You may know me previously as Caitlin Smith or Caitlin Addleman. She/her pronouns.

Experience:

I coached with the University of Minnesota (fall 2017 - 2022). I debated 4 years (2013-2017) of NPDA/NPTE parli for Wheaton College and 4 years of LD in high school. I have also coached policy at the UMN and LD at Apple Valley High School.

Ethics:

I care deeply about debate, about equity in it, access to it, and very much believe in the power it has to change lives. I take my role as an educator seriously, which means I am always happy to chat about or answer any questions related to debate, from theory to substantive arguments. Additionally, I consider the moral/ethical questions of debate to be a constitutive feature of the activity. As such, I refuse to check my status as a moral agent at the door. I will, and have (albeit rarely), voted down arguments that I consider to be seriously morally problematic, regardless of what’s on the flow. While my standard for doing so is high, I take as axiomatic that every person has intrinsic and immutable worth - if I feel that your advocacy or representations seriously impinge on the worth of someone in the room, that will affect my decision. This does not mean that I won’t vote for arguments I don’t like or ethically agree with (I do that all the time); rather, I simply will not hold myself to voting on the flow if I feel someone in the room is being done violence. If you have any questions about my standards or threshold, please ask me.

A Note on Tech:

I believe that the technical aspects of debate are tools we use to allow us to understand and engage with the substance of arguments more deeply. I therefore do not think that tech is a substitute for substantive engagement. I value more highly arguments that engage with the opposing positions substantively than ones that merely do so technically (while to do both is truly masterful debate). Put simply, substance > tech > truth.

Speed:

I’m fine with speed and will clear you if you pass my threshold (which is unlikely). Please be aware of how the online nature of debate constrains speed by paying attention to whatever chat feature we have available for people saying speed or clear - and please make accommodations as necessary. Please say all plans/CP’s/T-interps/alts/etc. slowly and twice.

Weighing:

Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to, although in absence of any weighing arguments, I default to probability first and will have a substantially lower threshold than most parli judges to vote on systemic/materialized/highly probable impacts (given any arguments being made that I should prefer them). This does not mean I will not vote on nuclear, disaster, etc. scenarios, just that I will not accept prima facie an unwarranted claim that those impacts outweigh all other things if your opponents are making arguments to the contrary.

AD/DA/CP Debate:

I have broad knowledge of economic and policy issues (my knowledge skews more heavily towards the K). Thus, I will be largely limited to my understanding of what you put out in a given round. If you’re clear, there shouldn’t be a problem, just don’t expect me to know what various terms or abbreviations mean off the bat or grant you internal warrants without clear explanations.

Theory:

Win the debate on whatever layer you would like. My threshold to vote on theory is determined by the extent to which a clear impact on the shell is articulated and weighed. I also believe that standards should be contextualized to your opponents’ position. I find great problems in reading generic reasons why policy is good against non-T affs because I very much believe that theory should be about bringing questions of how debate ought function into the conversation, rather than forcing certain ideas out. This doesn’t mean don’t read theory in those situations, but that, if you’re going to, I will hold you to a high standard. Finally, I have a lower threshold than most parli judges for we-meets: if they meet the text of your interpretation, I do not consider a remaining violation to be a priori offense (as in, it’s still offense, but without an interpretation it does not function a priori, absent additional arguments that it should). If you have questions about what this means, let me know.

Kritiks:

I debated lots of K’s and write lots of them with my team. I love them. I particularly love when they are clear on what the alt does and what a world of the alternative looks like. I really hate chicken-and-egg style root cause debates and would much prefer to hear substantive debate about the issues in the K. Please don’t assume I know your literature (just because I read K’s doesn’t mean I will understand your K) . I will vote on what is said in the round, not my prior knowledge of your particular author.

Performance:

Debate is both a game and the real world. Bringing real world issues to the forefront within debate rounds is simultaneously extremely important and extremely difficult. It definitely creates change in our community and, as such, is something I take very seriously. I will attempt to evaluate every round as fairly as I can, while recognizing I do not check my status as a moral agent at the door. The one thing I like to be clear in these debates, therefore, is the role of the judge. I don’t mean that you have to include me in your movement, make me feel comfortable, or anything like that; I mean expecting me to evaluate what I’m supposed to do at the end of a debate round, with many moral issues on the table and no framework to deal with them, has the potential to give me a major panic attack. I don’t say this because I anticipate any such problem, but simply because it is a very real concern for my mental health and I want competitors to be aware.

Speaker Points:

26-30, unless you do something very rude or exclusionary.

1. I competed in NPDA debate for 4 years at Cedarville University, I coached there for a year, an am now assisting the Appalachian State Debate team.
2. I utilized kritikal and policy strategies roughly equally my junior and senior year.
3. I like kritiks. I am familiar with most of the major literature bases for kritiks, however I do believe debate is an educational activity which requires inclusion, so it is important that your kritikal argument is clear to the opposing team even if they haven’t read your lit base.
1. If you read a kritik, I prefer grounded impacts and concrete solvency over depictions of an ideal world or other abstract alternative solvency mechanisms for the kritik.
2. The permutation is always a test of competition and not an advocacy.
3. The affirmative should engage with the framework debate to gain access to their 1AC by either responding with a competing framework, or demonstrating how their 1AC operates within the Kritik framework.
4. I like Capitalism critiques, I like arguments about ethics, and I like kritiks of debate itself. If you have a critique you want to try, I might be a good judge to try it in front of.
4. I like policy affs with strong impacts. I like impact frameworks that explain why I should prefer your impacts. Magnitude is not necessarily where I will vote, if a compelling argument is presented to prefer another method of weighing the impacts.
5. I like Advantage-Counterplans. I think advantage counterplans are a smart strategy for the negative team. I am open to condo bad and other counterplan theory arguments from the MG.
6. I prefer speed debate, so long as both teams are able to participate in the round. If the other team asks you to slow down, you should. If continued exclusion on the basis of speeds occurs, I am willing to vote for an abuse procedural
7. Debate is not a game, but we do play it like one more or less. I am a tabula rasa judge. I will judge the arguments as presented, it is the job of the debaters to present the necessary information and identify good arguments from bad arguments in the round.
8. I think the affirmative should defend the resolution with an advocacy, however I do like affirmatives that are out of the ordinary, and am willing to entertain innovative frameworks and interpretations of the topic.
9. I spent a lot of time reading procedurals as a debater. I think procedural debate can present some of the most technical and rewarding rounds, but it is important to articulate abuse or tell me why your procedural is a voting issue if you expect me to vote for it.
10. Topicality bis a voting issue.
11. Specs are not compelling unless you articulate abuse.
12. I default to the competing interpretations in procedural and framework debates.
13. Specific positions are generally more compelling to me than generic arguments. I will listen to your politics position, but I will not be happy about it and I might make unhappy faces.
1. Policy arguments should include a specific interrogation of the uniqueness, this should not be blipped through, please read warrants with your claims. I would rather you read one good position with excellent warrants and analysis, than two meh positions.
14. I generally think Identity/non-topical arguments should cede the ballot, unless there is a compelling reason why their performance must win to create the change they seek.
15. Please do not read any advocacy which supports mass death or suffering as good. I don't like the advocacy of suicide, dehumanization, or justifying the reduction in the value of human life.
16. Don't make stuff up, ethics are good.

Lance Allen

I competed in Parli and IE’s for 4 years at Mckendree University and have now coached for 7 years.

I think this means that I have a diverse background of knowledge for most types of debate. I am comfortable in quick K debates and also comfortable in more traditional rounds. I have experience in high level college LD rounds and I also have lots of experience with first year novice rounds. While am I am competent in a K debate, I am most comfortable in a case/DA/CP debate. This means the K needs to be well explained. I tend to weigh Magnitude and Probability before timeframe until you tell me otherwise.

You should feel comfortable running any position in front of me! The most important thing is that it is well explained and well defended.

- For any round-related correspondence, please utilize the following email address: jasondbarton15@gmail.com.

Background:

- I am an assistant debate coach at Albuquerque Academy in ABQ, New Mexico (mostly coaching CX and LD).

- I recently finished my Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of New Mexico. I specialize in German Idealism, hermeneutic phenomenology, and Lacanian psychoanalysis.

- I debated CX, LD, and PF (though mostly PF) in Dallas, TX and the surrounding areas throughout high school (2011-2014), and I debated on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University more recently (2015-2019). My partner and I finished second at nationals (NPTE) our senior years. I consider myself to be comfortable with traditional and progressive styles of debate.

- My pronouns are he/him/his.

Crucial Points:

- Please attempt to be as courteous to one another as possible.

- In terms of argumentation, I do not necessarily have a preference for which kinds of arguments you present (e.g., policy affirmatives, DAs, CPs, Ks, Theory, etc.), but I would like them to be thoroughly explained, well-warranted, and impacted out (including weighing/impact calculus) throughout the debate.

- I gravitate towards evaluating framework very highly in the round (e.g., sequencing claims pertaining to competing methodologies). It is very likely that, if you are winning the framework debate, you are ahead in the debate (according to my assessment).

Theory/Topicality:

- I approach theory and topicality by analyzing the interpretation/violation layer first and the standards/voters layer second. If the opposing team wins a "we meet," they have effectively no linked the argument in my judgment (and thus need not even address the standards/voters).

- In assessing the standards/voters layer of the theory/topicality debate, I am looking for (a) extensive comparison between the respective standards of the interpretation and the counter-interpretation with respect to the voters (i.e., internal link analysis) and (b) priority claims in regard to voters (How do the voters interact with one another? Does one ground the possibility of another?).

CPs/Ks:

- On CPs and Ks themselves, I would prefer clearly marked solvency for both positions (I think CP/K solvency is pretty important - especially the question of "how do you solve the aff?" if this is an aspect of your position).

- I would like K links to be specific to the affirmative as opposed to more generic K links ("you use the state/capitalism/etc.") - if that's not the case, I am receptive to "no link" arguments from the affirmative.

- I think framework debates on Ks can be really educational, and I value framework pretty highly when considering which impacts matter in the round. Root cause claims can function as tiebreakers between competing frameworks.

DAs:

- I like DAs with precise/lucid uniqueness stories and specific links to the affirmative.

- I enjoy arguments from the affirmative about how the DA links to the CP. I think some valuable offense can be garnered from these.

Perms:

- I believe perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, but I'm willing to evaluate the contrary.

- Also, if the perm text doesn't make sense (e.g., "do both" when alt text says "reject aff"), I will consider this argument in relation to the viability of the permutation.

Joe Blasdel

McKendree University / Belleville East High School

Updated: 1/7/23

I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree in 2003 (mostly NPDA, some LD and IEs) and have been doing so ever since. I have also coached debate at Belleville East (PF and LD) for the last two years.

This is broken into four sections: #1 PF Specifics, #2 HS LD specifics, #3 NFA LD specifics, #4 NPDA / general thoughts.

#1 PF Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS PF (in no particular order):

1. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponents' arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will also flow the debate on three 'sheets' - the PRO case/answers, the CON case/answers, and the rebuttals (summaries/final foci).

2. I will not flow crossfire but I will still pay careful attention and view it as an important part of the debate.

3. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#2 HS LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS LD (in no particular order):

1. I have researched and coached students on the current NSDA topic and am broadly familiar with the issue.

2. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponent's arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will flow the debate on three 'sheets' - framework, AFF case/answers, NEG case/answers.

3. I view the value/value criterion portion of the debate as framing the rest of the debate. When the framing part of the debate is not clear, I generally default to a cost/benefit analysis in evaluating the substance part of the debate.

4. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

5. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#3 NFA LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging NFA LD (in no particular order):

1. During the debate, I will flow what's being said rather than read the speech docs. I will review speech docs between speeches and after the round.

2. While carded evidence is obviously important in this format, I also appreciate warranted analytic arguments - probably more than the average NFA LD judge.

3. Having not judged a lot of LD of recent, I'm unsure if I can flow the fastest of debates. If I cannot flow due to clarity or speed, I will indicate that's the case.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

#4 NPDA / General thoughts

Section 1: General Information

In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.

On trichotomy, I tend to think the affirmative has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.

If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If you’re calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.

I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).

Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than the average NPDA judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, it’s important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, it’s likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.

Performance based arguments…

Same as above.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold. I don’t vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a ‘high’ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, I’m probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?

All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

"I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact scenarios."

I repeat: "I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact scenarios."

This part pertains mostly to Parli and other argumentative debate formats.

Even if you practice an oration / persuasion-based format, you should probably read this since it represents what I believe about debate in general. See below for IPDA.

Me: Debated for A-State from 2007-2011; mostly Parli, but some LD, IPDA, and Worlds. Assistant coach for A-State from 2011-2013 and Director of Debate for A-State from 2016-present.

What is debate? By definition, competitive debate is a game of rhetoric and argument.

Why does access matter? The outcome of any game becomes suspect when certain players are denied access to the determining factors - the shared resources - within the game. For this reason, access must be a prior question to any format, any tournament, and, in fact, any particular round. A major avoidable barrier to access is speed reading (spreading). Because this is such an issue in debate, I prefer all participants to receive consent before doing this. Let me be clear... I do not believe "clear" or "slow" solves. You can argue about that in the round if you want, but without articulation on the flow, my default stance is that spreading is fair ONLY when all parties have consented to it.

Content: I'll listen to anything, but I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact scenarios. I also wish people would try to use more irony and satire in debate, so thank you in advance if you're funny.

Preferred Form/Style: I prefer listening to accessible, slightly elevated rates of speech. That's about it.

Speaker Points: These exist to reward good speakers. What is a good speaker? For me, a good speaker has little to do with who won the round. Speed doesn't make you a good speaker. Knowing lots of stuff doesn't make you a good speaker. Winning an argument doesn't make you a good speaker. It's that other thing that makes you good. Do that.

Case: By default, my stance is that the Aff has the burden of proof & the burden of rejoinder. It is your job to fairly limit the round and present a clear case that upholds the resolution. If you can convince me otherwise, do it.

I'll gladly vote on an aff K if it makes sense and wins. But listen... it is better when your opponent can engage. So, make your aff K clear and accessible. Save the ninja stuff for neg.

T: I love a well-run topicality argument. Or 2. Or 3. I am completely okay with collapsing to T. I actually think teams should do it more often. It's a lost art. I'll gladly listen to and enjoy an "oldschool" T shell, too. It's also a lost art.

Spec/Vagueness: Yes. But be reasonable with it. And don't take my use of the word "reasonable" as an indication that it's the only counter-standard you need when answering.

K: Yes, please. Avoid any blatant mis-readings and misapplications of theory. You will have a difficult time winning my ballot if you're (intentionally or not) misrepresenting the nature of another person's rhetoric or using well-established theory in a way that it was not intended. If you need to make an argument that you cannot find written in a tome somewhere, make the argument from your own brain... don't try to shove a square author into a round round.

DA/CP/Condi: structure, specificity, and clarity.

My default stance is that all Neg arguments are conditional. If, however, the debate turns to theory, Aff can win condi-bad. I'll listen. I need clear articulation of theory arguments, not just blippy responses that require me to intervene to fill in the blanks.

Speed and Speed K: I prefer upbeat debate and a good pace. If you've clocked yourself, I am totally comfortable with a clear rate of speech around 275-325wmp. I've rarely seen a need for anyone to argue that fast. In all honesty, parli is at its best when highly-trained, charismatic debaters engage in argumentation at about 200-250wpm. Anything faster and you're probably repeating yourself, skipping syllables, and missing good arguments for the sake saying more words. That said, if you're one of those super-clear talkers (you know who you are), I might be willing to tolerate your top speed for part of the debate. <--- maybe 1% to 5% of the field in parli can really do this well. Chances are, you are not in that 1% to 5%. In competition, go as fast as you need to go and can go without losing clarity... and go no faster. Please.

If I or your opponent calls clear and you do not respond appropriately, you will receive the lowest speaker points you've ever gotten. I promise. You may well win the round, but you will have done so unethically and I cannot award high speaks to unethical debaters who intentionally ignore a legit request for access. I really don't care how you feel about this. I will vote on a speed K... IF it is run correctly, makes sense, and defended appropriately. I will not vote on "they talk fast and it's not fair."

Rebuttals: By the time we get to the rebuttals, I've heard enough line-by-line. I'd appreciate a bit more here, but if your rebuttal sounds exactly like your previous speech (pay attention, Neg), I'm already bored. Come on, this is your chance to really secure those speaker points. Show me that you can tend to the line-by-line and cover the flow and still give me a clear summarization of advocacy and impact analysis at the bottom.

Time, Timers, & Beeps: Thanks and roadmaps off time; quickly. I prefer you time one another. If you are unable, I'll start my timer when you start debating. When my timer beeps, you get maybe 10 words before I stop flowing. I've had more sentence fragments at the bottom of a flow than I can count. Look... just time your arguments. It's not difficult to just be done talking 1 second before the timer goes... it's impressive and judges notice it. Be impressive.

At the end of the day, I believe that debate is an educational game and that education does not have to be at odds with gameplay. It's both, so do both. Make it interesting and competitive, play fair, and you'll receive what you earn.

--------

IPDA

There aren't a lot of specific argumentation-focused norms for this community, so I can't really speak to anything in particular. What I said up there ^ is what I believe about argument, so if you're relying on it heavily in IPDA, you'll want to read up there. A lot of what I said above applies to any format of debate.

Do your best to make your advocacy and burdens clear and I'll vote on who does the best at upholding their burdens.

I think IPDA debaters should all decide how they're going to handle/interpret article 1, section J of the constitution so that both aff and neg have fair and balanced ground. Too often, it seems that judges' thresholds for abuse are out of sync with the seriousness of fairness in debate. The IPDA constitution mentions fair/fairness and abuse a significant number of times compared to governing documents for other formats of debate; so... it seems like an important part of the format to me. I just don't know what to do with it because nobody ever really talks about it in specific, argumentative ways. Although it's not necessary to do this in IPDA, I really wish competitors would just choose to do it.

Regardless, I will offer you the respect of listening very closely to well-structured, well-thought-out articulations of abuse; I'll listen to vagueness presses; I'll listen to articulations of abuse at the level of definitions, as well as criteria/framing. If your opponent really has skewed ground in the round, then you have the right to ask for my ballot based on that alone - with or without a counter-definition

Things I believe: Debate is methodological, debating is a method. Arguments are epistemological. Arguments, situated in the context of debates, justify an ontology. What this means for winning my ballot: I expect a good debate to justify the method is uses to find the truth and identify how the truth should be evaluated. Arguments are our tools for "knowing". Debate is our tool for comparing "what we know" to find a truth.

Also, your evidence should be high quality. Your evidence should have a clear warrant that relies on more than a strong assertion. If you could make the same argument on a wordpress you should find better evidence. If you cut evidence from a lit review I'll be disappointed. If you misrepresent evidence I'll be disappointed. If you compete in an evidence based event your use of evidence should justify your "research skills" framework argument. 

My email for the email chain: maxgroznik@gmail.com

Feel free to reach out with questions. 

Opinions about arguments:

Evidence: Please use good evidence practices. Don't misrepresent your evidence. Quality > Quantity. More contextualization > more cards. Evidence exists outside of the vacuum of the card.

The Affirmative: Affirmatives should defend a strong reason to vote aff. Debate as a method relies on the affirmative defending a topical plan and the negative responding to the affirmative. Therefore, if the affirmative departs from this method they should have a strong methodological and axiological justification. Methods need to be improved and the aff should defend a methodological perspective that allows for the best method. In other words: defend something and I'll vote for it. Any aff you read is an aff I'll listen to. 

The Negative: The negative gets to defend the status quo - this is a methodological and material moment. The negative will always get to defend either the state of debate's methodology or the state of the world. This means a few things for other arguments.

Framework: Reading framework on the negative relies on the neg winning a methodological argument - debate is always as fair as it is. I care about why a model of debate changes or results in a more or less desirable relationship to methodology, axiology, epistemology, and ontology. The way fairness, education, etc. manifests effects this but does not de facto implicate this.

Counterplans: Yes, please. Smart, well researched counterplans are something that makes me happy. 

DA's: Yes, please. Strength and specificity of link are my key evaluative component.

Topicality: Clever, well justified theory arguments make me happy. Standards debates should move beyond your blocks. My threshold for theory debates is high: this works for and against you. I will reward you for a well executed theory collapse and look poorly on a sloppy response. Vice Versa.

The K: Strong specific links and a well contextualized K has consistently made for some of the best debates I've ever seen. Similar to the DA, the link debate is very important for me here. 

Testimonials:

"Max's brain is like a game of chutes and ladders" - Fiker Tesfaye

"When I was a freshman in high school Max was a senior and I was afraid of him. Now Max fears me." - Gabe Graville

“Hello, Max is a smart cookie who writes really fast and thinks pretty well. He will hear your words and think about them and maybe you'll win.” - Eliana Taylor

“Maxwell is a pumpkin pie connoisseur who harbors unusual amounts of knowledge in three important categories of information, in order of how much they warm his soul to reflect upon: (1) the Daring Doggos and other mascot ideas for struggling 2A high school football teams, (2) instructional communication and other academic oddities like debate, and (3) risk reduction techniques for avoiding severe injury, a common threat that airport-based People Movers pose to people. ” - Maria DeMarco

“Max's life goal is to eat every animal.” - Alex Li

"Max Groznik is an absurd bird. And I think birds are neat. Also do not feed him bread." - Adeja Powell

I competed in Parli so many years ago that it is pretty much irrelevant experience. More recently as the IE coach at McKendree I have watched, judged, and assisted with debate since 2012. While I am not a traditional lay judge, you should side closer to lay than experienced with me.

Politics- I love a politics debate

K- I am down with good Ks. Explain it well, don’t assume I know about whatever philosopher you are talking about, but I love K debate- Neg or Aff

T- I think I’ve voted on T once in about 20 rounds of LD/Parli judged. It takes a lot to get me to vote on T. I won’t say I will never vote on it.

CP- I am fine with all types of CPs.

Procedurals: I would not recommend running non-topicality theory arguments in front of me. I don’t follow them well and it is probably not going to win you a vote.

Speed: I have gotten better and better with speed, I can handle a moderate amount. If I put my pen down and stop flowing you are going too fast. Don’t sacrifice understandable for speed.

Impact Calc: I give a lot of weight to probability. Then Magnitude, then time frame.

Performance: Not a lot of experience with it, I LOVE it theoretically, but I am not sure how to evaluate it. Tell me.

Final note: Debates a game. You can run some wild stuff. The game to me though has norms and I won’t abide racist/sexist/abelist arguments, debate should be a space for everyone. I will do my best not to intervene. But if you are arguing Malthus or some racist clap…

TL;DR: Do what you want, but I have a high threshold for theoretical defenses in favor of rejecting the topic (although I'm very in favor of creative ways to endorse the topic), and I tend to hold proximal impact framing/proximal solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard as well.

While I'm open to arguments about debate being a "training ground" for personal advocacy and political change, I view debate itself as a game. This means that I view arguments very impersonally, and I care more for the strategic aspect of the game than the emotional or truth-based appeals. Those things are obviously still important, but that just means I will very likely vote for arguments that are "winning" even if I don't necessarily like them (just because of how I understand the utility of debate). For impact weighing, I probably default to magnitude>probability>timeframe unless told otherwise, so do in-depth impact comparison that includes weighing of the different metrics. I tend to hold proximal impact framing and solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard, and while I'm down to vote on proximity you should just keep in mind that I think of all of these arguments as pieces to a game, so I'm not more persuaded by proximal impacts than magnitude-based impacts absent a clear reason.

I'm fine if you want to reject the topic on the Aff, but I'll be very sympathetic to the Neg's theoretical objection to that. You can win the theory debate, but I'll have a pretty high threshold for your theory answers so just be aware of that. Impact turning theory out of the aff is fine as well, but I've found that if the Neg team wins that you shouldn't get to leverage the Aff against theory if truth-testing the aff is impossible, I'll usually evaluate the theory prior to the PMCs reasons that fairness and education are bad or impossible to access. I'm pretty indifferent about conditionality also, but will vote on theory saying it shouldn't be allowed if you win that sheet.

Also on theory, this has only mattered a couple of times, but if I'm not given a paradigm by either team I have a tendency to default to reasonability instead of competing interpretations. This is largely because (absent being told otherwise/as a default) I tend to evaluate theory as a check against abuse (i.e., should I penalize a team for doing something unfair), rather than evaluating it as the endorsement of the "ideal model" of debate, which tends to make a difference regarding how I evaluate the impact framing on the theory, but this has only ever mattered when neither team makes any of the arguments that would give me a cohesive story on theory and I'm left pretty much evaluating a non-functional/unclear interp with no voters.

I love policy debate, but I was also super into reading Ks and I dig janky stuff from obscure philosophical sources. In my opinion, I'm able to understand and follow pretty much whatever you want to throw at your opponent. On the flip-side though, that also means that you probably won't get very far with super ambiguous solvency. You need to have some kind of solvency that is (at the very least) a clearly explained mechanism that is preferably drawn from the literature that the K is based on.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in person! Good luck :)

I am a fairly straight-up critic. I view debate as a game, not a community, a training ground for a particular cause, or a place to air my own grievances. Don't worry about appealing to what you think my ideology is. I vote on the stupidest shit all the time, so just do what you think is strategic. That being said, tell me it is and why and I'll view it that way for the round. Tell me where to vote, win it, I'll vote on it. It's basically that simple.

- The K. I vote for it a lot because I don't particularly see my ballot as my own personal moral imprimatur. I enjoy good framework debate, most of it is relatively bad. Alt debate is better. While I am familiar with a lot general kritiks, please do not assume I care about your lit even 1/200th as much as you, so dropping a lot of references I should get will not work very well as an empiric or analytic for me.

Please be relevant. I don't mind a generic cap k for some godawful debate about the minutiae of financial regulation or something. But try to make it slightly connected to the topic beyond, "You reify the state by using the USFG as an actor. Next off, 8 minutes of state bad."

-Theory: Don't mind it. Pet peeve: counter interps should be actually counter to something. "The aff should be held to the resolution" is neither counter nor an interp.

-DAs. I'm a huge fan of good uniqueness debates. Bad uniqueness debates (oh here's 5 reasons why the econ is up, naw dawg here's 6 reasons why its down. 6> 5 duh.) make me sad. Personally how I decide on this will go a long way in how I decide the direction of the DA and its likelihood since it is a debate on what world the plan takes part in to begin with.

Major points: Internal link/impact defense. Does not happen enough. It sucks how much each sides just spots wild internal link scenarios with nothing filled in at all.

Counter plans/perm debate.
Competition is good. Personally, I prefer net benefits competition as I think it's the most educational. Mutual exclusivity is usually just a form of NB competition though I am open to arguments as to why it is not.

Impact Calc: If no one tells me how to judge impact debates then I revert to magnitude and probability. So if you just tell me your impact is bigger and they tell me that theirs is more probable, I will probably revert to the bigger magnitude impact (especially if its extinction vs. someone feels bad about themselves).

Give me reasons why prob > mag or vice versa. I do enjoy good defense debate on the probability level. Time frame isn't brought up enough. I'm also a big fan of the "Big mag impacts bad v. Big mag impacts good" debate. But if it doesn't happen, unfortunately, I'm a hack for the mag x prob (extinction x .000001 still pretty big risk) impact calc. Not totally against "key to value to life" args if they are decent internal links into what gives human life value. But baseless claims of, "And now there's no value to life!" claims are pretty easily beaten in front of me.

-House keeping

>Speed: Don't care one way or another. I will clear you if I can't understand. I can hang, though slightly less than when I was competing since my ego isn't in the round anymore. If your advocacy is long as hell please repeat it.

>Points of order: Call them. I can't guarantee me catching them cheating every time. So unless you want me letting it slide and someone throws a tantrum, call it. But if you're some senior team on the national circuit pummeling some freshman babies from a CC and you really feel the need to call 18 points of order this poor child's PMR, you should feel bad.

>Side note: Don't freak out if you get a 27 in speaker points. That's good from me. I've seen like, maybe 2-3, truly 30 point speeches in my life so idk why everyone expects it so much.

>Speaking personally due to my own history, I do not care for excessive shouting/cursing. I also really do not care for debate being made personal against the individual debaters. I will not vote on an argument that demands I adjudicate the intent of someone in the round (i.e the argument is wrong vs "the aff is lying"). Additionally for the record as this weirdly becomes an issue in debate lately, I am a white Hispanic. I find other white-passing individuals using similar stories to pull a functional Elizabeth Warren to answer identity oriented arguments extremely cringeworthy. Cringe = speaker points hit.

I don't vote on IVIs. Claims of "time suck" are just absurd, please do not run this.
I don't vote on procedurals or kritiks based on speed. The barest of defense on this will be seen as terminal by me.
I will not, under any circumstances, vote for advocacy that explicitly calls for categorical eliminationist violence against people, based on their membership in a particular group. I should not have to write this but it seems I do.

>For PSCFA circuit: I don't vote on "this should be a fact round." Don't be ridiculous. I don't care if they drop it I will literally not vote for it, it's my one thing I'm just not going to do. Do not cry about it because you didn't read this section.

>NFA specific:
-I am on a cop on the rules, sorry. This is due to the fact that the NFA authorizes tournament directors to levy fines on schools for judges not following the rules and that is a risk that I am not willing to take. I am very open to arguments based on what the rules actually say, which is often quite broad or vague (whatever "conversational" or "pleasant" or "area of further study" means).
-That being said, my threshold for terminal defense on alleged rules violations is extremely low in NFA-LD given that the cards are right there and there is nothing really being lost. Tbh I really don't know what conversational means either.
-I am fine with theory and Kritiks but naturally, I will listen to old school type arguments on why they do not indict whether or not the aff has fulfilled their stock issues burden or whether or not your particular kritik would be allowable by the rules.

I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA and NFA-LD formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.

Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu

I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you don’t have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I don’t have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.

TLDR

My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that debaters have. I do not expect debaters to adapt to me. Instead, I want you to do what you want to do. I try to be a judge that debaters can use as a sounding board for new arguments or different arguments. I feel capable judging pretty much any kind of debate and I’ll always do my best to render a fair decision that is representative of the arguments I’ve seen in the round. If I am on a panel, feel free to adapt to other judges. I understand that you need to win the majority, not just me, and I’m never going to punish you for that. Do what wins the panel and I’ll come along for the ride.

I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.

The quick hits of things I believe that you might want to know before the round:

1. Specificity wins. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.

2. I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.

3. I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.

4. I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesn’t appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.

5. I don’t exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.

6. I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.

7. I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.

8. Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.

9. Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.

10. In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.

11. All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesn’t come up, but it can. Don’t say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly.

General

This philosophy is very expansive. That is because I want you to be able to adapt to me as much as you want to adapt. To be totally honest, you can probably just debate how you want and it will be fine – I really do want you to do you in rounds. But I also want you to know who I am and how I think about debate so that you can convince me.

Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophy’s guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).

I flow on a laptop most of the time now. Flowing on paper hurts my hand in faster rounds. If I’m flowing on paper for some reason, I might ask you to slow down so that I can flow the debate more accurately. If I don’t ask you to slow down, you’re fine – don’t worry about it. I don’t number arguments as I flow, so don’t expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.

One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the “pages” of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, “MAD checks” on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.

In theory debates, I’ve noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a “no condo” interp. Basically, if the aff says “you can’t do that because it is bad” and the neg says “it is not bad and, in fact, is good” I do not think the neg should have to say “yes, I can do that” (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think “some condo” interps instead of “all condo”).

I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But don’t use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.

I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.

A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if you’re neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.

NPDA

I’m going to start with the biggest change in my NPDA philosophy. Debates need to slow down. I still think speed is good. If all the debaters are fine with speed, I still like fast debate and want to see throwdowns at top speed. However, analytics with no speech docs are brutal to flow. Too many warrants get dropped. While we have laundry lists of arguments, they are often not dealt with in depth because they’re just hard to keep track of and account for. Our best NPDA debaters could debate at about 80% of their top speeds and maintain argumentative depth through improved efficiency and increased focus on the core issues of rounds, while still making the complex and nuanced arguments we want and getting more of them on each other’s flows and into each other’s speeches. Seek out clash!

NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that author’s position or the argument you’ve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that you’re leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an “even if” argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call and I’ll do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesn’t win evidence debates – the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.

Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds we’re in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We don’t just rely on someone else saying it – we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, let’s do that!

Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if you’ve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution.

Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs don’t always do that. I think “risk of solvency” only applies if I know what I’m risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff does on my ballot to run that “risk” on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain “that’s a presumption trigger because…”.

I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I don’t see that contextualized well and is often just a “risk of solvency” type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.

*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a ‘we meet’ – so ‘aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive)’ is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesn’t work, read spec.

Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesn’t necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably don’t try to get me to judge kick, honestly.

I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between. At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that you can't be untopical, it just means you need good answers. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).

NFA-LD

I tend to think disclosure of affs (once you’ve read them) is good and almost necessary and that disclosure of negs is very kind, but not necessary. The more generic a neg position is, the more likely I am to want it disclosed, but I’ll never expect it to be disclosed. I won’t take a strong position on any of this – disclose what you want to disclose (or don’t disclose at all) and defend that practice if necessary.

Affirmatives should stake out specific ground in the 1AC and defend it throughout the round. I don’t care how you do this, whether it is a plan, an advocacy, a performance is up to you. I think that topical plan debate is often the easiest to access, but I don’t believe that makes it the only accessible form of debate or the only good form of debate. So, read the aff you want to read, but be prepared to defend it. Affirmative debaters can (and sometimes should) kick their advantage offense to go for offense on a neg position. I don’t see this enough and I really wish it was more common in plan debates, especially.

Negatives should answer the aff. How you answer the aff is your business, but I like specific links for negative arguments. On case, I love a good impact turn, but I’ll settle for any offense. In terms of DA choice, I think you benefit from reading high magnitude impacts most of the time, because the aff likely outweighs systemic DAs or has systemic impacts of its own.

For criticisms, I just want to understand what is happening. Most of the time that’s not a problem, but don’t assume I’ve read your lit or understand the jargon. I would prefer if you can articulate your criticism in accessible language in CX. I tend to prefer a K with a material impact, but I can vote for impacts that are less material if they’re explained well and interact with the aff impact in a meaningful way.

Negative procedurals should be limited to topicality if possible. T isn’t a voting issue because of “rules”. It’s a voting issue because of how it impacts debates. I default to competing interps and don’t usually hear a good justification (or even definition) for reasonability. I will still weigh based on reasonability if it is explained and won.

Spec, speed bad, and norm-setting arguments (like disclosure) generally don’t appeal to me. I understand their importance in some strategies and sometimes they are required. If someone refuses to slow down, I understand the need to say speed is bad. But I don’t care about rules, I care about how people are being treated – so make speed debates be about that. Spec and norm-setting arguments should be about the impact on research practices, education, and fairness in rounds.

2AC/1AR theory is not my favorite. I want debates to be about the aff case and when the affirmative debater decides to introduce additional issues, that often takes away from discussion of the aff itself. I know sometimes people go too far, and you have to read condo or delay bad or whatever. That’s fine. But use your best judgement to avoid reading theory in unnecessary situations and when you do have to read theory, keep the debate about the aff if possible.

I expect clear interpretations and voting issues for theory shells. I’ve noticed that this is not always the case in the NFA-LD theory debates I’ve seen, and teams would benefit from a specific statement of what should and/or should not be allowed.

Negative debaters should prioritize impact framing and delineate a path to the ballot for themselves. I have seen quite a few debates where the NR gets bogged down in the line-by-line and the aff wins by virtue of contextualizing arguments just a bit. In your NRs and 2ARs, I’d like to see more comparative analysis and focus on what my ballot should say, rather than exclusively line-by-line. You still need to answer and account for arguments in the line-by-line, but absent a clear “mission statement” for your speech paired with necessary analysis, it is hard to vote for you. Aff debaters can’t go all big picture in the 2AR. You have to deal with the line-by-line. I can’t ignore the NR and let you give a 3-minute overview. Get short and sweet with your overview. Clarify your path to ballot and then execute that strategy on the flow.

NSDA General

I’ve heard many things referred to as “cards” that are not cards. A card needs to be a direct quotation, read in part (marked by underlining and highlighting) with a citation and a tagline that explains that argument. Present it in this order: Tagline, Author/Year, Evidence. Referencing a study or article is not a “card.”

You should be reading cards in debates. And you should be prepared to share those cards with your opponents. If you’d like help learning how to cut evidence into cards and how to share those cards quickly with your opponents and judges, I’ll gladly walk you through the process – but there are many resources available to you outside of me so seek them out.

Seek out clash. Don’t say “my partner will present that later” or dodge questions. Find the debate and go to it. We’re here to answer each other’s arguments and learn from the process, so let’s do that.

Time yourselves and each other – you should keep track of your prep time and your opponent’s prep time and time every speech in the debate. This is a good habit that you need to build.

NSDA-LD

Values and value criterions are a weighing mechanism for evaluation of arguments. Winning the value debate matters because it changes how I view impacts in the round and prioritize them. I understand the idea of “upholding a value” as the end goal of an LD round, and I can buy into that as a way to win a round, too. However, if that’s what you do, I probably won’t vote for impacts outside of that framework. You should choose between (1) upholding a value as a virtue or good in itself or (2) winning impacts that you will frame using your value/criterion. Both are valid, but I am inclined toward the impact style (option 2) by default.

I tend to think of LD debates in four parts: Definitions, Value, Aff Contentions, and Neg Contentions. I think it makes sense to flow LD on three sheets: One for definitions and values, one for aff contentions, and one for neg contentions. That makes the clash in definitions and aff/neg value easier to isolate and prevents a lot of strange and usually unnecessary cross-applications. Thinking of negative values as “Counter Values” that answer the aff value makes a lot more sense to me. You don’t have to do this in your round or on your flow, but it should help you conceptualize how I think about these debates.

I have not judged many plan-focused rounds in NSDA-LD, but I’m open to that if that is your style or you want to experiment. If you do this, I’ll flow top of aff, advantages, and neg positions on separate sheets like I would in a policy debate, and you can ignore the stuff about values above.

I am open to the less traditional arguments available to you. I love to see the unique ways you can affirm or negate using different literature bases than just the core social contract and ethics grab-bag.

Public Forum

I don’t have a ton of specific notes for PF. Check out the general section for NSDA and feel free to ask questions.

I like when the aff team speaks first. It makes debates cleaner and encourages negative responsiveness to the aff. You don’t have to choose first if you’re aff and like speaking second. But keep it in mind and do what you will with that information.

I don’t flow crossfires. I pay attention, but you need to bring up relevant crossfire moments in your speech and explain why they matter for me vote for them or include them in my decisions.

If you're reading this, that's already a good start. You should continue to do so until there are no words left. I competed in parli for ~5 years at McKendree University, and did 4 years of high school LD before that. My partner and I won the 2020 NPDA. I've coached both NPDA and IPDA at McKendree University, San Diego State University, and currently coach at Mercer University and Denison University. All of these things mostly tell you nothing about my thoughts on debate, but they should tell you that I have quite a lot of them. I'll do my best to keep it brief here.

My thoughts on debate have changed a lot since my time as a competitor and my paradigm is the best way to find that out - your coaches/fellow teammates/others who knew me as a debater are likely not going to give you an accurate run down of who I am as a judge, so it's good that you're reading this.

I really do try to be as tabula rasa as possible when I judge. I don't have a preference for any type of argument and feel that I am a good judge for almost any strategy. I'm actually a sucker for a big stick aff vs a wide LOC. T, K, DA/CP LOCs with a clean MO collapse are my favorite debates to watch. I like K debate - but I like case debate even more to be honest. I'm highly critical of most K teams because I'm not generally moved by Ks that frankenstein literature together and aren't grounded in actual scholarly work. To me, this is what makes the K effective because it acts as a bridge between debate and the larger academic scholarship that it exists within. I also don't think that the K is some special form of argument that on face goes against "technical" forms of debate. I think the K is the most technical form of debate and I evaluate it as such, so it is likely harder to win a K debate in front of me. I just have a really high standard when it comes to these arguments.

Some specifics you might want to know:

NPDA

1. I think Condo is good, so Condo Bad debates would have to be very technically deep and well-executed for me to vote most of the time. I haven't seen one of these debates go well in a while (although I would love to). I also think reading a one-off unconditional strat in the LOC is pretty baller, too.
2. You can't win on the aff without going for the aff. I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but it does implicate how I evaluate RVIs on theory or independent voters in the PMR. Most of the time, arguments that are reasons to vote aff that don't consist of actually going for the aff are probably things that shouldn't be happening in-round anyway, and you can trust me as a judge to punish teams accordingly without having to hail mary your entire round on them. This also means I vote neg on presumption - and I have been known to do this even if the negative doesn't tell me to. It's the one job the aff has and it is usually pretty clear on the flow when the aff hasn't done that. It also brings me joy to vote neg on presumption, so don't be afraid to throw the ol presumption block into your neg speeches. And no, presumption never flows aff and no one ever has or likely ever will be able to explain this argument to me in a way that makes any sense.
3. Topicality is a question of the words in the plan text, not the solvency of the aff. Idk man, I think we all have forgotten how T works. If you're gonna collapse to topicality in the MO please make sure the aff actually violates your interpretation on a textual level. I don't know what "the spirit of the interp" means and I don't think you all do, either.
4. I like theory debates. I like good theory debates more. Nothing wrong with reading it in the LOC and kicking out of it in the MO - but if the debate is gonna come down to theory just know this is a highly technical collapse to pull off as far as I'm concerned.
5. I take my role as a judge and arbiter in this activity very seriously, and the privilege that comes with that position means not putting the onus on the debaters to call out problematic behavior before I vote for it. I just think that's my responsibility and I don't really care about discourse claiming that my only job as a judge is to vote for the arguments in round. If you do or say something messed up, I feel pretty alright about using the ballot to show my distaste for that, even if you otherwise won the technical flow of the debate. If you wanna be able to get away with problematic behavior, please strike me accordingly I guess.
6. I like jokes and debates that are fun. You can still have fun while going for things like Anti-Blackness - I did. If you have a silly or whacky argument you've always wanted to read I'm the judge to do it in front of. I don't like feeling like the weight of the world rests on my decision cause everyone came in all intense. I'm literally just a little guy .-.
7. I don't give away free speaker points and if you ask for them don't go to tab about that 25 I gave you instead. I think it's disrespectful to all the national champion speakers in this activity to suggest that you deserve a 30 for no reason other than you wrote it into your shell as an argument. Speaker awards should be coveted and difficult to achieve in my opinion.
8. As far as speaker points, my average is somewhere around a 28.2 - I consider a 27.7 a "bare-minimum you did the thing" speech and a 27 is my floor. If I give you below a 27 you did something pretty bad/mean/not okay and the points I give you is indicative of my disapproval. I almost never give anything higher than a 29.7 unless it is well deserved. I don't think I have ever given a 30 - and if I have I know exactly who I gave it to (and they are a national champion speaker).
9. MG theory is fine, but the more sheets of paper you add into the debate the more grumpy I will be. I also think the only legitimate MG theory is condo bad, CP theory, and speed (sometimes. I have an incredibly high threshold for this argument and "they went faster than I wanted them to" does not meet that threshold).
10. My flow is not as tight as it used to be. This might be me being hard on myself or maybe its transitioning from paper to a laptop but please pause before sheets of paper so I don't lose you. This is a mark of a good speaker to me anyway - if you can't afford to pause for 5 seconds between positions then you need to read less/shorter arguments or you need to get faster. Either way, don't punish the rest of us.
11. I'll give a lot of feedback because I think that's my value as a judge. I don't care if the tournament is behind, no one benefits from a 10-second RFD. If it's that serious and I really don't have time to share my thoughts please come see me after because I will remember your debate and I will be happy to give feedback.
12. I like really deep and complex warrants and warrant comparison. An argument consists of both a claim and a warrant - so we should probably address those throughout the debate. A heg debate where the whole thing is "heg is good, I promise" v "heg is bad, we all know this" do not spark joy.
13. Telling me to extend a conceded argument is not enough and I will not do that work for you. To properly extend an argument it should be re-articulated in the larger context of the debate at the point of the extension. For instance, extending a climate change impact probably also means explaining why that matters in the context of the neg strat, even if there wasn't an explicit response to the impact from the neg. If you extend an argument that I still think is implicated by some other argument on another sheet of paper then that will factor into my decision.
14. I don't lean one way or another automatically when it comes to K Affs v Framework. I like K affs that do the work to explain why you get to reject the topic/defend your advocacy/etc. "The topic is vaguely bad/unethical/etc." is not enough - topics are normative statements and nothing more and it's possible to have a good defense of a bad topic. I like framework debates that engage with the K Aff in a meaningful way and are technically deep. I don't like debaters that run away from what makes them uncomfortable. I won a lot of debates going for K Affs. I won a lot of debates going for framework, too. So don't count on my ideological support to make a decision in your favor.

Not sure I have anything else. I'd add a recipe or poem or something here but I actually think my paradigm should be useful so I'll spare you. I really really like debate - when I said "burn it down" all those times I really did mean it heuristically (despite what others who have not actually read a single piece of afropessimist literature in their life might tell you). So, get out of this activity what you want - it's not my job to tell you what arguments to read. Just make it fun for me by doing whatever it is you do well.

IPDA

I didn't compete in IPDA, but I think it's a super cool format. That said, if you know I'm gonna be in the back of your room you might be advantaged by choosing one of the policy topics. That's just the debate that I will be best at evaluating. That said, I did compete in LD and I do coach IPDA so I feel comfortable evaluating other types of topics - but I will still see things similarly to parli on a technical level.

1. If you're gonna take the time to offer definitions then make them useful and strategic. Words can and do mean a lot of different things in a lot of different contexts so this portion of the debate can end up being really meaningful.
2. Case construction is really important and I think this is where most debates are lacking for me in this format. I need a highly warranted argument that builds on itself and culminates in an impact that I can vote on. A bunch of unrelated claims with shaky warrants make it harder to make a decision.
3. I don't mind speed at all in this format and will evaluate speed debates exactly as I do in NPDA. "They went faster than I wanted them to" is not enough. Maybe you went slower than they wanted you to. The debate has to be far more in depth than this to sway me in one direction or the other.
4. I mostly evaluate IPDA similarly to NPDA so it might be beneficial to read my paradigm for that as well. Ks are cool. Case debate is slightly more cool most of the time, unless you're really good at the K. I don't like excessive MG theory and if you don't collapse as the negative I will be very upset. Any other specifics you might want to ask me about before the round.

The allegory of the cornbread:

Debate is like a delicately constructed thanksgiving dinner. Often, if you take time to make sure you don’t serve anyone anything they’re allergic to, we can all grit it and bear it even if we really didn’t want to have marshmallows on our sweet potatoes. Mashed potatoes and gravy are just as good as cranberry relish if you make it right. Remember, If you’ve been invited to a thanksgiving dinner you should show up unconditionally unless you have a damn good excuse or your grandma got hit by a reindeer because we’re here to eat around a point of commonality unless your great uncle happens to be super racist. Then don’t go to thanksgiving. I’ll eat anything as long as you’re willing to tell me what’s in it and how to cook it. Remember, you don’t prepare stuffing by making stuffing, that’s not a recipe that’s a tautology. I eat a lot, I’m good at eating, and I’d love to help you learn how to eat and cook too.


PS: And why thanksgiving? Because you’re other options are Christmas featuring a man way too old to be doing that job asking if you’ve been naughty or nice at the hotel lobby, the Easter bunny which is just a man way older than you’d think he is in a suite offering kids his definitely-not-sketchy candy (who maybe aren’t really even old enough to be eating all that candy), or Labor Day where everyone realizes they can’t wear their hoods and be fashionable at the same time.

Hi! I’m Zach. I debated for 5 years of NPDA/NPTE parli (4 at Cedarville and 1 at SIU) and this is my 6th year coaching/judging. I've been coaching for McKendree since 2017. Here are some of my many thoughts about debate:

- I will flow the round and make a decision based on my flow. I will skip flowing your speech if you insist but I will not evaluate arguments that I don't flow.

- You won't get a 30 unless you give a perfect speech. My average is 28.1 with a standard deviation of 0.6. 27 is the floor unless you do something offensive.

- I've gone back and forth on this a few times and I've decided the best use of this space is just to tell you what I think I'm a good/bad judge for. Standard caveats apply, you should really just do what you do best, don't read something just because I listed it here, but this is what I've learned about myself to help you pref me. I also keep a Google doc with stats for every round I judge.

- Good judge for: topicality, big-stick affs, topic-specific disads, advantage counterplans, K affs that do the work on the flow, framework teams that do the work on the flow, Nietzsche, antiblackness arguments, conditionality, impact turns, pessimism based arguments, defense, creative interpretations of the topic, fast-paced debates, teams that stake out their ground and defend it

- Medium judge for: politics, process counterplans, soft left affs, Marx, Foucault, D&G/Bataille/most other Eurotrash, Buddhism (unfortunately), counterplan theory, novelty, teams that win by tricking the other team, probably anything else I didn't think to list above or below

- Bad judge for: K aff teams that think I'll autovote for them for ideological reasons, framework teams that think I'll autovote for them for ideological reasons, Lacan/psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, any argument that posits that rocks and/or animals are people, fact or value affs

- It will take a Herculean effort to make me vote for: spec, AFC, any other theory that makes me roll my eyes (e.g. must pass texts at X time), RVIs

- Will not vote for: negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff, any theory if the other team wins a we meet, arguments about something that happened in another round/that I cannot verify

As a quick background, I did high school policy debate and college parli debate. I would like to think I was at least okay as a debater. I haven't really been involved in judging or coaching for about three years, so my ability to flow fast spreading has probably deteriorated. Although I'll probably still "get" any particularly debate-y arguments, I've probably become significantly more lay since I left the debate scene.

**IMPORTANT** If you are running a highly critical advocacy (e.g., something involving the word simulacrum), I will almost certainly need you to explain it to me like a five-year-old. While I will try to consider any advocacy you run, my ability to judge will be delimited by my ability to understand what I am judging. If that makes me a bad judge for you, that's my b (but also maybe your b).

1. I appreciate having a written version of all texts, advocacies, etc. The language we use matters.

2. I appreciate teams that are respectful and courteous (not to me, but to their opponents and partners).

3. I appreciate when teams are creative. Boring debate is bad debate.

4. I appreciate clash. Offense wins rounds.

5. I appreciate well warranted and clear arguments, with an emphasis on presenting tangible or real-world examples. Explanations should come in constructive speeches, I should not be waiting until the end of the round to understand the argument.

6. I appreciate debaters who ask good (or strategic) questions.

7. I appreciate debaters who have good round vision and collapse only to the round’s most essential arguments.

8. I will always evaluate “stupid” arguments (RVIs, etc.) if given a good reason. I will listen to all arguments barring dangerous or violent ones. (This means I do not have a high threshold for theory, etc.)

9. I will do my best to not involve myself in the round and rely heavily on the flow (unless told otherwise). In instances where I do not understand something (e.g. one is speaking too quickly), I will make this clear.

10. I dislike when debaters deliberately exclude their opponents (by using speed, unnecessary jargon, etc.).

11. I dislike debaters who lie and cheat.

12. I dislike debaters who are rude, make the debate space more inhospitable than it already is, etc. Debate is best served when we all are (or aim to be) safe, kind, and having a good time.

13. I dislike having to do work. I will always prefer debaters who weigh arguments early and often, who explain the relationships between pages, and who have a clear narrative at the end of the round.

14. I dislike having one partner excessively use their other partner as a puppet or mouthpiece.

15. I am (currently) not well versed in argument theory. You should not assume I understand the complex relationships between the two-plank dispositional CP and x, y, or z argument. Explain your arguments well.

16. I think rebuttals should be a much slower-paced speech than the others and provide the judge with the most persuasive version of your argument. I won't dock you if they don't sound pretty, but these should be where you try and sound the least like you're trying to cram in every possible argument.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round!

Please, I beg, read the things I write here. I didn't write it for no reason.

I'm Fiker (pronounced like sticker). She/her/hers. I debated a bit in high school which is mostly unimportant, and then did four years (2015-2019) at Texas Tech University. I (and my partner) won the NRR and I won all 3 national top speaker awards in 2019. I judged and graduate-assistant coached for TTU in my masters (graduated 2021) and was acting Director for a year. I then spent a year as the Director of Debate at Grapevine High School. I now am the Associate Director of Debate at Mercer University. So it goes.

I generally think debate is a game, but a useful and important one. It may not be "fiat" but it does influence the real world by how we exist inside of it. Let's not forget we're human beings. Read what you want, I certainly did. However, I do not intend on imposing my own ideals onto debaters, so please have whatever round you want so long as we respect one another as humans. Speed isn't usually an issue but if we're blazing, let me know so I can use paper and not my laptop. 90% of debaters lose rounds in front of me because they have not read the specifics of my paradigm and how I tend to come down on questions of evaluation, so don’t let that be you, too. I don’t understand presumption most likely. Not something you want to stake your round.

Things to keep in mind: My favorite arguments are well warranted critical arguments that I can actually learn and grow from; also, Japan re-arm. I like to do as little work as possible when it comes to making decisions on the flow so please be incredibly explicit when making claims as I will not fill in arguments not being made in the round. Impact calculus is essential. However many warrants you have, double it. Condo is good, but don't test the decently sturdy limits. I don't really get presumption and may not be in your best interest to stake the round on it. Thought experiments aren't real. Jokes are fun. 9/10 the MG theory is not worth it. I will only evaluate what you tell me to. If I have not been given a way to evaluate arguments, everything becomes flow centric. This will not work out for you if things become a long chain of arguments as I will just default to whatever the most convincing and well-fleshed out argument is otherwise with no other weighing mechanism. Saying words is NOT the same thing as making an argument. I need to know either 1) what that means for the sake of the round/impact of the round, 2) how this helps me to evaluate/interpret other arguments or, 3) needs to be explicit enough to do all that in the nature of saying the argument. Cool you said it, but what am I supposed to do with it now?

Affs: Read them and be very well warranted within them. Pull from the aff throughout the debate as I feel this is one of the least utilized forms of offense in the round. K affs are fine (I'm a big fan) just make sure the things you say make sense and do something. I think because I have read a lot of Ks in my time that people think I will vote them up regardless, which is not true. I like offense and warrants and I like not doing work so whoever allows the most of that will be in the better spot regardless. Read case against the aff. Be clear and read texts twice.

DA/CP: Also read these. They need to be complete and fleshed out with good warrants and net benefits where they need to be. Warrant explicitness are your best friend. CPs should come with written texts, imo. I would say I have a slightly higher than average threshold for CP theory but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate it if it is read and defended well (just remember MG theory isn't always worth it if you can just win the substantive).

Theory: I like this and my threshold is pretty equal to substance if run well, but I needneedneed good structure. Interpretations are key, please slow down and repeat them. Now, I don't need several sheets of theory, MG theory, overly high-level theory, and certainly not MO and later theory. Keep it at home. Have voters. Defend them. Competing interpretations is based on the way that the interpretations are being upheld through the resolution of the standards but standards alone do not win without a competitive interpretation. Theory is one shot kill to say both please don’t go hard for the substantive as a backup just go for theory or don’t and don’t go for theory if there’s no proven abuse or if you’re not explaining the abuse in clear detail. In other words, what is the violation AND why is that violation bad?

Ks: I love them, but I don't vote on nothing. Framework needs to be strong or it needs to not bog down the real parts of the argument. Links need to link..... please (generics won't save you)......Alt needs to make sense, repeat them twice for me, and if they're long, I'd like to be told in flex or given a copy. Even if I know your literature, I am not debating. Please do the work for me in round. Identity arguments are fine, do as you please just don't be offensive or overly satirical about real violence. You must still win the actual debate and make the actual arguments for me to vote. This runs both ways, so anyone reading the K should do so if you want but if this is your winning strategy then make sure I know why and am not filling anything in for you where you believe I should be able to. “Use of the state” is a link of omission at best. Not offense alone. You need external reason and if your “use of the state specifically” is just repetition of all the things the state either has done or could do is not enough of a link to prove in the context of the round. How is the METHOD uniquely causing this issue?

Any other questions about my paradigm or my opinions/feelings about debate can be directed to me by email at fikertesfaye15@gmail.com

Have your debate. Live your life. Yee, and dare I say it, haw.

General: I debated at Lewis and Clark from 2012-2015, was MG/LO and come from the Adam Testerman/Joe Provencher school of learning. I also did four years of policy debate in high school. What should be taken from my philosophy is that while I have preferences y'all should just do you. I would rather see the debate that you are best at/most excited about rather than an attempt at catering to me. Also, if it helps my style of judging is very techy and flow based.

I am most knowledgeable about international politics, the environment and issues concerning animal rights (anthropocentrism).I also spent a significant portion of my debate career reading Baudrillard and Lacan (the lack/big other specifically). Outside of these areas it would be wise to assume that I have not read your literature base.

Topicality: I LOVE T and am such a T hack. Weird, wonky T's are highly encouraged. I will always evaluate a T and feel very comfortable judging this debate. In order for me to vote on T it needs to have all of the proper components ie interp, violation, standards, voters and an evaluation mechanism. Violations need to be articulated saying that the aff violates is insufficient (explain how they violate). Also I think limits is the best standard and ground is the worst (but do you). I tend to default to competing interpretations unless given a mechanism to evaluate what "reasonable" is and a reason to prefer it as such. Additionally, I do not need proven in round abuse to vote on topicality though proving abuse will certainly strengthen your case. Also say the interp twice please. Oh and if you're the aff and plan was rez unless the words extra of effects topicality are in the LOC shell feel free to spend very little time on the topicality as long as you say point out both of these things. However, I will vote on a T even if plan is rez if the aff does not use this argument to get out of a topicality. I will not vote on rvis.

Theory: I'll listen to it, do you but I won't love listening to disclosure or no neg fiat. However, I will still vote on both of those things if that's what you're into saying. I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

Counterplans: Don't have a lot of strong opinions on CPs. Down to hear theory both ways but generally tend to think that condo is good and cheater cps are bad but again I will still evaluate why delay is good or condo is bad.

Advantages/Disads: Please say them I love a good policy debate.

The K: I am not well versed in K literature which means at some point you should explain the thesis of your K, preferably as if I was five. In terms of running the K links should be specific and there should be a clear framework so I understand how you would like me to evaluate the K against the aff and the text of the alt should be said twice. When answering the K I prefer to hear link or impact turns but am willing to vote on theory that the neg shouldn't be allowed to read a K. I'm also down to hear the K aff just make it clear whether or not you are defending fiat and have a clear advocacy text.

Perms: I think every aff team should read permutations as they act as a good failsafe and basic test of the K or CP. However, I RARELY vote on the permutation. In my mind it's very hard for perms to become offense for the aff team. If going for the perm be clear about specific net-benefits to the perm which is the only way for the perm to be offensive. I would much rather see turns read on K's and CP's (better offense) and a deeper on those turns.

It has become increasingly apparent that there are misconceptions of what I like in debate and what I will vote on, so rather than making this page a portfolio about what I love in debate, I'm just going to tell you what you will lose on if I am your judge. Plan and adapt accordingly.

1. Racial Slurs-Autodrop.

2. K's that have pointless alts that don't do anything/I am not told what they do and are not explained. I'm not going to weigh your unending extinction of the self if you ask me to vote for an alt that magically shifts ontological hierarchies or epistemic heuristics in the span of 44 minutes.

3. Policies that are exceedingly outrageous with their uniqueness to impacts. Will the collapse of this 5 billion dollar industry really lead to the collapse of the entire economic sector, the US economy, the global economy, and end life as we know it? What do you think.

4. Theory that lacks a competitive interpretation.

5. Interps/Counter-Interps and We-Meets that are not explicitly extended.

6. Claiming proven abuse when your strategy calls are bad and you did not adapt. If they can no-link your disad, perhaps they argued it better than you and it is not an instance of an aff/neg being overly abusive.

7. Failure to slow/clear for opponents. This is an autodrop for Varsity competitors against novices. You won't be able to read me any theory that will change my mind on this. Novices, this does not mean you should abuse this. I know abuse when I see it, and that goes for either side.

8. Tech over truth-not an auto-drop, but I am in no way sympathetic to tech over truth at this point in my judging career.