with your opponents, but I do expect a sense of cordiality when engaging your opponents and their arguments.

"The existence of speech time limits, the assumption that you will not interrupt an opponent's speech intentionally, and the fact that I (and not you) will be signing a ballot that decides a winner and loser is non-negotiable." (taken verbatim from Shree Awsare).

I am incredibly uncomfortable adjudicating things that did not occur in the debate I am watching. Please do not ask me to judge based on something that didn’t happen in the round. I am likely to ignore you.

High school debaters in particular: I have consistently noticed over the past few years of judging that I vote for the team whose arguments I understand. If I cannot connect the dots, I'm not going to vote for you. This goes equally for kritikal and policy debaters. Most of my decisions in high school debates come down to this, and I will tell you that your argument makes no sense in my RFD.

How I decide debates:

First: who solves what?-- does the aff solve its impacts, and (assuming it's in the 2NR) does the negative's competitive advocacy solve its own impacts and/or the aff? In framework debates, this means the first questions I resolve are "does the aff solve itself?" and "does the TVA solve the aff sufficiently?"

Second: Who’s impact is bigger? This is the most important question in the debate. Do impact calculus.

Third: Whatever you have told me matters. Because I have started with solvency & impact calculus questions, everything else is always filtered along those lines (including framework/role of the ballot/role of the judge).

Other misc things:

1. A dropped argument is a true argument but it needs to be a complete argument to begin with or I will likely allow people new answers. For example, this epidemic with high schoolers reading aspec on the bottom of T flows to hide it: if it’s so quick I didn’t catch it in the 1NC, the 1AR gets all the new args they want. Additionally, an argument is not just a claim and a warrant, but a claim, warrant, and reasoning. In other words, your warrant needs to be connected to your claim in order for it to be an argument.

2. I am very flowcentric. Do not ask me to not flow, because I won't listen. Please do line-by-line. If you don't, I'll be frustrated and less likely to buy new extrapolations of arguments. Your speaker points will definitely drop if you don't do line-by-line. I do not like overviews ("overviews are evil"-- one of my labbies; "flowing is good for your health" -- another one of my labbies).

3. Show me that you care. Show me that you know things, that you've done research on this topic, that you want to win, and that debate matters to you. I love this activity and if you also love it I want to know that.

4. Judge kicking makes sense to me but I frequently forget about it, so if you want me to judge kick something you should tell me so in the block/2NR.

5. Cards and highlighting: Teams should get to insert rehighlightings of the other team's cards, but obviously should have to read cards if they're new/haven't been introduced into the debate yet. Two offshoots of this-- 1. You should insert rehighlightings of other team's cards if they suck 2. You should read cards that don't suck.

I do not follow along with speech docs during debates.

Please highlight your ev so it reads as complete sentences. This does not mean that I need you to highlight complete sentences, but if you are brick highlighting, I want to be able to read highlighted portions of your ev as complete sentences—it flows better to me. IE don't skip the letter "a" or the words "in" or "the." Just a random pet peeve.

If you do not have a complete citation or at least a full paragraph from your evidence I will not evaluate what you've said as evidence. Cherrypicked quotes with no context are not evidence.

I tend to not read a lot of cards after the debate unless things are highly technical or I think the debaters aren’t explaining things well. That being said, I’ll likely read at least some cards. Please put together a card doc for me.

6. Debaters parroting their partners: I usually just flow what the partner said. That, obviously, only exists within reason (you don’t get to give a third speech in a debate, but you can interrupt your partner to say something and I will flow it).

7. New 2AR args are bad for debate. I consciously hold the line against them as much as I can. I as a 2N feel as if I got a few decisions where a judge voted aff on an arg that didn't exist until the 2AR and it's the most frustrating. You can expect me to try to trace lines between args in earlier & later speeches. However, if I think the argument they're making is the true argument or a logical extrapolation of something said in the 1AR, I'm more likely to buy it. 2As-- this means if you're gonna do some 2A magic and cheat, you should trick me into thinking that you're not cheating.

Some specifics:

Disads: I’m better for the smart DAs than the silly ones, but I understand the value of bad DAs and will vote for them. I will likely reward you with higher speaker points if I think I understand your story really well and/or you have some cool/unique spin on it. I am fine with logical take outs to DAs that don’t require cards (especially if there’s some logic missing internally in the DA). Don’t just read new cards in the block or 1AR, explain your args (although also read new cards obviously).

I really do not understand how the economy works. I'm sorry. I've really tried to get it, but I just don't. You absolutely can go for econ DAs and/or econ case turns in front of me, but please be extra careful to explain (in lots of detail!) what you're arguing here.

Theory, CPs, and K Alternatives: I put these pieces together because my thoughts on these three args blend together.

Competition is determined off the plantext, not off cross-x, nor off the resolution. PICs & PIKs are only competitive if they PIC/PIK out of something in the plantext. I do not believe that you get to PIC/PIK out of a justification or non-plantext based word. The only way I will ever be convinced otherwise is if the aff allows you to do so.

Condo: It’s good. “They should get one less CP” is an arbitrary interp and makes no sense. The phrase "dispo solves" at the end of your bad 2AC condo block is not an argument and I will not be writing it down on my flow. I will vote on this if it's dropped, but I'm pretty persuaded by neg flex and education-style args.

"Performative Contradictions" is a term of art that has been bastardized to no end by debate. You're either saying the neg has double turned themselves or you're saying conditionality is bad; in my mind, perf con is not even worthy of being written on my flow.

Particular Theory: I’m better for this than most judges (and MUCH more persuaded by it than condo). States theory, international fiat, consult/condition, vague alts, utopian alts, etc—I have gone for all of these and actively coach my debaters to do the same. My predisposition is to reject the arg not the team, but I can be persuaded to reject the team on non-condo theory args (you should introduce the arg as reject the team in the 2AC, not CX, if you want this to be an option).

Theory can be a reason you get to make a cheating perm.

Counterplans/alternatives that use aff evidence as solvency advocates are awesome.

If the CP/alt links less I think it makes sense that I prefer it, but make that arg yourself because I won’t make it for you.

Case: I love love love case debate. You should make logical extrapolations that take out the internal link chains and make me question how the advantage makes sense. The block should read more cards but feel free to make logical case take outs without cards. I don't think you should have to go for impact defense to beat advantages-- uniqueness and internal link take outs are almost always the easier place to attack advantages. I tend to prefer a well-developed take out to the death by a thousand cuts strategy.

Affs-- 2NR that don't do well-developed case debate are generally overwhelmed by your "try or die"/"case outweighs"/"1% chance of solvency" args.

Topicality: I'm getting better for this as a strategy lately than I used to be. I do still generally think that it's about the plantext, but can be persuaded that I should think of the plantext in the context of the 1AC. Topicality is only ever a voter, not a reverse voter. I’m not great for silly/arbitrary T interps (I am very persuaded by the arg that these interps are arbitrary).

Kritiks: I like Ks that care about people and things. I'm optimistic to a fault. I certainly believe that things are still terrible for billions of beings, but it's hard to convince me that everything in the world is so absolutely irredeemable.

Your long overview is actively bad for debate and you will not change my mind.

Make your K interact with the affirmative. I want your links to be about the result of the aff as opposed to just the reading of the aff. Fiat bad links are bad. Your "state is always bad" links are slightly better, but also terrible. Don't just explain your theory of how power works, explain how the action of the aff is bad according to your theory of power.

I think that I am worse for structuralist style kritiks than I used to be for two reasons: 1) I feel more so that I want you to be responding to the action of the aff than I used to 2) I generally study poststructuralism and queer theory. I read a lot of Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler.

Grad school has taught me that theory is way more complex than I used to think it was. I will get annoyed if I know that you’re deploying the theory wrong. I'm not good for things like "death good," "meaning doesn't mean anything," or "language is meaningless" because I don't think those are questions even worth asking.

I have read some literature about antiblackness academically and have read a bit more from a debate standpoint. I would not call myself an expert by any means in this literature, but I do understand some of it better than I used to. I am still unwilling to fill in those blanks for you if you are lacking them (ex-- just saying the words "yes antiblackness ontological, natal alienation proves" is not an argument in my mind).

99.99% of the time I will entirely ignore your framework/role of the ballot args when you're going for the K against a topical aff. There's a high chance that I will just stare at you and not flow during your incredibly long and generic 2NC/2NR framework block on your K. I am serious, I may not even waste the ink in my pen flowing this. I do not know how to decide debates unless I'm weighing the merits of the aff against the merits of the K. For example, if the aff is an object of study, then to evaluate that object of study I have to weigh the aff's consequences. You are better off just saying "yes the aff can weigh the plan, we'll just beat it" in front of me. This also means that the role of the ballot/judge is only ever to vote for whoever did the better debating in every round I judge.

“Perms are a negative argument” and “method v method debate means no perms” are both not arguments. Despite judging for however long I have, I still do not know what a "method v method debate" even is or why it's different than every other debate. I will not write these words on my flow.

I also generally do not find the "voting for us gives us more wins/sends us to elims" as a solvency mech persuasive or that "X thing done in the debate is policing/surveillance/violence" (other than actual/physical policing/surveillance/violence) to be persuasive.

Ultimately, I evaluate K debates just like I evaluate policy debates. Technical line by line is key. Explain your args well. Put the debate together. Don't ignore the other side.

2NRs on the K that include case debate (with some level of internal link/impact defense; not just your security K cards on case) are substantially more persuasive to me.

Framework against non-topical affs: you should also read my section on Ks (right above this one) as well.

Framework is a strategy and it makes a lot of sense as a strategy. Just like every other strategy, you should try to tailor it to be as specific to the aff as you possibly can. For example, how does this particular aff make it impossible for you to debate? What does it mean for how debate looks writ-large? What's the valuable topic education we could have had from a topical discussion of this aff in particular? Same basic idea goes for when you’re answering generic aff args—the generic “state always bad” arg is pretty easily beaten by nuanced neg responses in front of me. The more specific you are, the more likely I am to vote for you on framework and the more likely I am to give you good speaks.

Stop reading huge overviews. They’re bad for debate. Your points will suffer. Do line by line. Be a good debater and stop being lazy. The amount of times I have written something like "do line by line" in this paradigm should really tell you something about how I think about debate.

I do not find truth testing/"ignore the aff's args because they're not T" very persuasive. I think it's circular & requires judge intervention.

I do, however, think that fairness/limits/ground is an impact and that it is the most important standard in a T debate.

T and/or framework is not genocide, nor is it ever rape, nor is it a microaggression, nor is it real literal violence against you or anyone else.

I’m a sucker for a good topical version. Teams seem to want to just laundry list potential TVAs and then say "idk, maybe these things let them discuss their theory". I believe that strategy is very easily beaten by a K team having some nuanced response. It makes way more sense to me if the TVA is set up almost like a CP-- it should solve a majority or all of the aff. If you set it up like that and then add the sufficiency framing/"flaws are neg ground" style args I'm WAY more likely to buy what you have to say (this goes along with the whole "I like nuance and specificity and you to sound like you're debating the merits of the aff" motif that I've had throughout my paradigm-- it applies to all debaters).

I oftentimes wonder how non-topical affs solve themselves. The negative should exploit this because I do feel comfortable voting neg on presumption. However, I won’t ever intervene to vote on presumption. That’s an argument that the debaters need to make.

Non-topical affs should have nuance & do line by line as well. Answer the neg’s args, frame the debate, and tell me why your aff in particular could not have been topical. You HAVE to have a defense of your model and not just say that framework is bad or else I will probably vote neg on presumption. The same basic idea applies here as it does everywhere else: the more generic you are, the more likely I am to vote against you.

Garbage/Hidden Stuff/Tricks: Nope. New affs are good, hiding aspec makes you a coward, death is bad, free will exists and I don't care if it doesn't. Make better arguments.

Cross-ex: I am becoming increasingly bored and frustrated with watching how this tends to go down. Unless I am judging a novice debate, questions like "did you read X card" or "where did you mark Y card" are counting as parts of cross-x. I tend to start the timer for cross-ex pretty quickly after speeches end (obviously take a sec to get water if you need to) so pay attention to that.

I pay attention & listen to CX but I do not flow it. Have a presence in CX & make an impact. I am listening.

Speaker points-- I do my best to moderate these based on the tournament I'm at and what division I'm in. That being said, I won’t lie—I am not a point fairy.

I will grant extra speaker points to people who number their arguments and correctly/aptly follow the numbering that has been established in the debate.

Paraphrasing from Shree Awsare-- I will not give you a 30.

29.8-- Top speaker
29.2-29.5-- You really impressed me and I expect you to be deep in the tournament
29-- I think you deserve to clear
28.3-- Not terrible but not super impressive
27.5-- Yikes
I will award the lowest possible points for people who violate the basic human dignities that people should be afforded while debating (e.g., non-black people don't say the N word).

I've also been known to give 20s to people who don't make arguments. I will not be giving you a 30; nobody gives a perfect speech.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the debate begins, or send me an email. I also do seriously invite conversation about the debate after it occurs-- post-rounds are oftentimes the most valuable instantiation of feedback, the best way to get better at debate, and important for improving intellectually. I know that post-rounds sometimes get heated, and I think we all get defensive sometimes when we're being pressed on things we've said (or think we've said) so I will likely consciously try to take deep breaths and relax if I feel myself getting heated during these times. This also means that I may take a second to respond to your questions because I am thinking. I also might take awkward pauses between words-- that's not because I don't think your question is important, I'm just trying to choose my words carefully so I can correctly convey my thoughts. I only post this here because I don't want anyone to feel like they're being attacked or anything for asking questions, and I apologize in advance if anything I say sounds like that.

Ethics Challenge Addendum:

I would strongly discourage ethics challenges in all but the most extreme instances. I don't want to adjudicate them, you don't want to be the team who makes the challenge, etc. If you notice something is wrong, please contact coaches and/or debaters and try to fix the problem rather than making it a challenge in round.

An ethics challenge is not a no-risk option for me. That is, when an ethics challenge is issued, the debate ends. I will clarify that the team issuing the challenge has issued one and then end the debate and adjudicate the challenge. I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward then and there. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances.

An ethics challenge may be issued along one of three lines: either you have accused the other team of clipping cards, of misciting evidence, or of misrepresenting evidence. Nothing else will be considered an ethics challenge for me.

Clipping cards is defined as claiming to have read more or less of the evidence than one actually has. Please note that I do not follow along with evidence as the debate is occurring. Missing a single word/a few words is not enough. I will decide what constitutes enough of the card to be considered clipping.

Misciting evidence is understood as providing the incorrect author and/or date as well as missing the first author, source of publication, and date (at least the year). Please note that putting something like "the New York Times" instead of "Nate Silver" is acceptable for an authorship. Source of publication can be broad (article title, URL, book title). If the article is easily accessible, then it is acceptable. Again, I will determine what constitutes an incomplete or miscited citation if this becomes a relevant question.

I do not consider missing credentials to be unethical but I do consider those pieces of evidence to be incredibly weak.

Misrepresenting evidence is understood as inserting evidence which is missing lines or paragraphs within the parts of the initial article/book being read. So, for example, if you want to read the first and third paragraph from an article, you must leave the second paragraph in the evidence you read in the debate. This means that, for me, ellipses to indicate that parts of the card are missing or stating something like “pages 4-5 omitted” is unethical. Cards need to be full paragraphs.

Providing a single quote from a book or an article is not a card. As such, I will not consider it as you having introduced evidence and it is not unethical for me. However, not providing full paragraph pieces of evidence means your argument is substantially weaker for me (because, again, then you have not read evidence).

I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances. Please note that I will take this seriously; an ethics challenge is not something to be debated out in a round.

The speaker points I will give are as follows: 28.6 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I vote for, 28.5 for the 1^st speaker of the team I vote for, 28.4 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I do not vote for, 28.3 for the 1^st speaker of the team I do not vote for. My assumption in the event of an ethics violation is that you made an honest mistake and that you were not intentionally cheating. I do not understand ethics challenges to be the equivalent of academic dishonesty or worthy of any punishment besides my ballot being cast in that particular debate (I do not hold these challenges against you in future rounds nor do I believe that you should be in trouble with your debate coaches or schools).

Please note that what I have written here is designed for varsity debate only; that is, when judging novice and JV debates, I will be more lenient and talk through what's going on with the students and, depending on the situation, allow the debate to continue.

These are thoughts that are still evolving for me as I talk with more people. Please bear with me as I continue to think this out. (Also note that this caveat goes along well with the first statement in this section: I would prefer you not introduce an ethics violation unless it is a serious issue in that particular debate).

Please also note that these rules do not apply to my standards for threatening violence against another debater (physical or otherwise) or hurling slurs at your opponent. I will immediately end the round and give the lowest speaker points that Tab will allow me to in that situation.

Debated for Liberty University.

Current: University of Florida

Yes email chain: josiahmacumber@gmail.com

TLDR: Do not feel the need to adapt to my preferences I will do my best to judge fairly. Be persuasive and tell me why arguments are important. Dropped arguments are true arguments, but you need to still explain them and why they matter.

Speaking Preferences:

Slow down on analytics people can only write/type so fast, so slow down if you want me to flow it all. Same applies for theory arguments.

I do not have a concrete method for assigning speaker points. That being said things that help are: clarity, volume (not a big fan of barely being able to hear someone), cross ex (good questions/good answers), and strategic decisions.

K: Have a specific link to plan action/reps/epistemology makes it a lot easier to win instead of generic state links- those are cool and all, but at least contextualize it. Many times bad link debating is done so that the link explanation could have been read against any affirmative on any topic. Those are bad ways of explaining a link and it should be articulated in context of the round that is being had. That can take a variety of forms such as reading through the other team's evidence and pulling quotes that prove your link argument or the logic of the link. It could also take the form of using the answers that other teams provide in cross ex. Each link should have it's own unique impact and it would behoove you to explain how the link turns the case.

Framing for these debates is essential and direction is key for what to prioritize. It's nice to win the alternative, but I don't think it's necessary. IF you are not going for the alternative make it clear otherwise I will evaluate the perm and whether the alt can overcome the instances of the links.

CP: A good CP and DA combo is a solid option for the 2NR. I also enjoy well thought out PIC's. CP's don't necessarily need evidence, but it is preferred (solvency advocate theory is probably a good arg against this).

Maybe it's just me, but after a team spreads through the planks and card for a CP I am still somewhat unsure what it does. Explanation is important in terms of explaining how it solves and why it is different from the affirmative.

DA: Explain it well and it's interaction with the case. You need to do the analysis of why it outweighs the case or turns it. Do comparative evidence analysis and provide reasons why their evidence is not as warranted or does not really answer the DA and tell me why your evidence is better. That does not mean "our ev post dates by 3 days so it's better", but rather "our evidence analyzes long term trends through X method that provides a predictive claim, and their's is an opinion article".

T: Not really a big T expert, so explanation is key.

Generally I believe that over limiting is better than under limiting due to in depth research providing better education. Provide a coherent view of what the topic would look like without the limit that you set on it versus what the affirmative justifies when you are impacting out the T debate. That could include a case list that they justify that explodes research burdens or specific ground loss. You do not have to win in round abuse. Just impact it out well and you should be good.

Analyze the other teams evidence and make smart args against it. I think that is specifically true in the context of things like T subs (some ev makes claims of what substantial is not, but does not set a standard for what is substantial).

Framework: Strategic and I vote on it. However, I think that there are a few different ways to do it that are less offensive / more strategic. Top level winning that debate is a game probably means that fairness is an impact, but that work needs to be done. If education is the impact you are going for there must be good reasons why policy education is desirable or better than critical education. I think it is less strategic to make arguments like "our education spills over and we can one day do _____ to change the system"... that relies on a notion of spill over from policy education. If that is true, why then does that spillover not apply to the affirmative and their method/epistemology?

Theory: Dropped theory arguments are pretty easy to vote on, so don't drop them. Provide a reason why the abuse outweighs any other possible impact and make it a big deal. Just don't blaze through it and expect to win even if it was dropped.

-Policy AFF's: Tell a coherent story and do good impact calculus. Often times teams forget to do that and it's a super important part of the last rebuttals. If you are reading a hard right AFF I find it is better to just stick with it and go for util/death outweighs. I really do think it's more strategic against the criticism to go hard right.

-K AFF's: I think there is a great value to critical affirmatives. Just be prepared for the framework debate and explain why your model of debate is better or have disads to their model. I find it very helpful when critical affirmative provide examples and have in depth historical knowledge about their theory. In addition, providing examples of things the aff could do or would do helps to materialize some of the theory that can make it easier to grasp especially if it is not a literature base I am familiar with.

I typically find that most teams are not ready to defend the entirety of their aff, so if you are negative against a K aff I think that a well developed PIK argument and some case arguments are rather strategic.

There is no single way to my ballot and there are often a variety of strategies that can work in the debate. Be smart and strategic... I often find that the debates I enjoy the most are guided by bold choices from the debaters.

Be nice to other debaters. That doesn't mean you can't be witty or funny just be respectful of others. I think debate is a great activity to make new friends and to enjoy yourself. There is no need to take yourself and other people too seriously, creating a fun environment to debate in makes debates 100% more enjoyable. Jokes are also appreciated. On second thought... maybe don't.

Been out of debate for a while so please do not use your top speed with me - if I don’t understand an argument as it was presented in the speech I won’t vote on it

ashwinmathi at gmail dot com

Very comfortable with

1. Deleuze

2. Well structured phil

3. Well structured theory

*Pretty comfortable with*

1. Baudrillard

2. LARP

3, Other K debate

*Misc*

1. I don’t have hard defaults so if an argument or paradigm issue is particularly key to your strategy pls explicitly defend it

2. I would like to say I’m tech over truth but the truthier something is to me, the easier it is for me to flow and use the argument in a decision.

3. I am willing to forego as many norms of debate as the debaters want or as is sufficiently argued in round

For extra speaks

1. meaningfully express a change in the world you want to see

2. express emotions (be funny or angry or whatever) in a way that amplifies your message

3. send rebuttal speech docs and analytics to the whole chain if you have em

4. make my decision easy

5. be educational

6. structure your speech time in interesting ways

For low speaks

1. be unnecessarily rude

2. be unnecessarily low effort

3. read silly arguments (disclosure theory, abusive tricks) in front of an obvious novice

I am a College policy debater. I will evaluate all arguments. Avoid being overtly sexist racist classist ableist etc. 

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

UPDATED: 2/15/2024- California Round Robin

Quick Tips:

-Please be clear- No exaggeration my eardrums are nonexistent. I'm like half deaf.

-Over explanation> Blips- I understand your arguments, I just haven't judged them enough to make extrapolations for you.

-Send analytics too- Its ethically shady to not. Debates are won by the better debater, no the better trickster. Also, see tip 1.

Paradigm Proper

TL;DR: Check Bolded

GENERAL STUFF:

I wanna keep this relatively simple, so: Hi, I'm J.D. Swift. I am a former competitor and former coach of Holy Cross School, currently an Assistant at The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men (New Orleans, La). I'm too old to use this platform as an ego boost so I won't bother re-putting my qualifications, accolades, etc. I have either judged, coached, or competed (or done all of the above) in nearly every event under the sun, so I'd call myself pretty familiar.

My resting face may not prove it, but I am always approachable. If you have any questions about stuff before or after around, and you spot me, please don't hesitate to have a conversation, its why I still do this activity.

For Everyone:

+ I do not tolerate any forms of: racism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, or ableism. This activity is special because it is the most inclusive activity that I know of. This space actively works to include all members of society and I will not stand for any tarnishing of that. I do not believe that you will be any of those things, but if it happens in round, I will stop the debate, give you a loss with the lowest possible speaks, and have a conversation with your coach.

+ I prefer an email chain, please add me:jdswift1028@gmail.com

+ I prefer to disclose. You won't be able to adjust from round to round if you don't know exactly how you won or lost a round. That being said: if any competitor in the round would prefer me not to disclose, I will not.** I also don't disclose speaks, that's just kinda weird to ask **

+ On Postrounding: I'm absolutely down to answer any and all questions as long as time permits. I take pride in the notes I take alongside the flow to give back to debaters. However, if you begin to challenge my decision, or (yes, this has happened before) you get your coach to challenge me, you can finish postrounding with the empty chair I left behind.

+ I know you care about speaker points. I don't give a whole lot of 30s (you can fact check me on this) so if you get one from me, I will be speaking high praises to others about your stellar performance. 2 rules of thumb for if you have me as a judge: 1. Make the debate accessible, 2. Let your personality shine through. No, I won't clarify on what those things mean. ;)

+ My face is very readable. This is semi-intentional. If I'm confused, you will see it. If I'm impressed, you will see it.

+ If you don't see me writing, specifically if my pen is obviously away from the paper/iPad (usually palm up) and I'm just staring at you, then I'm intentionally ignoring your argument. (I only do this when you are clearly over time, or if you are reading new in the 2)

+ In terms of intangibles such as: Your appearance, dress, how you sit or stand, etc. I do not care at all. A wise man once said: "Do whatever makes you comfortable, I only care about the arguments." -JD Swift, (circa 20XX)

For Novices:

+ I hate information elitism, meaning, if any jargon or terms in my paradigm confuse you-- please, please, please ask me for clarification.

+ Debate is a competitive activity, but it is foremost an educational one. If you see me in the back of the room, please do not feel intimidated, we as coaches and judges are here for y'all as competitors.

For LD & Policy:

+ Run whatever you like, please just explain it well. If you don't trust your ability to provide quality warrants on an argument, do not run it.

+ Please extend full arguments, most importantly the warrants. Not just impacts, Not just card names, but all of it.

+ No amount of signposting is too much. The more organized you are, the better I can give you credit.

+ Speed does NOT impress me. I can hang, but if you're sacrificing clarity for speed, I won't strain myself trying to catch the argument. If you want to go fast, go for it, just make sure you're clearly distinguishing one argument from the next, and that your tags and authors are clear.

+ Please do not reread a card, unless the card is being re-read for a different purpose(re-highlighting, new warrants, etc.). You're killing your own speech time.

+ If an argument or concession is made in cross, and you want credit for it, it has to show up in speech. I'll listen out for it, but if I don't hear it, in speech, it didn't happen.

+ Not a fan of petty theory at all. If there is real, round impeding abuse, I'll vote on it in your favor. If the theory argument is petty, I give RVI's heavy weight.

+ I don't like tricks. This is not a forum for deception.

+ If you're gonna kick the alt on the K, and use it as a disad, please articulate why the disad is a sufficient reason to not pass the plan.

FOR PF

+ Framework is important, otherwise I believe topic areas get too broad for this format. Win your framing and then use that to win your impact calculous. That's the fastest way to my ballot.

+ I have little patience for paraphrasing. If you want credit for evidence, read the card and give context.

+ I hold PF to the same evidence ethics and standards as Policy and LD.

Most importantly: please have fun; If what you are doing is not fun then it's not worth your time.

TOC Conflicts (besides DTA): Isidore Newman AB

About Me
Basic Info

he/him

Associate Director of Debate and Speech, The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men

Notre Dame ‘23 (Political Science, Philosophy)

9th year in debate, 5th year coaching

Add me to the email chain: dta.lddocs@gmail.com (Subject Line: TOURNAMENT --- ROUND --- CODE)

Ask questions: blakeziegler.debate@gmail.com

Learn more: blake-ziegler.com

First and foremost, I’m a teacher, which means my aim is to maximize the educational experience of competitors in a safe and equitable manner. I believe debate offers vital skills and opportunities for young people, which is why I’m still involved in the activity. Due to this, I see my ballot as an implicit endorsement of the strategy of whichever debater I vote for. This means that if I see your strategy as morally repugnant or you're not taking this activity seriously, it'll be very hard to get my ballot. As the adult (or one of) in the room, I also seek to ensure this space is void of discrimination, harassment, bullying, and the like. I take that responsibility seriously. Any arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc. will result in an immediate loss.

Conflicts
James Logan (former Head LD Coach)

Pref Shortcuts

1 - Ks, soft left affs

2 - Policy args, non-topical affs

3 - Phil* (see phil section), T/Theory

4 - Trad

5/Strike - Tricks

Lincoln-Douglas Philosophy

Overview
I competed in LD in high school and exclusively coach this event. I’ve competed and worked in traditional and progressive styles. I believe that the only difference between those styles is the emphasis on persuasion and the way arguments are packaged. With that said, my basic view of this event is as follows:

The affirmative’s burden is to show that the aff a) has someone doing something and b) is a good idea. The negative’s burden is a) to meaningfully engage with the aff and b) show the aff is a bad idea. Whether either side wants to add to their burden is up to them, but that’s how I enter the round.

Both sides should link back to a framework and tell me why I should care about their impacts. LD is unique as a values debate and it’s unfortunate the way it’s been left behind on progressive circuits. I evaluate the debate as to who best demonstrates they link back to the framework of the round.

Extensions, impact weighing, and crystallization are very important to me. Evidence is especially important - it’s the foundation of any argument. Be clear about your advocacy and your arguments. Extend arguments with claim, warrant, and impact instead of just stating the card name. Consolidate the round to its key issues and show me what matters. Sign-posting is very important. Give me voters in the last speech!

Traditional/Whole Res Cases
Go for it. This is my bread and butter. I'd recommend focusing on linking to framework and impact calculus. There isn't enough evidence comparison in this style.

CPs and DAs
A well-researched CP and DA makes me really happy, especially if the evidence has a strong link chain. Extinction and nuclear war are legitimate concerns in a lot of policy areas, but the link chain has to be very clear for me to buy it.

I love politics DAs, but the link chain needs to be especially clear if it's the 2NR strategy - why is the aff the brightline for the impact?

Ks and Phil
I read Ks and phil cases in high school and frequently coach students on these arguments. I’ve likely read whatever literature you’re pulling from, but you should assume I’m an uninformed audience. You should be able to clearly explain the argument without buzzwords or highly technical language, especially on the alternative for the K. Even if I know the argument, I won't vote on it if your explanation isn't clear. Also, be sure to identify impacts to violating the philosophy. Why should I care about it?

Debaters often misinterpret or exclude significant parts of the literature they’re using. Sometimes, this outright contradicts what they’re arguing. Make sure what you’re reading accurately reflects your author or risk losing my ballot. I recommend opponents to make this argument if applicable.

I love philosophy and spent several years working in how we should teach philosophy to students. With that said, I put it as a 3 on my prefs shortcut because I think debaters typically don't approach philosophy well. They don't understand the literature, generally only read backfiles, and can't explain these complex ideas in clear sentences. I think the biggest issue for philosophy debaters is 1) making sure their contentions actually link to the framework and 2) explaining how the philosophy interacts with their opponent's own framework and impacts. Struggle in these areas tend to happen when debaters don't fully understand the literature. If you feel this doesn't apply to you, then I'm likely a 1 or 2 for you.

Also, tricks aren’t phil.

Theory and Topicality

I still think theory is valuable for debate but am weary of it being misused. I recommend only using it if there's legitimate abuse in the round that creates a significant structural disadvantage. If you do, be clear, weigh impacts, and tell me if the shell comes before the case. I won't buy frivolous theory and have a low threshold for responses to it (i.e., "gut check - this is frivolous theory").

Topicality is different. It's legitimate to question whether the aff is topical (and whether the aff needs to be topical in the first place), but there are frivolous topicality shells that I view the same way as frivolous theory. I think a lot of these frivolous shells (e.g., "USFG acronyms bad") are better off as plan flaws.

Non-Topical Affs

Debating the topic is good. Not debating the topic can also be good. If you're running a non-topical aff, my only expectations are 1) why we should abandon the topic, 2) why the topic can't contain your advocacy, and 3) how voting aff solves your impacts. If you do that and win the flow, I have no problem voting for a non-topical aff. My biggest issue with these arguments is debaters can't articulate how the ballot solves the problem.

Tricks
Don’t run them. They’re bad for debate. It's an auto-loss and 20 speaks. This includes formatting your doc in such a way that it makes it extremely difficult for your opponent to decipher it. This also includes spikes.

I have a low threshold for answering tricks - “This is a trick. They’re bad for debate” is enough.

Disclosure

Disclosure is good for debate, especially for small school/lone wolf debaters like I was. I’m very sympathetic to disclosure arguments if it’s clear the opponent hasn’t disclosed. My expectation is that you provide an open source doc of your aff on the wiki or email to your opponent. The only exception is students whose school bar you from disclosing or there’s some other reason outside of your control, such as tech issues. In those situations, you should still try to disclose to the best capacity you’re able to.

You don’t need to disclose new arguments. They’re new.

Spreading

Spreading is fine. I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Tech over truth within reason

Prep time ends when the doc is sent

Be respectful. Debate is an activity for everyone

No flex prep

2NRs shouldn’t go for everything

Evidence has become increasingly poor in debate and I’m sad debaters don’t spend more time on evidence debates

If you’re a varsity debater going against a novice debater and intentionally overwhelm them, that’ll lead to a loss and 26 speaks. This is not to say go easy on them, just treat them like any other opponent. The same goes for a circuit debater trying to out-circuit someone from a traditional background or just entering the national scene.

How you deliver your arguments and conduct yourself in round matters

Be brief with your off-time roadmaps and don’t say “This is a x minute speech”

If you go significantly over time, I'm docking speaks

Don't curse

Face the judge when you're speaking

Speaker Points

30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater.

29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery

29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery

28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise

27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills

<27: You did something bad, like a racist argument.

People who've had a significant impact on me and heavily influenced my views on debate

Byron Arthur

Aaron Timmons

Jonathan Alston

Elijah Smith

Chris Randall

Ed Williams

Bennett Eckert

Chetan Hertzig