Tabroom.com

2015 Niles Township Invitational

2015 — IL/US

Open Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Nathan Bennett New Trier High School 5 rounds None

Amit Bindra Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 10, 2015 at 6:56 AM CDT

Amit Bindra's Judge Philosophy

Below are some of my thoughts on debate. However, since 2009, I have (a) cut maybe two debate cards, and (b) only judged at CDL or local, tournaments in the Chicagoland area.

I debated for 2.5 years at Michigan State in college (2005-07, 2009), and for 4 years at Brookfield Central High School (2001-05). I cleared at the NDT twice in college (07, 09), and the TOC in high school (05). However, I'm pretty removed from debate right now.

During my debate career, I was fairly policy oriented. I will do the best that I can to conform to the debaters and their preferences, but my knowledge level for critical and performance based debates is low. My feedback for policy oriented rounds will also be more productive for the debaters.

Finally, I'm still figuring out how to properly award speaker points, especially now that the norm involves giving out tenths of a speaker point. So I apologize in advance.

Please feel free to email me after rounds if you have additional questions.

Cross-Examination

I flow CX, and the best debaters make this the most important speech. I think a lot of teams make good connections in CX, but fail to apply these connections to the actual round.

Blippy Arguments

I am incredibly unlikely to vote for unsubstantiated claims that the other team allegedly did not answer. I will give the rebuttals a lot of leeway to respond to "they dropped x is a voting issue." Especially when "x" is barely an argument. See most CP theory arguments.

Topicality

I typically vote for the "best interpretation" for debate. Generally, that means some sort of offense/defense paradigm. I do not generally like just defensive arguments. An interpretation coupled with some reasonability arguments could get my vote for the affirmative.

Theory

I lean negative on almost all theory questions, and I am incredibly unlikely to vote affirmative on conditionality bad, no neg fiat, etc. At the same time, this doesn't mean the affirmative shouldn't make these arguments, or that the negative can concede these arguments. There are strategic benefits from a time stand point for the affirmative. But if the 2ar is going for conditionality bad, and the 2nr made some arguments in response, I am likely voting negative pretty quickly.

Disads/CPs

These are the debates I prefer, and debates I'm probably the most qualified to judge. I fall into the "offense/defense" category of judging. I generally think there is a risk of the disadvantage, though it might be very small. I have no problem if the negative reads multiple conditional frameworks or counterplans.

Critiques/Performance/Framework

This definitely isn't my forte - I don't know too much about the literature (surprisingly, I don't spend my free time reading Baudrillard and Zizek).

At the same time, I think "policy oriented" teams do a poor job responding to criticisms or performance arguments. I am unlikely to vote for framework in these debates, mostly because I think these debates are rarely nuanced.

For the most part, I'm probably closer to the middle regarding non-plan/performance debates than one would guess given my debate background (i.e. I vote for the team running the performance - even when not defending the plan - about half the time). However, I'm not well-educated on these debates, so I have the potential to make errors in judgment.

Also, I truly do not understand the value of reading a former debater's or current coach's thoughts on framework. I really don't understand how attaching the evidence to a debater/coach's name adds any credibility to the evidence.

Other

I reward teams with better speaker points for not wasting my time when they do not need to. For example, if you are in a non-competitive round, you are not required to use all of your prep time. Obviously, make you sure you are able to win the round. But I will reward higher speaker points for being considerate of my time.

Brian Box Glenbrook South High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:35 AM CDT

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4 @ gmail dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.

1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.

2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.

3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.

4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.

5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.

6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.

7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.

Other things to know

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

Jeff Buntin New Trier High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 26, 2024 at 5:33 AM CDT

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

Redistribution affs must tax----------------------X--------Not required to tax

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

Chris Callahan Glenbrook South High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 7:15 AM CDT

Glenbrook South 2014, Northwestern 2018, now Dartmouth, he/him/his

Email chain: c.callahan45@gmail.com

General thoughts:

The older I get and the more time out of debate I spend, the more of a curmudgeon I become. I am interested in in-depth, well-researched debate, and uninterested in things that are not that. This has two implications.

First, I am most likely to vote for strategies that are based in coherent literature bases, lend themselves to high-quality and detailed evidence, and have deep defenses of the way their conclusions arise. I care a lot about interactions between flows -- I'm most comfortable voting for teams that structure coherent narratives across multiple flows and through multiple speeches, and I'm uncomfortable when basic thesis claims are in tension across positions.

Second, I find that I am more willing than other judges to issue decisions in T or theory debates that amount to "I know it when I see it." Just because one relatively reasonable practice might justify the most extreme form of that practice doesn't mean those two are indistinguishable. This doesn't mean I'm unwilling to vote on T or theory. On the contrary, I'm perfectly happy to do so when the other team has engaged in a facially unreasonable practice -- just not otherwise.

K things:

If recent history is any indication, I am an excellent judge for the neg when going for a critique like security or neolib against a typical policy aff. I do think, however, that objective truth is a real thing and that well-defined actions to improve the world are generally good, so I tend to be reluctant to accept most flavors of political or philosophical nihilism.

I'm also willing to vote for teams that don't read plans. My biggest concerns in T/framework debates are the role of the negative and the kind of debates that would take place in an alternative vision of the topic. This means going beyond the typical "you could have read the cap K" and developing a coherent theory for how debate operates and why a topic without a resolutional focus would still promote clash and in-depth debate. I find it hard to vote aff when the neg has won that the aff's interpretation makes debate shallow and prevents the specific testing of aff arguments.

Old man yells at cloud:

If you answer arguments included in the previous speech's document but not read, your speaker points will suffer.

If you spend a significant amount of cross-ex time just figuring out which cards were and weren't read, or asking the speaker to simply restate their arguments, your speaker points will suffer.

If you ask the speaker to remove everything they didn't read from a speech doc, I will tell them they don't have to do that.

Better-than-average for:

50-state fiat bad, dedev, the intrinsic perm against process counterplans, author indicts/debates about qualifications

Worse-than-average for:

Climate change not real, the perm double bind, con con, any argument that could be described as trolling, cards with sentences highlighted across multiple paragraphs, impact arguments that use the word "miscalc" as a substitute for explanation

Ethics stuff:

In general, my priority in cases of ethics questions is to maximize the amount of good-faith debating that can occur. If there is a way to resolve the issue and continue the debate, I will do my best to find it.

I would generally like to assume ignorance rather than malice when it comes to things like mis-citing or mis-cutting evidence. By this I mean cards being cited incorrectly, parts of cards not appearing in the original article, cards being cut in the middle of paragraphs, etc. If this kind of thing happens, I would prefer to just disregard a piece of evidence rather than deciding an entire debate about someone's card-cutting practices. Mistakes happen and people are people, and I would like to think that all debaters are here in good faith. However, if something is super egregious, I can be convinced that it should be a reason for a team to lose.

There needs to be a recording to accuse someone of clipping cards. This is a debate-ender: if you accuse someone of clipping, I will decide the debate on that issue. It has to be clear and repeated, not just missing a line or two. I will often glance at speech docs during a debate, but I do not closely read along with the debaters.

Kate Cole Homewood-Flossmoor High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 3:15 AM CDT

Current head coach at Homewood-Flossmoor High School since 2014.

Previous Policy debater (Not about that life anymore though...)

If you start an email/doc chain - kcole@hf233.org

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

When it comes to LD, I am 100% more traditional even though I've spent time in policy. I don't believe there should be plans or disads. LD should be about negating or affirming the res, not plan creation. You should have a value and value criterion that is used to evaluate the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

Traditional PF judge here. I dont want to see plans or disads. Affirm or negate the res.

Card Calling ----- If someone calls for your cards, you better have it very quick. I'm not sitting around all day for you to locate cards you should have linked or printed out in your case. If it gets excessive you'll be using prep for it. Same for obsessively calling for cards --- you best be calling them because you actually need to see them instead of starting card wars.

IN GENERAL

I'm not into disclosure so don't try and run some pro disclosure theory because I won't vote on it unless it's actually dropped and even then I probably wont vote on it.

I'm not going to fight to understand what you're saying. If you are unclear you will likely lose. I also feel like I shouldn't have to follow along on a speech doc to hear what your saying. Fast is fine, but it should be flowable without reading the docs. Otherwise....what's the point in reading it at all.

BE CLEAR - I'll tell you if I cannot understand you. I might even say it twice but after that I'll probably just stop flowing until I can understand you again. Once again -- Fast is fine as long as you are CLEAR

I am an advocate of resolution specific debate. We have a resolution for a reason. I don't believe running arguments that stay the same year after year is educational. I do, however, think that in round specific abuse is a thing and can be voted on.

K's- Most of the common K's are fine by me. I am not well read in K literature. I will not pretend to understand it. If you fail to explain it well enough for me and at the end of the debate I don't understand it, I will not vote for it. I will likely tell you it's because I don't understand. I will not feel bad about it.

Be a good person. I'm not going to tolerate people being rude, laughing at opponents, or making offensive comments.

Adam David Northside College Prep 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 11, 2015 at 10:55 AM CDT

Adam David
Northside '15
University of Chicago '19

FOR NILES: This is my first time judging varsity debate. My knowledge on the surveillance topic isn't huge but I have read files put out by various camps.

Background:
I debated as a 2N for 3 years at Northside College Prep & went to the TOC my senior year. I was policy on the aff, and I went for a variety of arguments on the neg, but mostly went for Ks my senior year, my favorite of which was Lacan.

Some basic stuff:
- tech > truth / flow-oriented
- read what you're best at.
- a dropped argument is a true argument but it has to be explained/warranted.
- slow down on plan/cp texts & explain args related to the topic. my knowledge on the topic isn't huge.
- i reject new arguments, but only if the other team points it out.
- being assertive is good, but don't cross the line. show respect to the other team & help create a friendly, accepting environment.
- if you or others describe your argument style as "trolling," i am the wrong judge for you.

Specific argument stuff:

Aff/Case: Know your aff well. That's all I can really say. I think people often get away with making blippy arguments in the 2AC and 1AR.
Personally, my favorites types of affs are policy affs that focus on structural violence & challenge traditional risk assessment.

T: I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability is definitely winnable. I don't have enough experience on the topic yet to develop specific opinions on this, but T is a valuable, educational debate to have. Caselists are really important. I generally think fairness impacts come first.

Theory: I'm willing to vote on it if it is logically extended & developed throughout the debate. I prefer that, if you go for theory, it be all you go for in the final speech, unless the other team really screwed up and you can afford to extend theory and substance. I'm easily convinced that aff-stealing counterplans are abusive. 2 conditional advocacies are generally fine but anything more than that is pushing it. Please, for the sake of my mental well-being, slow down on your theory blocks.

DAs/Impact turns: Obviously fine. Well-researched, case-specific disads make for some of the most interesting debates, but I understand that not every team has the time or resources to do that. Most of the politics DAs I saw last year were stupid & contrived, and I'm sure many more this year will be, but that's just my opinion. Top-level impact calc/turns case analysis is crucial. Huge fan of impact turn debates, especially heg good/bad.

CPs: Big fan of advantage CPs & PICs. Not a fan of process CPs, word PICs, or international CPs. I think theory arguments are usually reasons to reject the CP and not the team, but can be persuaded otherwise. Not sure what else to say.

Ks: Go for it. I'm a big fan of vanilla Ks like Neolib & Security when explained well. High-theory stuff like Baudrillard, D&G, etc. is a tougher sell. If you like going for that stuff, you have to be damn good at explaining it without using a ton of jargon. Identity Ks like Afropessimism are fine. but keep in mind that I'm not well-versed in that literature either. I'm often willing to pull the trigger on dropped K tricks. Specific link analysis and referencing the aff's evidence goes a long way, otherwise I can be easily swayed to vote on the perm. I can be very sympathetic to the aff on framework when the alternative is not explained well. This doesn't mean the alt has to be a policy, but I need explanation beyond "rejecting their discourse." Why is it necessary to focus on discourse first? Why should I not prefer the aff's specific internal links? etc.

Performance/Non-traditional: I feel like this is where a lot of people make their decisions on how to pref their judges. While I am open to these arguments and ultimately go by the flow, I am very sympathetic to the negative on the framework debate. You have to do a really good job explaining to me why debate is the proper site for your project. Method debates can be interesting, but I think a lot of these affs are purposely vague and incontestable, and when the negative goes for a K instead of framework, the aff usually easily wins on the permutation. In short, read whatever you want, but don't think that you should win because you talked about something important before the negative did.

Extra notes:
- flashing doesn't count as prep, but if you take too long it will.
- numbered warrants & being organized in general will get you higher speaker points.
- i'm bad at keeping a straight face during the debate. don't takes my cringes and/or laughter personally.

Good luck, and have fun!
My email, if you have any questions: ardavid3@gmail.com

Aaron Davis Northside College Prep 4 rounds

Dara Davis Lane Tech College Prep H.S. 6 rounds

Matt Fahrenbacher Hire 3 rounds

Drew Gordon Stevens Point Area Senior High (SPASH) 6 rounds

Carlos Hernandez Lane Tech College Prep H.S. 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 8, 2016 at 6:24 PM EDT

Firstly, I believe the judge's responsibility within the round is to be an unbiased spectator and judge each and every round solely on what the debaters present. It is not the judge’s responsibility to fill in holes within arguments.

I want to be presented the information as if it were being explained to someone for the first time. If I don’t understand an argument by the end of a round then I will not consider that argument. I want to see passion, excitement, and interest in each and every argument. If you can’t convince me that you yourself are interested in what you are presenting, then I won’t be interested in what you’re presenting. I am a full time college student and juggle a variety of different responsibilities, therefore I am sleep deprived the majority of the time. This means if your presentation of the arguments come off as dull, or lackluster then I will most likely unintentionally doze off. However, if you do manage to keep my attention then that speaks volumes about both your speaking and presentational style.

A’s and DA’s: Best comparative analysis wins.

T’s: Not my favorite thing in the world, but convince me why topicality should be a voting issue for that specific round and then this argument becomes valid.

Theory: Again not my favorite thing in the world, but I’ll go there if you’d like.

Cp’s: Prefer case specific counterplans. A counterplan that can utilize the affirmative’s evidence gets extra points.

K’s: A personal favorite but you have to be able to articulate what a world looks like in a world where the alternative is implemented. What are a few pragmatic courses of actions that can be taken a result of the alternative? Also, when running a K I have to feel that the debater is genuine and passionate about the argument, otherwise the effectiveness of it becomes muddled and I’m less likely to vote on it. In short, don’t run a kritik you’re not passionate about because I won’t vote on it.

Don’t hyperventilate: Spreading is fine as long as it does not compromise clarity. Also, I don’t want to feel like a computer is just running through a list of information for me. You’re a human being, with human being vocals and tones meant to emphasize certain emotions. Use those.

Clear signposting is a good thing.

Speaker Points

I begin with a 27. From there, I add points to reward good strategy, persuasion, argumentation, speaking style, and just being an all-around good human being. I deduct points for the opposites of things I add points for.

Kim Hill Glenbrook North 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 3, 2017 at 11:24 AM CDT

Kim Hill
Glenbrook North High School ('14)
Northwestern University ('18)

Meta: I went to GBN. And I go to Northwestern.

What sits below this sentence is my general set of predispositions about debate. To win debates, you will have to overcome these predispositions.

Specific:

Kritiks: (I put this first since this is all anyone cares about anymore). I really do not like listening to a K debate. It makes me angry. I like framework, I think the aff should defend a plan text and fiat and I think that neg alternatives are abusive. If you do not read a plan text, you should consider reading one in front of me. That being said, I won't automatically vote against you just because you read a K. I often find that Kritiks that are specific to the affirmative are one of the most interesting types of debate BUT IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU ARE THOROUGHLY EXPLAINING THINGS THOROUGHLY, ESPECIALLY THE ALT AND/OR FRAMEWORK BECAUSE THAT IS HOW I WILL EVALUATE THE DEBATE.

In high school I often found the most successful strategy to be aff against the K was to pick things to put in the 1ac that are defensible and defend them. While I am a good judge for the framework, perm, case outweighs strategy, I often think at times it is the harder debate to win and an uphill battle for the aff.

How to go for framework in front of me: Point to the resolution in the invitation. Sit down.

But seriously, the way to win framework is to ensure that framework operates on a different level than the aff. If not, you need to make sure that the impacts to framework outweigh the aff. T version of the aff and go for this on the neg are convincing arguments in front of me.

Counterplans: My favorite strategy tends to be high-tech, specific counterplans (usually PICs) that are well-researched and explained by the negative. I am totally open to any counterplan, even those that compete off of certainty and immediacy. In general I think that debate is a game, especially when it comes to thing like counterplan competition.

Theory: I'm chill with any theory argument. What's most important is that you win a reason to reject the team. I generally think theory arguments that affect the entire debate (like condo) are reasons to reject the team and why specific counterplans are bad are reasons to reject the argument, but if you win that it's a reason to reject the team I'm all for doing that.

I will give you extra points if:
1) You strike me.
3) If you make fun of people that I do not like.
For a list of people I do not like see: the caselist.
4) You are sassy, but not mean.
2) You are Esteban Pipkin.

Melanie Johnson Hire 6 rounds None

Patrick Kennedy Hire 5 rounds

Stephanie King Rufus King 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:52 AM CDT

Preferred Pronouns: She/her

Current Affiliation: Rufus King High School

Conflicts: Rufus King High School

Debate Experience: 4 yrs policy in high school, 16 yrs policy coach

Rounds judged in 2022-23: 7 rounds, I primarily operate tournament tabrooms in Wisconsin

Email: stephak88@yahoo.com

I have not judged this season. Please keep this in mind. Do not assume I have seen your argument before or am up on how the argument has progressed over the season. Due to this, I would also recommend a more moderate speed - especially on theory args/analytics or I will likely miss something.

Argument stuff:

I dislike contradictory negative worlds in a big way. Totally fine with as many multiple worlds as the negative wants, but if they contradict each other, I am easily persuaded by this being an uneducational strat choice.
Topicality: If you want to win on T, you will have to invest time in it (this means EXPLAINING your standards/voters, not just rambling off "Fairness, Education, and Jurisdiction"). Show me concrete in round abuse.
I am fine with Counterplans but they need to compete with the aff. Also need to respond to theory or perms even if you kick the CP.
If you are running a K that is based upon rhetoric, and you engage in the rhetoric yourself, you will lose. IE-if you are running something like Ableism and use language that links to it, you will not win in front of me. I enjoy K rounds when the debaters demonstrate knowing the arguments and not that they can just read off some blocks.
If you are run a non-traditional affirmative, I would prefer it to be in the direction of the topic somehow & probably have some sort of advocacy statement/actionable item within the case that I could vote “for”. If there is a round of a traditional policy team vs a non-traditional team/in-round solvency args, I’d strongly encourage a fiat or framing debate of how I should evaluate impacts that occur in two totally different spaces.

Stylistic items:

Clash is good. Roadmaps are good. Signposting is good.
Last two rebuttals should be crystalizing the whole round down to the couple of main reasons why you win.
I do not flow cross ex. If you are making arguments in cross ex I will not have them down.
Tooling your partner to the point of scripting their speeches for them will mean lower speaks from me
Saying “this argument makes no sense, so I don’t need to answer it” is NOT an answer. Tell me why it makes no sense and why that means I disregard it.
Throwing jargon around, especially with regards to theory or critical debates. Most likely, I am familiar with your argument and completely understand what you are saying. However, that does not mean you can just throw around terms without demonstrating to me that you actually know what you’re saying.

I consider myself a policy judge, mostly because I think it is extremely unlikely a debate judge can be truly tabula rasa. I will listen and evaluate any argument presented in round, so long as it is not morally objectionable (e.g. no sexual violence good, racism good, etc.). I have coached teams across the spectrum of debate args- straight up policy arguments, one-off K teams, performance teams. At the end of the round, tell me why you should win. Give me the bigger picture beyond the scope of the round we are in and tell me how IT impacts the world/society-whatever “IT” may be (AFF plan, CP, K alternative, DA, Solvency Turn, whatever). Outside of debate, I was a substance abuse counselor for three years, have degrees in Psychology and am a Behavior Analyst working with individuals with special needs. I added this information a few years ago because some teams I've encountered have read arguments that misquote psychological theorists because these teams expect every judge to be pre-law. I will know that you are misquoting them.

Benjamin Krier Von Steuben 6 rounds

Alyssa V Lucas-Bolin Glenbrook South High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 10:51 AM CDT

Top shelf:

Pronouns are she/her

Just call me Alyssa or ALB - do not call me judge and dear debate Lord do not call me ma'am.

email chains: gbsdebatelovesdocs@gmail.com

questions etc: alucasbolin@glenbrook225.org. If you are a student from another school emailing me please copy an adult coach on the email (just a good safety norm.)

Director of Debate at GBS since 2019, and assistant coach at GBS for a year before that. Prior to that I had taken a few years off of debate but coached at Notre Dame, University of North Texas, University of Nevada Las Vegas, and USC. I only mention this because I've coached debate in a variety of geographical locations with a variety of different argument perspectives. I hope this information helps avoid you "pigeon-holling" me into a Glenbrooks cyborg or whatever the community perception is. If you do this anyway, you'll find yourself either pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised at the end of the debate.

People always ask about my own debate career - the answer is "meh - not bad, not great." I was one of those debaters who qualified to the TOC (once) and the NDT (three times) but was in no way shape or form going to clear at either of those tournaments. This has made me a much better coach because I spend a ton of time thinking about how I can help my own debaters and the people I judge go from good to great. I try to always make sure it's about you and not about me, but I use my own experience to fuel my passion for the activity. Never in my Wildest Dreams (Lauren Ivey) would I kill it in my own debate career but I think I'm pretty okay at giving you feedback to help you kill it in yours.

Brownie points for having as many T Swift, cat, and/or Heartstopper references as possible. To be clear - the reward here is making me smile. I will not actually bump your speaker points or anything because I don't play that way.

Hot takes:

I love debate more than anything else in the world. If you show that YOU love debate more than anything else in the world that is going to go way way way farther than any preference of mine.

Favorite args in order of favoriteness (not so you make these args - just trying to give you a sense of me as a judge)

Politics DAs - I am still waiting for someone to do a one off strategy where it's just politics and the case. Be that person.
Well-executed case debate that features internal link and solvency presses in addition to impact D
Kritiks with SPECIFICITY TO THE AFF (either in analysis or evidence or - gasp - both)
Wonky debates about competition
Very weird impact turns, straight turns, etc

*I am not a great judge for condo - my teams go for it, I know I know, but it does not come from me. I'll vote on it - I just have a high threshold.

*I am a huge switch-side debate person - I really hate the community trend towards only reading arguments that fit in politically correct norms. If you have an evil argument Bring. It. On. I am personally progressive but that has absolutely nothing to do with how I judge debates. The obvious exception to this is attacking people's identity or safety. But if you're packing an absurd impact turn or read a politics da about a piece of legislation that is objectively terrible that you can prove is good, etc, I will be deeply amused.

*I literally have "2a" tattooed on my foot. 2ar terrorism is one of the most wonderful things in debate - make big bold choices if the foundation is there in the 1ar.

*My teams do everything - some are hard right policy teams and some are ... not that. I tend to think that debaters debate best when they find their own brand of debate and let their personalities shine through.

* No roboting through the round. Think. Make risky moves. Let's get weird.

*Style: Don’t be a jerk for the sake of it, but you shouldn’t feel pressure to be sugary sweet if you’re not - expectations of civility, politeness, etc tend to fall on noncis dudes and BIPOC disproportionately. Therefore a little attitude is fine with me. It’s a competition. I'm a woman who directs a major debate program and co-directs one of the biggest tournaments - I understand the need to be assertive and hold your ground.

*Clarity is very important to me. So is pen time.

*Technical debating, line by line, etc are important to me. If you flow off the doc I am not the judge for you.

*Zero risk is a thing. Love me some smart defensive arguments against silly arguments. GIVE JUDGE DIRECTION - challenge normal conceptions of risk.

*If you're making new args late in the debate you're likely to have to justify them to me. That doesn't mean don't do it, it just means defend your actions. THE 1AR IS NOT A CONSTRUCTIVE.

*You do you, but I find that I am slightly more confident in my judging if you include your analytics in the doc. I solemnly swear I am flowing by ear, but just being able to process information both visually and through listening helps my mental processing a bit.

*The one exception to the above is that if you read a new 1ac on paper I am 100% in favor - I truly enjoy watching people freak out when they have to deal with paper debate since I had the not-so-lovely experience of transitioning to paperless mid college debate career.

*EXPLAIN YOUR ACRONYMS - especially in a t debate.

Other random hot takes:

Wipeout - trash takes itself out every single time (me)

Impact turning Ks old school style - it's a love story, baby just say yes (me)

Baudrillard - I forgot that you existed (me)

No cp solvency advocate- now we've got bad blood (Aayan)

More than 6 or 7 off - You're On Your Own Kid (Aayan)

Things that are sexist/homophobic/racist etc - I Know Places where that is tolerated but I will not let rounds I judge be one of them (Aayan)

You must Speak Now (Lauren Ivey/me) in your own cross ex - like obvi tag teaming is sometimes fine but I hate when one partner does ALL of the cx in any given debate.

Heavy stuff:

*No touching.

*I am not the right judge for call outs of specific debate community members

*I am a mandatory reporter. Keep that in mind if you are reading any type of personal narrative etc in a debate. A mandatory reporter just means that if you tell me something about experiencing violence etc that I have to tell the authorities.

*I care about you and your debate but I am not your debate mommy. I am going to give you direct feedback after the debate. I won't be cruel but I'm also not a sugarcoater. It takes some people off guard because they may be expecting me to coddle them. It's just not my personality - I deeply care about your debate career and want you to do your best. I also am just very passionate about arguments. If you're feeling like I'm being a little intense just Shake It Off (Lauren Ivey.)

*Clipping = zero points and a hot L. Clarity to the point of non-comprehension that causes a clipping challenge constitutes clipping.

*I am more than fine with you post rounding as long as you keep it respectful. I would genuinely prefer you understand my decision than walk out frustrated because that doesn't help you win the next time. Bring it on (within reason). I'm back in the ring baby.

Let's have a throwdown!!! If you're reading this before a round I am excited to see what you have to offer. YAY DEBATE!!!

Imran Makani Walter Payton College Prep 6 rounds

Kevin McCaffrey Glenbrook North 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 6:43 AM EDT

Updated 9-26-2013

Kevin McCaffrey

Assistant Debate Coach Glenbrook North 2014-
Assistant Debate Coach Berkeley Preparatory School 2010-2014
Assistant Debate Coach University of Miami 2007-2009
Assistant Debate Coach Gulliver Preparatory School 2005-2010

I feel strongly about both my role as an impartial adjudicator and as an educator – situations where these roles come into conflict are often where I find that I have intervened. I try to restrain myself from intervening in a debate, but I make mistakes, and sometimes find myself presented with two options which seem comparably interventionary in different ways, often due to underarticulated argumentation. This effort represents a systematic effort to identify the conditions under which I am more or less likely to intervene unconsciously. I try to keep a beginner’s mind and approach every debate round as a new learning opportunity, and I do usually learn at least one new thing every round – this is what I like most about the activity, and I’m at my best when I remember this and at my worst when I forget it.

My default paradigm is that of a policy analyst – arguments which assume a different role (vote no, performance) probably require more effort to communicate this role clearly enough for me to understand and feel comfortable voting for you. I don’t really have a very consistent record voting for or against any particular positions, although identity- and psychology-based arguments are probably the genres I have the least experience with and I’m not a good judge for either.

Rather, I think you’re most interested in the situations in which I’m likely to intervene – and what you can do to prevent it – this has much less to do with what arguments you’re making than it does with how you’re making them:

Make fewer arguments, and explain their nature and implication more thoroughly:

My unconscious mind carries out the overwhelming majority of the grunt work of my decisions – as I listen to a debate, a mental map forms of the debate round as a cohesive whole, and once I lose that map, I don’t usually get it back. This has two primary implications for you: 1) it’s in your interest for me to understand the nuances of an argument when first presented, so that I can see why arguments would be more or less responsive as or before they are made in response 2) debates with a lot of moving parts and conditional outcomes overload my ability to hold the round in my mind at once, and I lose confidence in my ability to effectively adjudicate, having to move argument by argument through each flow after the debate – this increases the chances that I miss an important connection or get stuck on a particular argument by second-guessing my intuition, increasing the chances that I intervene.

I frequently make decisions very quickly, which signals that you have done an effective job communicating and that I feel I understand all relevant arguments in the debate. I don’t believe in reconstructing debates from evidence, and I try to listen to and evaluate evidence as it's being read, so if I am taking a long time to make a decision, it’s probably because I doubt my ability to command the relevant arguments and feel compelled to second-guess my understanding of arguments or their interactions, a signal that you have not done an effective job communicating, or that you have inadvertently constructed an irresolveable decision calculus through failure to commit to a single path to victory.

In short, I make much better decisions when you reduce the size of the debate at every opportunity, when you take strategic approaches to the debate which are characterized by internally consistent logic and assumptions, and when you take time to explain the reasoning behind the strategic decisions you are making, and the meta-context for your arguments. If your approach to debate strategy depends upon overloading the opponent’s technical capabilities, then you will also likely overload my own, and if your arguments aren't broadly compatible with one another, then I may have difficulty processing them when constructing the big picture. I tend to disproportionately reward gutsy all-in strategic decisions. As a side note, I probably won’t kick a counterplan for you if the other team says just about anything in response, you need to make a decision.

Value proof higher than rejoinder:

I am a sucker for a clearly articulated, nuanced story, supported by thorough discussion of why I should believe it, especially when supported by high-quality evidence, even in the face of a diversity of poorly articulated or weak arguments which are only implicitly answered. Some people will refer to this as truth over tech – but it’s more precisely proof over rejoinder – the distinction being that I don’t as often reward people who say things that I believe, but rather reward fully developed arguments over shallowly developed or incomplete arguments. There have been exceptions – a dropped argument is definitely a true argument – but a claim without data and a warrant is not an argument. Similarly, explicit clash and signposting are merely things which help me prevent myself from intervening, not hard requirements. Arguments which clash still clash whether a debater explains it or not, although I would strongly prefer that you take the time to explain it, as I may not understand that they clash or why they clash in the same way that you do.

My tendency to intervene in this context is magnified when encountering unfamiliar arguments, and also when encountering familiar arguments which are misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally. As an example, I am far more familiar with positivist studies of international relations than I am with post-positivist theorizing, so debaters who can command the distinctions between various schools of IR thought have an inherent advantage, and I am comparably unlikely to understand the nuances of the distinctions between one ethical philosopher and another. I am interested in learning these distinctions, however, and this only means you should err on the side of explaining too much rather than not enough.

A corollary is that I do believe that various arguments can by their nature provide zero risk of a link (yes/no questions, empirically denied), as well as effectively reduce a unique risk to zero by making the risk equivalent to chance or within the margin of error provided by the warrant. I am a sucker for conjunctive/disjunctive probability analysis, although I think assigning numerical probabilities is almost never warranted.

Incomprehensible value systems:

One special note is that I have a moderate presumption against violence, whether physical or verbal or imaginary – luckily for me, this has yet to seriously present itself in a debate I have judged. But I don’t think I have ever ended up voting for a pro-death advocacy, whether because there are more aliens than humans in the universe, or because a thought experiment about extinction could change the way I feel about life, or because it’s the only path to liberation from oppression. While I’d like to think I can evaluate these arguments objectively, I’m not entirely sure that I really can, and if advocating violence is part of your argument, I am probably a bad judge for you, even though I do believe that if you can’t articulate the good reasons that violence and death are bad, then you haven’t adequately prepared and should probably lose.

Email me:

I like the growing practice of emailing flows and debriefing at the end of a day or after a tournament – feel free to email me: kmmccaffrey at gmail dot com. It sometimes takes me a while to fully process what has happened in a debate round and to understand why I voted the way I did, and particularly in rounds with two very technical, skilled opponents, even when I do have a good grasp of what happened and feel confident in my decision, I do not always do a very good job of communicating my reasoning, not having time to write everything out, and I do a much better job of explaining my thinking after letting my decision sit for a few hours. As such, I am very happy to discuss any decision with anyone in person or by email – I genuinely enjoy being challenged – but I am much more capable and comfortable with written communication than verbal.

Evan McCarty Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 4, 2022 at 12:27 AM UTC

Evan McCarty

I. Introduction

I debated for Northwestern and graduated in 2016. I now work in strategy and biz ops at a legal technology company. I have not researched the [insert name of current topic] topic at all.

II. Top Level

The best debaters are hard-working, strategic, passionate about the activity, and gracious to others in the community.

Tech > truth, but it's often easier to win the tech if your argument is true.

III. Predispositions

I’ll vote on nearly any warranted argument. That being said, here are some predispositions that guide my thinking. All of these can be overcome with a warranted argument to the contrary:

1. Pragmatism > Idealism.

2. Debate should be about evaluating courses of action against their opportunity costs. If the AFF proves that the NEG's counterplan, kritik, or disadvantage is not a germane opportunity cost to the plan, I'm inclined to disregard the NEG's position.

3. Clash is good. Positions that promote clash are good for debate. Positions that avoid clash are bad for debate.

4. The AFF should defend topical action. The judge should vote AFF if a given topical action is preferable to the status quo or a competitive (opportunity-cost) action.

5. Presumption is toward less change from the status quo.

IV. Constraints

Some of my views are not subject to change. These include:

1. A dropped argument (claim + warrant) is presumptively true for the rest of the debate. However, I have a relatively high threshold for what constitutes an argument in the first place. For example, the phrase “conditionality is a voter – time and strat skew, argumentative irresponsibility – dispo solves” is not an argument, because it does not contain an actual warrant (and is not, for that matter, a complete sentence).

2. No take-backs – if you make an argument and the other team does not contest it, then you don't get to retract it.

3. Intentionally intimidating the opposing team, judge, or audience through threats of physical or emotional violence --> loss.

4. Respect for your opponents, the activity, and the community is important.

V. Kritiks

My voting record for critical arguments is better than one may have expected given the arguments I ran while debating. That being said, I would still generally consider myself "good" for framework against non-traditional affirmatives and "good" for the aff against most criticisms.

The efficacy of the affirmative's advocacy/negative's alternative is incredibly important. The more sweeping your impact claim, the more important it is that you have a clear proposal to solve it. Critical arguments that invest time explaining the efficacy of their proposal have a very good record in front of me.

I am a much better judge for affirmatives that are in the "direction" of the topic than those that simply mention the topic in passing (or worse, don't mention it at all).

I am a better judge for identity-based arguments than for anything postmodern/high theory.

Kritiks do best in front of me if they cause me to think implementation of the plan would be a bad idea.

VI. Other

1. Zero-risk is totally a thing.

2. High quality evidence > smart analytics > low quality evidence.

David McGinnis West Des Moines Valley 3 rounds

Val McIntosh Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 1:47 PM EDT

Debate Coach - University of Michigan

Debate Coach - New Trier High School

Michigan State University '13

Brookfield Central High School '09

I would like to be on the email chain - my email address is valeriemcintosh1@gmail.com.

A few top level things:

If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is. This also includes forwarding the argument that death is good because suffering exists. I will not vote on it.
If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
I'm a very expressive judge. Look up at me every once in a while, you will probably be able to tell how I feel about your arguments.
I don't think that arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates are at all relevant to my decision and I will not evaluate them. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.

Pet peeves

The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start
Asking if I am ready or saying you'll start if there are no objections, etc. in in-person debates - we're all in the same room, you can tell if we're ready!
Email-sending related failures
Dead time
Stealing prep
Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team
Asserting things are dropped when they aren't
Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards
Disappearing after the round

Online debate: My camera will always be on during the debate unless I have stepped away from my computer during prep or while deciding so you should always assume that if my camera is off, I am not there. I added this note because I've had people start speeches without me there.

Ethics: If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points.
*NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me.

Organization: I would strongly prefer that if you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn that it go on its own page - its super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders. Ditto to reading advantage CPs on case - put it on its own sheet, please!

Cross-x: Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions. If you don't start the timer before you start asking those questions, I will take whatever time I estimate you took to ask questions before the timer was started out of your prep. If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Translated evidence: I am extremely skeptical of evidence translated by a debater or coach with a vested interest in that evidence being used in a debate. Lots of words or phrases have multiple meanings or potential translations and debaters/coaches have an incentive to choose the ones that make the most debate-friendly argument even if that's a stretch of what is in the original text. It is also completely impossible to verify if words or text was left out, if it is a strawperson, if it is cut out of context, etc. I won't immediately reject it on my own but I would say that I am very amenable to arguments that I should.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate: I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting. This can also be accomplished by reading those lines in cross-x and then referencing them in a speech or just making analytics about their card(s) in your speech and then providing a rehighlighting to explain it.

Topicality: I enjoy judging topicality debates when they are in-depth and nuanced. Limits are an an important question but not the only important question - your limit should be tied to a particular piece of neg ground or a particular type of aff that would be excluded. I often find myself to be more aff leaning than neg leaning in T debates because I am often persuaded by the argument that negative interpretations are arbitrary or not based in predictable literature.

5 second ASPEC shells/the like that are not a complete argument are mostly nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans: I would say that I generally lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps, but obviously am more than willing to vote for them if they are debated better by the negative.

I think that CPs should have to be policy actions. I think this is most fair and reciprocal with what the affirmative does. I think that fiating indefinite personal decisions or actions/non-actions by policymakers that are not enshrined in policy is an unfair abuse of fiat that I do not think the negative should get access to. The CP that has the US declare it will not go to war with China would be theoretically legitimate but the CP to have the president personally decide not to go to war with China would not be. Similarly CPs that fiat a concept or endgoal rather than a policy would also fall under this.

It is the burden of the neg to prove the CP solves rather than the burden of the aff to prove it doesn't. Unless the neg makes an attempt to explain how/why the CP solves (by reading ev, by referencing 1AC ev, by explaining how the CP solves analytically), my assumption is that it doesn’t and it isn’t the aff’s burden to prove it doesn’t. The burden for the neg isn’t that high but I think neg teams are getting away with egregious lack of CP explanation and judges too often put the burden on the aff to prove the CP doesn’t solve rather than the neg to prove it does.

Disads: Uniqueness is a thing that matters for every level of the DA. I am not very sympathetic to politics theory arguments (except in the case of things like rider disads, which I might ban from debate if I got the choice to ban one argument and think are certainly illegitimate misinterpretations of fiat) and am unlikely to ever vote on them unless they're dropped and even then would be hard pressed. I'm incredibly knowledgeable about politics and enjoy it a lot when debated well but really dislike seeing it debated poorly.

Theory: Conditionality is often good. It can be not. Conditionality is the ONLY argument I think is a reason to reject the team, every other argument I think is a reason to reject the argument alone. Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Kritiks: I've gotten simultaneously more versed in critical literature and much worse for the kritik as a judge over the last few years. Take from that what you will.

Your K should ideally be a reason why the aff is bad, not just why the status quo is bad. If not, you're better off with it primarily being a framework argument.

Yes the aff gets a perm, no it doesn't need a net benefit.

Affs without a plan: I generally go into debates believing that the aff should defend a hypothetical policy enacted by the United States federal government. I think debate is a research game and I struggle with the idea that the ballot can do anything to remedy the impacts that many of these affs describe.

I certainly don't consider myself immovable on that question and my decision will be governed by what happens in any given debate; that being said, I don't like when judges pretend to be fully open to any argument in order to hide their true thoughts and feelings about them and so I would prefer to be honest that these are my predispositions about debate, which, while not determinate of how I judge debates, certainly informs and affects it.

I would describe myself as a good judge for T-USFG against affs that do not read a plan. I find impacts about debatability, clash, iterative testing and fairness to be very persuasive. I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I am not very persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.

I generally am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.

I don't think debate is roleplaying.

I am uncomfortable making decisions in debates where people have posited that their survival hinges on my ballot.

Brad Meloche Seaholm High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 1:31 PM EDT

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain. Please do email chains instead of sharing in the zoom chat/NSDA classroom! PLEASE no google docs if you have the ability to send in Word! If you send docs as PDFs your speaker points will be capped at 28.5)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

Ian Miller Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 4, 2022 at 5:16 AM CDT

I debated for Wake Forest in college and SPASH in high school. I coached debate at Niles North/West. I then went to law school.

I prefer and reward the speaker points for:
- clarity
- organized debates
- strategic thinking
- well researched arguments

I dislike the following and dock speaker points for:
- unclear speaking
- prep stealing/wasting
- being belligerent/overly aggressive

I've updated the argument preference section. I think overall judges should try to fairly evaluate everything before them no matter what the argument is. However, all judges have preferences. If you have the flexibility, here are my most favorite to least favorite types of debates:

Tons of fun:
Specific case neg/DA

Aff-specific CP/PIC (not a word pic - a pic out of something substantive in their aff or a CP that comes from the lit about their aff).

Impact turning the aff

K of the specific aff

Totally fine:
Generic DA/Case
Substance CP (not process based) and a DA
Generic middle of the road K (security, neolib, cap, biopower, topic K)
A good T argument (not ASPEC/OSPEC)

OK but a high threshold for good research and practice:
Agent CP's
Wilderson/anti-blackness
Performance arguments

No. Please don’t read or go for these:
Baudrillard/Nietzsche/Lacan/Psychoanalysis/Bataille
Process based arguments: consult CP's, rider da's, veto cheato, con con, etc
ASPEC/OSPEC

Do these things when going for these arguments to maximize speaker points and win

K's: 1. Focus on the link and turns the case arguments - these should be your primary focus. 2. Avoid relying solely on cheap-shots like "you dropped value to life".

T: 1. Be slow and clear. 2. Have a case list of what you include, what the aff includes, and why your caselist is better for debate.

3. Impact your arguments and compare them to your opponents.

DA's: 1. The link is the most important to me. 2. Have specific/reasonable turns the case arguments (not nuke war turns terrorism, but instead trade turns terrorism).

CP's: 1. Be as specific as possible to the aff. 2. Don't compete based on the process. 3. Debate the comparative impact to the solvency deficits to the net benefit.

Hanna Nasser Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 5 rounds

Christian Palacios University of Chicago Lab Schools 6 rounds None

Vinay Patel Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun August 11, 2019 at 7:23 PM CDT

Niles West (Debater 2010-2014, Coach 2014-2018)

Northwestern University (2014-2018)

Columbia Law School (2018-2021)

I'm always working on recognizing my habits as a judge, so take all this with a grain of salt. I think all types of debate are interesting and enjoyable as long as you do it well. I’d rather you do what you do best than what you think I like best. You should assume I don't have much familiarity with the topic. I am not perfect. I am not a machine. Connect with me (on important arguments, not as friends. I don't want to be your friend). Make Arguments. Say Words.

Note for Novices -- Congratulations for reading judge paradigms before debates. You probably don't need to read much more than this. If you've figured out what's going on in a debate round, how to flow, go line by line, and do impact calc & comparison, you will do really well, and I will be impressed. I am more strict about novice tag-team CX because too many novices abuse the privilege. Bring your own timer. Please do not try to shake my hand after debates. I am your judge, not your friend. Don't make things weird.

Procedures

I care deeply about plan texts and counterplan texts being written correctly. More than grammar, this is an issue of clearly defining the scope of your ability to fiat action and making sure your plan/CP does what you say it does. Texts must be entirely written out.

I strongly prefer that you do your own CXs. Your partner is a lifeline, not the focus of the CX. I will let you know if your tag-team gets out of hand.

I do not take prep for emailing or flashing, but it needs to be done efficiently. When you end prep time, I expect you to have your speech ready and have a road map.

Often times, I feel that people aren't speaking loud enough.

Be confident and assertive, not rude and insulting.

Don't cheat. You should clearly state at which word you are marking a card during your speech. If a prep or speech clock is not running, you should not do or look like you are doing any preparatory activity related to the debate. Don't lie.

Tech Over Truth

Truth and evidence quality are important and are usually persuasive, but I feel more comfortable rewarding you for work you have done in the round than punishing you for not answering true arguments that your opponent hasn't meaningfully developed.

Having a card on something doesn't always beat a good analytic press.

I will not assume dropped arguments are true if you haven’t done the work to extend it.

Good analysis needs to make it all the way through to the final speeches.

You will be rewarded for keeping my flow organized.

You can make all of the arguments you need to win the debate, but I cannot find them or understand your strategy, you may be disappointed with the results.

Kritikal Arguments

I think they’re interesting and useful as long as they’re articulated well. If you’re going for Security and can’t explain threat construction or Wilderson when you don’t know what social death is, you will most likely lose unless the other team messes up worse which will make me upset with everyone. With enough work, even the most generic K can be devastating. Make your arguments apply to the aff, or I will be very sympathetic to a perm.

You must advance some coherent normative claim for me to explain why my ballot should go to your team. I didn't realize that this was a controversial issue, but after judging some Bataille and Baudrillard debates, I learned that I was mistaken.

What is the alt? Is there an alt?

I prefer it when K affs are tied to the topic, have a clear advocacy/method, and a clear reason to vote aff in the debate at hand (not reliant on what happens after the debate or outside of it).

I am willing to pull the trigger both for and against framework. Neg teams may struggle in front of me if they choose not to engage the aff at all. Thinking of good T versions of the aff are very useful for the neg and can be very dangerous for the aff. Generic state good/bad debates don't necessarily tell me whether advocating governmental policy with fiat in a debate round is good or bad. Impact analysis and comparison is very important for both sides.

I often question the role of the judge, the ballot, and the debate space on my own time without resolving anything, so deciding these and other issues should be debated out in round. Be sure to explain how I should be making my decision under whichever framework you propose.

Counterplans

Specific Counterplans are cool. Advantage CPs are good; if you have a bunch of planks with totally unrelated solvency advocates, I might find it unreasonable at some point. I would prefer that you read some form of solvency advocate (not necessarily specific to the aff) in the 1NC, but I don't think I should punish you for thinking of a smart CP on the fly.

Aff teams should make sure that their permutations are coherent.

There’s a theory debate to be had about many different categories of CPs.

If you want the aff to defend something that they have not said explicitly, you need some pretty good evidence for me to not be sympathetic to aff clarification arguments.

Generic Conditions, Consult, and other Process CPs are dubious in both competition and theory, but I have read those types of CPs and am willing to vote on them.

Theory

Theory arguments can be used very effectively, but they usually don’t get developed enough before the final rebuttals.

I usually won't reject the team on issues other than conditionality, but sometimes rejecting a certain argument is enough to beat the other team. If no one has articulated what I should do about a theory violation, I will default to whatever I think will resolve the impacts best.

Some of this was covered in the CPs section.

Regarding conditionality, having 1 conditional option is probably fine, having 2 conditional options is probably okay, and having 3 conditional options is probably pushing it. New affs probably justify more leniency. All of this is debatable, but those are my predispositions.

If you're going to read an interpretation, try not to do so arbitrarily. If you extend a theory interpretation, your standards should be explained in the context of that model of debate compared to the other team's model.

I will not kick the CP or alt for you unless you say so in the 2NR.

Does T come before theory? Probably.

Topicality

Put in the effort to describe debate under each interpretation (Case lists, why certain types of affs are good/bad, specific examples of ground gained/lost, why that aff/neg ground is good for debate) to explain why your interpretation is a better version of the topic for debate.

I will default to competing interpretations. However, a reasonability argument is winnable and very useful for the aff. To be clear, reasonability is an argument about how reasonable your interpretation is for debate, not how reasonable or predictable the aff itself is.

Well-researched T debates are interesting to watch.

Disadvantages

Good. The more specific, the better.

Most politics theory arguments are bad.

Ann Peter Maine East H.S. 6 rounds

Max Pilcher West Des Moines Valley 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun December 22, 2019 at 9:01 AM CDT

My kids keep making fun of me for my paradigm being too long so I decided to make a shorter updated version, but I'll leave the old stuff on the bottom for posterity. All the stuff I say in the old essay is still true unless it contradicts something written up here. Updated 12/22/2019. (Update 2: Apparently even in my short version I’m super verbose so I’ll give you a super cliff notes as well).

Uber-Cliffnotes:

-Put me on the email chain but I flow off your speech.

-Warrants are super important, and I won’t vote on arguments without them.

-More impact comparison, no matter what kind of debate you do.

-Everything is fine, and I’m a lot better judge for neg FW than I used to be.

-Go for theory and T more.

-Don’t be shifty or mean.

-Zero risk is possible and defense can be terminal, but it often isn’t.

Paradigm, Short(er) Edition:

-Email is maxtp26@gmail.com. Put me on the email chain please, though I won't read along outside of curiosity etc. reasons. I flow based on the words I hear, not what's in your document. This means clarity is of utmost importance. I'll say clear up to three times, but if I don't hear an argument the onus is on you. My hearing is also apparently not as good as it once was so this is crucial. It also means if you want me to flow a rehighlighting, you have to actually read the important stuff.

-I'll vote on anything (with the exceptions of racism good, etc.) as long as it's warranted and impacted out. However, arguments do consist of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If your argument doesn't contain a warrant I won't vote on it and I'll give the other team pretty much infinite leeway on answering it in later speeches. My threshold for blippiness is going up and, from recent panel results, is probably higher than your average judge's. When in doubt, explain.

-While I think I've developed a reputation as a K judge and coach, I'm definitely getting more middle of the road the more I judge, and I think my record in recent framework rounds is near 50-50 or even slightly favoring the team reading framework. I find fairness is usually least persuasive when gone for as an impact of its own, and most persuasive as an internal link to other impacts. The arguments I find most compelling when going for neg framework have to do with the educational value of beginning with the USFG as a starting point or of switching sides as pedagogy. Impact comparison is paramount in these debates and I usually vote for the team who does the most of it.

-Because it bears repeating, impact comparison is paramount. I find one of the most common post-round comments I give to be "there could have been more impact work," whether it's a T debate, FW debate, or DA/case. I would always err on the side of more.

-I love tricky and creative arguments but if your strategy relies on shiftiness and deceit I'm probably not the judge for you. This means if your cxes consist of a lot of "we don't have to answer that" or other forms of question dodging I will be greatly displeased. A good rule of thumb to follow: if truthfully answering questions about your argument hurts you strategically, you probably just shouldn't make that argument.

-I find it funny when judges say "I have a general predisposition against violence" or stuff like that then go on to vote on heg good in half their rounds. I too am predisposed against violence but if your argument includes advocating for violent revolution or whatever to me that's no different (and probably more morally defensible) than advocating for US empire. It's almost like certain forms of violence are naturalized and camouflaged to maintain the supremacy of whiteness and the global liberal order... That said I'll vote on heg good too and will try my best to counteract my personal bias against such.

-Affs should be reading and going for way more theory and negs should be going for way more T (at least in front of me). I find teams these days are getting away with the most ridiculously abusive counterplans and affs because everyone's too scared to go for theory against them.

-Most of all, have fun! Debate as an educational space is great and important but I'd rather have enjoyable debates bereft of educational value than educational debates that everyone hates. You only have 4-8 years on average to enjoy this strange and wonderful activity, and I want everyone to make the most of it and not just look back on their debate careers with ressentiment.

Old Stuff:

Quick LD cheat sheet for Apple Valley:

-I judge/coach policy mainly but judge a couple LD tournaments a year, and have judged multiple bid rounds, RRs, etc. in LD

-Anything goes: tricks, Ks, value/criterion, LARP, whatever. As a former philosophy major, I'm pretty familiar with all major moral theories that get used in phil debates and I judge a lot of K debates in policy so I shouldn't have a problem with whatever you read

-Depth>breadth in terms of argument development. I'm more likely to vote on well-developed arguments that are answered than dropped blips, although I will vote on the dropped blips occasionally as well.

-The one thing I ask is that you SLOW DOWN ON THEORY, maybe by about 20-30%. Any other argument you're fine going full-speed but my tiny policy brain can't flow LD theory at 300 wpm so if you want me to flow your arguments, slow down a bit.

-I'm not gonna disclose speaks, sorry. I get this is seemingly a norm in circuit LD so maybe I just need to adjust the way I think about this but it makes me fairly uncomfortable do so.

What do I need to know?

I'm the varsity policy coach for West Des Moines Valley for my 3rd (non-consecutive) year now, and in the past I debated for Des Moines Roosevelt and the University of Iowa. I just graduated from Grinnell College with a degree in Philosophy and Gender Studies. Over my first two years of coaching I ended up judging 70 or so rounds a year, mostly at bid-level tournaments.

Do what you want, within the reasonable guidelines of not being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and so on. I believe that debate is an activity for the debaters, and while I consider my role as judge to be that of an educator, the educational model I follow is one which is substantially less horizontal than traditional ones, in that I think my job as judge is to learn from you, as well as hopefully encourage and strengthen your competitive abilities.

There aren't any arguments outside of the parameters established earlier that I either won't or haven't voted on, and I'm down to hear whatever you enjoy most and are best at. What I find most disappointing while judging is when I see competitors who seem actively disengaged from the round for whatever reason, and as such I think I should facilitate enjoyment of the round by encouraging you to read and do whatever makes you happy.

With that said, here are my thoughts and presuppositions about specific arguments. All of them can be changed and I will always prefer arguments made within the debate to my thoughts outside of that round, but these are my "defaults" that I will revert to absent arguments to the contrary:

Top Level Stuff:

- Tech over truth but tech is guided by and generally adheres to the "truth," whatever that may be. In other words, I'll evaluate the round based off the flow and the arguments made in round, but determining which argument wins in a technical debate is something which is limited by, or at least shaped by, the truth of those arguments. "Global warming causes extinction" and "Global warming prevents an ice age, which causes extinction" are both viable arguments in a debate round, but the former is going to be easier to win because it is more in line with reality.

- On that note, dropped arguments are true arguments but an argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an implication (impact). If you say that your opponent dropped X arg so you win the debate, that may be true, but you still need to explain why X arg wins you the debate. One of the things that is most frequently missing from high school policy rounds is the impacting of conceded arguments, and this often presents major difficulties to my ability to evaluate the debate, especially in messy rounds where both teams drop arguments all over the flow. If you want an easy way to win (and get good speaker points) make sure you are explaining not only that your opponent has dropped your arguments, but also what it means that they have dropped your arguments. All of the above is of course true in the case of contested arguments as well, but I find the implication debate appears a lot more naturally in those circumstances.

- Do as much as you can get away with. Again, everything here is just my personal bias or default, and just because I say I don't like or disagree with an argument doesn't mean you shouldn't make it or read it.

DA/Advantage Debate

- "Zero risk" is certainly possible but often unlikely. What I mean by this is that if the neg says "The plan leads to an increase in hair loss, and warming causes extinction" and the aff says "No link--no warranted reason the aff leads to hair loss and no internal link between hair loss and warming," I'm not going to decide that since the aff only made defensive arguments that there's "only a risk" of the DA occurring. Smart defensive arguments (including and sometimes especially analytics) can take out entire disads and advantages, but if they're not terminal I am going to be more susceptible to "only a risk" logic.

- I love a good impact turn debate (who doesn't?) and find they're often the most strategic option given that your opponents' evidence about their aff or DA or whatever is often (and probably even should be) better than your cards to answer it.

- Impact comparison is obviously crucial but it seems a lot of debaters forget the comparison part of the phrase. If your overview is just "our impact is big, fast, and probable" you've done the first step, now explain why your impact is bigger, faster, and more probable. Even more astute debaters will attempt to evaluate which of those metrics they are most likely to be winning, and then make arguments as to why I should prefer that one; e.g. "magnitude before timeframe" and so on.

- Most politics theory arguments are, in fact, garbage, but I will happily assign zero risk to the disad if they're conceded. Just because it's a bad argument doesn't mean you shouldn't have to answer it (which is a metric that is, in general, true for how I evaluate debates).

CPs

- My personal bias is that most process counterplans, consult, and so on, are generally cheating because they are A. usually marginally competitive at best and B. steal a lot of aff ground. If you're aff you should almost certainly be reading theory against these arguments, and if you're neg you should be prepared to defend them. All that said, I think "cheating" counterplans are usually a great strategic choice because they steal aff ground and because most aff teams aren't prepared to extend theory in the face of your 15-point 1NR block, so if you have them, it's probably wise to read them. Again, do as much as you can get away with.

- I generally really like PICs on the other hand, with the obvious caveat that the more well-researched and specific to the aff they are the better.

- The common thread between these two presuppositions is that I generally believe the best counterplans are those with a specific solvency advocate that distinguishes them from the aff. What the bar for this solvency advocate is is a matter of debate, but the more contextualized to the aff your cp is the less likely you are to lose it to theory.

- I'll judge kick for you, but only if you tell me to and the aff doesn't tell me you can't. The "logical policymaker" in me thinks the squo should always be an option, but the "debate is a game" person tells me this is bad for the aff, so just make an argument why I should/shouldn't do so if the aff ends up being worse than the CP

"THE K"

- The link debate is probably the most important here since you'll usually be winning that your thing is *~bad~* and the debate will usually come down to whether the aff actually does that thing or not and thus gets access to a perm. That said, if you're reading a big stick policy aff you should probably just bite the bullet and go for the impact turn if there's no chance you can win a link turn.

- In KvK debates I don't really find myself having a default when it comes down to whether "method debates" mean the aff gets a perm or not. I guess I don't really see why the fact that we're talking about methods means that those methods don't have to be competitive, but if we're not viewing the aff as a test of the resolution's truth value maybe that changes. Either way, simply asserting that "method debates means no perms" probably isn't sufficient and I like when these debates get in depth

- Similarly, the zaniness of your perm arguments should probably be proportional to the zaniness of the 1AC&1NC, and the same for perm answers. Creative perms that are based in your literature have often been effective in front of me, and the neg should rely on similar creativeness in answering them. In other words, why limit yourself to "perm do both" when you could tell me the perm is a radical cooption of their method which makes you the true symbolic terrorists, or something?

"K Affs"/"New Debate"/FW

- The teams I coach mostly read critical arguments, affs without plan texts, and stuff like that, I went to college to study gender theory and philosophy, and a large portion of the rounds I've judged in the past have been K rounds, so I think I've (deservedly) cultivated a bit of a prior reputation as a K hack. However, I've noticed in more recent times that perhaps I'm swinging a bit back toward the middle of the road in these debates, or at least that at the end of rounds I often find myself asking: "why didn't this team go for framework?" because the kritikal team has mishandled or neglected parts of that debate, yet the opposing team ends up going for something else. I have voted on framework in the past, I expect I will continue to do so in the future, and if it is the best option for you in any given debate you should choose it.

- I think the biggest shift in my thinking here is that over time I have stopped subconsciously viewing my vote of any given individual debate as implying that I have somehow committed some ideological boon/transgression, and instead believe that the most educational approach to facilitating debates as a judge involves me allowing debaters to challenge any and all aspects of their opponents arguments. While I believe each debate round is important as a unique pedagogical moment, I am somewhat less convinced that the results of that debate will change the world or even the (horrible and oppressive) structures of debate, and thus I believe that if a team is not capable of beating framework or topicality on its own merits, I shouldn't vote for them just because it helps the movement or is supposed to improve debate, because it probably won't.

- If you are the "K team" in this debate, you should make sure you answer args like "it's about the best model of debate/competing interps" if you're just going for arguments that boil down to "our aff is good." If it's "not what you do but what you justify," you need to ensure that you have either an adequate description of what you justify and why it's good, or an answer to the above argument.

- I'm finding myself (slightly) more compelled by "do it on the neg" style arguments against affs that just say the resolution is bad. If you are reading such an aff you probably want a defense of why you being even forced to defend the resolution in a pedagogical space is bad, not just reasons the resolution as a question is bad.

- TVAs are good and important but often not the game-ender FW teams think they are. If the aff says "state bad" then you give a big list of state actions, this still does not (on its own) mean that the state is good, and thus doesn't necessarily disprove any part of the aff's claim. If you impact out how exactly that TVA solves, preferably even with evidence, you're in a much better place. Basically, you need to actually have a warranted reason the TVA solves, not just the phrase "we have a topical version of the aff!!!"

Other random things:

My "role of the ballot" is to, as the cliche goes, determine who did the better debating, but that doesn't mean there can't be other "RoBs" within the debate. Generally I interpret these as frameworks or criteria for evaluating the different arguments and impacts within the round, so a phrase like "the role of the ballot is to vote for the team who best performatively and methodologically challenges queerphobia" would mean, to me, basically, that I evaluate arguments according to whichever team best meets such a criteria, not that my ballot serves some literal other purpose than choosing the best debater. However, this does mean that if you answer such an RoB with the phrase "the role of the ballot is to choose the team who does the better debating" I'm not sure you're being responsive to what that phrase is actually saying.

Any number of conditional options is allowed as long as you can justify you get that many, and any number of conditional options is not allowed as long you can win the opponent doesn't get that many. I don't think there's any magic number above which condo suddenly does or doesn't become okay, and as with everything I think this is a debate best left to the debaters. Despite my reputation I actually really enjoy big debates with lots of different arguments and you should always look to get away with as much as the other team will let you in any given debate.

Excessive rudeness is obviously never appreciated. I know debate can get heated sometimes and that's fine but if you get to the point of insulting the other team, your partner, etc. Jokes are always good as long as they aren't at the expense of other people, and so you should always be careful about accidentally hurting someone.

Call me Max, or judge if you absolutely feel uncomfortable with that (though being referred to as judge makes me feel weird), and put me on the email chain if you remember (my email is maxtp26@gmail.com).

As I've alluded to a couple times earlier, I believe that one of the reasons why debate is such an amazing activity (and it truly can be!) is because of the relatively non-horizontal nature of it compared to other educational activities, and I really want to facilitate that environment. Obviously as the person holding the sheet of paper or connected to the tabroom ballot I have a certain degree of power, but again, debate is for you (the debaters). So, as I keep reiterating, do what makes you most happy and comfortable within the debate space. Me asking anything otherwise would just be an attempt to stroke my ego as a judge and reassert my power within the room. I'm not going to stop you from doing anything as long as it does not hurt other people (which words can most certainly do, as we should all know) or cause me to be responsible for activities which would violate my contract as a coach. Read "trolly" arguments if you so desire, sit or stand to speak, go to the bathroom or get a drink of water when you need to, chat with people as long as it isn't disrupting or delaying the debate, or "dance with a chair if that's what the muse tells you to do." Do what you enjoy and I will enjoy it too.

Kim Pressling Hire 6 rounds None

randy rossman Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 8, 2015 at 4:40 AM EDT

I debated at New Trier and Michigan State. Now, I help out at Niles North.

How to win my ballot

Control the frame and explain why your arguments beat their arguments under that framing. The framing could be anything. Really, the framing could be anything. Frames that have won my ballot: magnitude comes first, only epistemology matters, the judge is a critical intellectual, reasonability dictates T debates. Other ones have won, too!

I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible. Make sure your winning arguments make it onto my flow. Answer the arguments your opponent can win on.

Read the arguments you are best at. I doubt you will be better at debating something totally new that you think I will like than reading something you are familiar with that you think I do not like.

Preferences

Top-level: these are either defaults that your arguments can render meaningless or opinions that probably only matter for speaker points, if they matter at all.

Topical plans>topical advocacies>topical planless speech-acts>not-quite-topical 1ACs of any variety>>>>>affs that ignore the topic

The most entertaining negative strategies are case-specific.

I will evaluate theory and/or T before I evaluate anything else.

Education, fairness, jurisdiction, limits, ground, and their friends are internal links, not impacts. What do I do with the offending arguments? Please tell me. If you do not tell me, I will vote against the team that you win read an untopical aff or ran their neg advocacies conditionally. If a permutation or negative advocacy is shown to be theoretically illegitimate, then I won’t consider it in my decision, unless, of course, you win that I should do something else.

I love DAs.

I view counterplans as opportunity cost DAs. As a default, I will kick them for the neg if they link to the net benefit. Just a default, though.

I tend to view counterplans that compete on the certainty and/or immediacy of the plan or the process of its implementation as uncompetitive but are probably theoretically legitimate.

Critiques tend to win when the other team drops a checklist argument. Sufficiently answer arguments such as X comes first, value to life, X is the root cause of violence, then you will probably beat the critique.

If you have questions or something needs to be clarified, feel free to email me at randy.rossman@gmail.com.

Have fun, make jokes, love debate.

Sam Roth Northside College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 14, 2017 at 12:41 PM CDT

Sam Roth
Northside '15
University of Chicago '19

Background information
I debated for four years on the national circuit at Northside in Chicago, qualifying to the TOC twice. I was a 2N for two years and a 2A for the second half of my career.

If you're looking to quickly pref me:
-I'm a technical/flow-based judge
-I'm "good" for the K
-I'm sympathetic to framework on the neg

General thoughts-skip this if reading pre-round
1. I really like when debaters innovate and challenge assumptions like the offense-defense paradigm, traditional impact calculus, etc. This applies to everything from individual arguments to framing issues to overall strategies. I think these types of arguments make for more interesting rounds and give you an opportunity to demonstrate you can think and engage with opposing arguments beyond mechanically reading blocks. Too often I think debaters automatically accept simplified explanations for things and forget that we lose some nuance when we try to reduce it to tagline form. Take advantage of those weaknesses in your opponent's argument. This is also the best way to win if you know your stuff but, like I did, debate for a small squad and can't match the resources of some of your competitors.

2. Debaters are bad at flowing and speaking. This is true at just about every level of debate right now and it's the biggest problem most debaters have. It's a cliche at this point, but it's a shame how few debaters keep a good flow and maintain a logical form of organization throughout their speeches. I don't think enough debaters understand just how much their speaking habits and skills in these areas affect their win/loss record. A lot of close debates are lost because a speaker wasn't clear enough on how a particular argument interacted with what their opponent said, or because they simply weren't clear enough to understand. If you learn to flow without the speech doc, prep speeches around the flow, maintain this organization, and speak clearly, your chances of winning will be far higher.

3. Arguments don't get enough scrutiny. Although there's tons of information available through research, there's a tendency to make arguments based on general claims instead of specific facts and well-supported assertions. I think this problem exists in both "policy" debate and "non-traditional" debate. Often evidence doesn't come close to making a claim as extreme as the team advancing it. I've also seen a lot of cards that do defend their arguments but make vague, broad statements without much support. Neither of these strategies are effective. You should be able to defend your arguments, especially a 1AC, with a lot of specific evidence that you've read in depth, and call out other teams who don't do so.

Thoughts on specific arguments:

T-I tend to default to competing interpretations, but I haven't judged enough rounds or done enough reading on the topic to form any real preferences on specific arguments yet. I don't have an especially "high threshold" and I do enjoy literature-based, detailed T debates.

Kritiks-I love them on the neg. Not always a fan on the aff, and I'll admit I'm not a very good judge for those debates. I think effective K debate against a policy aff encourages a form of academic skepticism and critical thought that makes debates more intellectual and does a service to students. I think K affs tend to avoid the same level of depth, although I'm not dogmatically opposed to them if done well. I'll do my best to be tabula rasa, but like everyone else I have preconceptions and I think it's important to be honest about them.

Politics-in recent years, just a terrible argument. I barely saw a single politics disad my senior year that was even coherent. If you're going to go for politics every round, at least make sure the story of the disad makes sense as a whole, i.e. the link against a particular aff corresponds to the internal link story. I think the aff should incorporate analytic and carded arguments about why the disad is usually dumb into a more traditional strategy. Part of me is more sympathetic to intrinsicness arguments than a lot of judges are, but I've never seen it executed successfully unless it was dropped.

Theory-I hate egregious cheating counterplans. I've had plenty of debates and never heard a single good argument defending commissions, consult, Lopez, etc. I'm a tech-centered judge, so if you win theory I won't intervene and reject the counterplan, but it's not hard to convince me that these are abusive. I also lean aff on international fiat, but I understand the need for generics and can be persuaded either way. I think one conditional advocacy is fine, two is okay but contestable depending on the positions, anything more is really pushing it. This isn't just from a theory perspective, but also in terms of strategy I think it's silly to read so many offcase positions.

Zach Schneider University of Chicago Lab Schools 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 3, 2021 at 3:37 PM CDT

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

Rahim Shakoor Hire 6 rounds None

Gavin Singer New Trier High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 11, 2014 at 5:02 AM MST

gavin singer
brophy ’14
northwestern ’18
conflicts: brophy and walter payton

if you don’t have much time to read this, here’s one thing to keep in mind: i read an aff without a plan text for my entire senior year, but the majority of my 2nr’s were politics… do whatever you want and i’m willing to listen and judge the round objectively.

when i did prefs in high school there was really only one thing i looked for: can i read my aff and not lose to framework?
the answer is yes -- do what you want, and i’m willing to listen. having said that, i will also evaluate framework objectively. i really don’t have any biases one way or another.

there are few things i hate more than having a judge who looks completely uninterested / doesn't care about the round. i think it's important to give back -- especially as a first-year -- so for the 2 hours i'm in the back of the room you have my full attention and i will work my hardest to make the best decision i can.

topic knowledge: i worked at the northwestern debate institute, but i'm still not that knowledgable about the topic. i realized at the camp tournament that most of the acronyms mean nothing to me, so please explain them. this also means that T debating will require an extra degree of explanation.

3 judges whose philosophies would probably help you more than mine include:
--alex miles
specifically, “I am/will be vigilant about rejecting new arguments, but ONLY IF you point out the link (X is new) and the impact (why new args are bad) - "block strategy is determined by the 2ac" may even be enough in the 2NR, depending on the justification for the new argument by the other team, but I need at least something. Frustrating scenario: team A drops an argument; team B extends the argument; team A answers it; then team B extends it again but without saying that team A's arg is new and why that's bad. The burden on proof is clearly on team A to originally answer the argument (I esp think the way 2a's handle the case is getting absurd), but the burden of proof is on team B to delegitimize newly developed responses; otherwise, I will not strike team A's new argument from the flow and I'll assume that both teams agree that the arg was never dropped.”

--sara sanchez
--daryl burch

theory:
--slow down on blocks
--it's an impact debate

case:
--willing to vote on presumption, i think you can reduce the risk of an aff to 0, but it takes thorough explanation

counterplans:
--slow down on the CP text, seriously
--don't just say necessary vs. sufficient, actually explain it
--i won't kick a CP without the neg telling me to

disads:
--if you're aff, i don't think enough teams go for no link against terrible disads

kritiks:
--actually explain arguments, i won't do any work for you if it's just jargon

framework (against planless affs):
--(see above) i have no biases, i think it's an impact debate and a question of the best interpretation of what debate is.
--t version / do it on the neg are really important for both sides

some important things:
--IMPACT everything -- new args, why probability/magnitude is most important, etc.
--don’t cheat in any form (clipping, stealing prep, etc.)
--tech > truth
--don’t sacrifice clarity for speed
--i try not to call for ev unless instructed otherwise or i feel like i need to in order to resolve something
--good evidence doesn’t replace explanation, good spin on a ‘b’ card will beat an ‘a’ card
--i’ll pay attention to cross-ex / will reward speaker points for using args from cross-ex in your speech
--i'll reject new 2ar args without justifications

if you have any questions, gavinmillersinger@gmail.com

just do what you do best, and have fun! debate should be fun, otherwise why are you doing it? i’ll reward speaks if you look like you’re enjoying the round.

enjoy “ethiopian drift”, by robel worku
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQDkg6ogupQ

Warren Sprouse Washington 3 rounds

Stinson STINSON South 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 8, 2018 at 11:21 AM CDT

Name: Chris Stinson
Affiliation: Minneapolis South
Pronouns: he/him/his

c_r_stinson@yahoo.com

My Background:

I debated in High School for Rapid City Central in South Dakota in the late 90s
I debated in College for Concordia in Moorhead Minnesota in the early 2000s
I started coaching in college and have actively coached ever since
I judge more than 50 rounds on any given topic

What you need to know:

I’m trying to be fully present in debates. When I was younger I allowed myself to be distracted by how my teams were doing, social media, etc. I don't think that's fair for you so I'm doing my best to break my bad habits.

I will try to judge the round without inserting my personal biases. Again, I want to be fair and honor the work that you've put into the activity.

I’m trying to keep up with point inflation. I know a lot of coaches my age are trying to hold the line. I don't think that's fair to you. My scale is at the bottom.

I think that for most debates that should be enough. Of course, you’re not doing your prefs for the easy debates. Below are some additional things that you should know about me in close debates.

My (self reported) bias:

I'm very liberal in real life. I've made my living fighting, full time, for racial, economic, and queer justice. I identify as gay. Capitalism, racism, patriarchy (including hetero and cis patriarchy), agism, ablism, and christian hegemony form an interlocking system of oppression that benefits very few, the primary feature of which is it's ability to divide us against one another. Most people would describe me as a K judge.

I also believe the state can be reformed and that those reforms can be transformational. I had the great honor to work on campaigns to win the freedom to marry, combat bullying, and allow transgender high school students to participate in school activities as their full authentic selves. I cried tears of joy when those policies were implemented. The Paul Wellstone quote, "politics is not just about power and money games, politics can be about the improvement of people's lives, about lessening human suffering in our world and bringing about more peace and more justice," pretty much sums up why I do politics.

I'm the education lobbyist for a lefty labor union (SEIU) in Minnesota.

What you probably want to know:

Comparisons: I will give more weight to warrants that were in 2NR and 2AR than to warrants that I only read in evidence after the debate.

Theory: In my default framework I evaluate theory/framework first, followed by discourse followed by traditional policy making impacts. I'm not locked into this framework but "theory is a gateway issue" and "discourse shapes reality" seem true so that's where I start.

Evidence: I read less than I used to and a lot less than other judges but I still want to be on the email chain.

Prep: Don't steal it. Prep time ends when you save the speech doc. I also expect your partner to stop prepping. I have no interest in policing your bathroom behavior.

Perm Double Bind / Perm All Other Instances: I have not yet heard a debater explain these arguments in a way that is persuasive to me. "Do the Plan and the non competitive parts of the Alt" doesn't make sense to me as a test of competition, since it simply asserts that there are parts of the Alt that don't compete with the Plan. If you want me to evaluate the perms as an advocacy that I can vote for at the end of the debate I will need you to invest time describing the world of the perm.

Bad debates are always bad so do what you like, what you're good at, and have fun.

I'm happy to answer more specific questions. Just ask.

The scale I intend to use (lifted from jonahfeldman on the CEDA forums):
29.5 - 30: One of the greatest debate speeches I have ever seen
29 - 29.4: Should be one of the top 5 speakers at the tournament
28.7- 28.9: Should be one of the top 15 speakers, but not top 5.
28.4 - 28.6: Should be in the top 25 speakers. Should clear if 5-3 and elims start at octos.
28 - 28.3: Good, but needs improvement. Should not get a speaker award. Should clear if 5-3 and elims start at doubles
27.5 - 27.9: Some things that were good, but also some areas of major improvement needed.
27 - 27.4: Areas of major improvement needed
Below 27: Was offensive/rude/dangerous. Needs to be told after the round what they did that caused a large drop in speaker points.

Bobby Swetz University of Chicago Lab Schools 6 rounds

Wayne Tang Maine East H.S. 6 rounds

Put me on the email chain (WayneTang@aol.com). (my debaters made me do this, I generally don't read evidence in round)

General Background:
Former HS debater in the stone ages (1980s) HS coach for over many years at Maine East (1992-2016) and now at Northside College Prep (2016 to present). I coach on the north shore of Chicago. I typically attend and judge around 15-18 tournaments a season and generally see a decent percentage of high level debates. However, I am not a professional teacher/debate coach, I am a patent attorney in my real (non-debate) life and thus do not learn anything about the topic (other than institutes are overpriced) over the summer. I like to think I make up for that by being a quick study and through coaching and judging past topics, knowing many recycled arguments.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
Intelligent story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). It is a hard road, but I think it is possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it based on defensive arguments.

TOPICALITY
I vote on T relatively frequently over the years. I believe it is the negative burden to establish the plan is not topical. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. I have found that the limits/predictability/ground debate has been more persuasive to me, although I will consider other standards debates. Obviously, it is also important how such standards operate once a team convinces me of their standard. I will also look at why T should be voting issue. I will not automatically vote negative if there is no counter-interpretation extended, although usually this is a pretty deep hole for the aff. to dig out of. For example, if the aff. has no counter-interpretation but the neg interpretation is proven to be unworkable i.e. no cases are topical then I would probably vote aff. As with most issues, in depth analysis and explanation on a few arguments will outweigh many 3 word tag lines.

COUNTERPLANS
Case specific CPs are preferable that integrate well (i.e., do not flatly contradict) with other negative positions. Clever wording of CPs to solve the Aff and use Aff solvency sources are also something I give the neg. credit for. It is an uphill battle for the Aff on theory unless the CP/strategy centered around the CP does something really abusive. The aff has the burden of telling me how a permutation proves the CP non-competitive.

KRITIKS
Not a fan, but I have voted on them numerous times (despite what many in the high school community may believe). I will never be better than mediocre at evaluating these arguments because unlike law, politics, history and trashy novels, I don’t read philosophy for entertainment nor have any interest in it. Further (sorry to my past assistants who have chosen this as their academic career), I consider most of the writers in this field to be sorely needing a dose of the real world (I was an engineer in undergrad, I guess I have been brainwashed in techno-strategic discourse/liking solutions that actually accomplish something). In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique Disad in the policy realm. As such it will probably receive very little weight if challenged by the aff. You must be able to distill long boring philosophical cards read at hyperspeed to an explanation that I can comprehend. I have no fear of saying I don’t understand what the heck you are saying and I will absolutely not vote for issues I don’t understand. (I don’t have to impress anyone with my intelligence or lack thereof and in any case am probably incapable of it) If you make me read said cards with no explanation, I will almost guarantee that I will not understand the five syllable (often foreign) philosophical words in the card and you will go down in flames. I do appreciate, if not require specific analysis on the link and impact to either the aff. plan, rhetoric, evidence or assumptions depending on what floats your boat. In other words, if you can make specific applications (in contrast to they use the state vote negative), or better yet, read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you.

PERFORMANCE BASED ARGUMENTS
Also not a fan, but I have voted on these arguments in the past. I am generally not highly preferred by teams that run such arguments, so I don't see enough of these types of debates to be an expert. However, for whatever reason, I get to judge some high level performance teams each year and have some background in such arguments from these rounds. I will try to evaluate the arguments in such rounds and will not hesitate to vote against framework if the team advocating non-traditional debate wins sufficient warrants why I should reject the policy/topic framework. However, if a team engages the non-traditional positions, the team advocating such positions need to answer any such arguments in order to win. In other words, I will evaluate these debates like I try to evaluate any other issues, I will see what arguments clash and evaluate that clash, rewarding a team that can frame issues, compare and explain impacts. I have spent 20 plus years coaching a relatively resource deprived school trying to compete against very well resourced debate schools, so I am not unsympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debates. On the other hand I have also spent 20 plus years involved in non-debate activities and am not entirely convinced that the strategies urged by non-traditional debates work. Take both points for whatever you think they are worth in such debates.

POINTS

In varsity debate, I believe you have to minimally be able to clash with the other teams arguments, if you can’t do this, you won’t get over a 27.5. Anything between 28.8 and 29.2 means you are probably among the top 5% of debaters I have seen. I will check my points periodically against tournament averages and have adjusted upward in the past to stay within community norms. I think that if you are in the middle my points are pretty consistent. Unfortunately for those who are consistently in the top 5% of many tournaments, I have judged a lot of the best high school debaters over the years and it is difficult to impress me (e.g., above a 29). Michael Klinger, Stephen Weil, Ellis Allen, Matt Fisher and Stephanie Spies didn’t get 30s from me (and they were among my favorites of all time), so don’t feel bad if you don’t either.

OTHER STUFF
I dislike evaluating theory debates but if you make me I will do it and complain a lot about it later. No real predispositions on theory other than I would prefer to avoid dealing with it.

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.

I do not count general tech screw ups as prep time and quite frankly am not really a fascist about this kind of thing as some other judges, just don’t abuse my leniency on this.

Speed is fine (this is of course a danger sign because no one would admit that they can’t handle speed). If you are going too fast or are unclear, I will let you know. Ignore such warnings at your own peril, like with Kritiks, I am singularly unafraid to admit I didn’t get an answer and therefore will not vote on it.

I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I probably won’t call for it and assume it says X. However, in the unfortunate (but fairly frequent) occurrence where both teams just read cards, I will call for cards and use my arbitrary and capricious analytical skills to piece together what I, in my paranoid delusional (and probably medicated) state, perceive is going on.

I generally will vote on anything that is set forth on the round. Don’t be deterred from going for an argument because I am laughing at it, reading the newspaper, checking espn.com on my laptop, throwing something at you etc. Debate is a game and judges must often vote for arguments they find ludicrous, however, I can and will still make fun of the argument. I will, and have, voted on many arguments I think are squarely in the realm of lunacy i.e. [INSERT LETTER] spec, rights malthus, Sun-Ra, the quotations and acronyms counterplan (OK I didn’t vote on either, even I have my limits), scaler collapse (twice), world government etc. (the likelihood of winning such arguments, however, is a separate matter). I will not hesitate to vote against teams for socially unacceptable behavior i.e. evidence fabrication, racist or sexist slurs etc., thankfully I have had to do that less than double digits time in my 35+ years of judging.

Tara Tate Glenbrook South High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 23, 2024 at 9:35 PM UTC

Email: ttate@glenbrook225.org

I had a much longer judging paradigm when it was on the old wiki but I will try to give you the highlights.

I was an active Director of Debate at GBS from 2003-2014. I would judge a significantly high number of rounds each year (both on the regional and national circuit). Since 2014, I have still been active in debate. I used to teach the Debate classes at South, teach at Institute, and watched practice debates. I don't judge many rounds at tournaments since I don't travel much anymore. I would say that my technical flowing abilities are at about 80% of what they were when I was judging 100+ rounds a year. I am not actively involved in the literature base in regards to research.

What does that mean to you?

1 - I don't have many preconceived notions entering the debates about which team is having a more successful season or what arguments are the cool/hip thing. That can be good and bad for you. :)

2- I would consider myself a moderate right judge in regards to policy vs. K debates. Here is the thing - I am very liberal in my beliefs and academia, especially in regards to issues of identity. My Masters' thesis was a black women's criticism of mainstream feminist discourse. I will often understand and believe many K arguments in front of me. The question is whether the arguments presented in front of me provides an opportunity for deliberative dialogue between two opposing teams. Convince me of that in round (and many have), you will find me to be more left-leaning in regards to K arguments than people perceive.

3 - I love a good Politics debate that has super recent evidence and an interesting spin to a typical politics story.

4 - I believe coming into the debate that uniqueness drives the direction of the link.

5 - I default Negative coming in to many debates in regards to CP theory and competition issues.

6 - I have a high standard for both evidence and what makes for a complete argument.

Nick Turner Lane Tech College Prep H.S. 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 14, 2015 at 5:41 AM CDT

Name: Nick Turner
School Affiliations: Lane Tech HS & Zapata MS

How I evaluate a debate round:

Overall, I feel the purpose of debate is to be educational and fun. I encourage humor and creativity. I find the most enjoyable and educational rounds are those where the teams run the arguments they like and really believe (whether this means a kritik on the neg or a performance on the aff) over the politics disads their coaches force them to run.

It doesn't matter what the resolution is, I will evaluate any case the affirmative presents in the 1AC (whether this means a traditional policy plan, critical, performance, or even crazy cases like aliens or something). I don't assume the aff case has to fall under the resolution unless the neg reads Topicality, Theory, or Framework, only then will I default to the resolution. It is the negatives burden to respond to the aff no matter how crazy it is. Arguments are only as "stupid" or "bad" as the way they are defended in the round. That being said, I will vote on any position that is argued and impacted well. However, I do feel that whatever case the aff presents should advocate something, whether this means having plan text or and advocacy statement (i.e "My partner and I advocate for the removal of brown M&Ms"). This makes it easier for me to know what I'm voting on at the end of the round.

** PLEASE READ: I only vote on the arguments presented in the final rebuttals. I recommend that you choose a few of your best arguments and go into detail as to why this argument wins you the round. This does NOT mean telling me you win this argument without any explanation. I prefer that you give me explanation as to what the argument is (perhaps in an overview), how it affects the opposing team's position, evidence warrants, examples (historic, or analogous), and the impacts of your argument. Only then will I vote for you. Too many times teams go for everything they are winning leaving no time for explanation and the other team spends time impacting their advantages, anbd I'm forced to vote for a team that has been losing the entire debate, but does enough work when it counts, and wins my ballot.

The Rundown:

Disads: Of course. Overviews in later speeches can do a lot in terms of winning my vote.

Politics: They're OK. Of course I'll vote for them, but I'd like to hear nice overviews about what your politics scenario is, because I don't typically keep up with politics.

Case: Love case! Impact turns are great, case defense is useful.

CPs: CP are good, especially if they are well thought out PICs.

Topicality: I'm fine with topicality if time is spent proving your abuse claims and impacting your arguments. I will vote on T even if there are no abuse claims as long as any team can provide a good reason why your interpretation is best for debate.

Kritiks: I'll evaluate any Kritik, but make sure you have a strong understanding of the argument, because it is difficult to for me to vote on an argument if you can't explain it well enough. Make sure to articulate how your Alternative functions and the explain to me the why the world of the alternative is better than the world of the plan. Framework should also be part of the K debate.

Framework: Great in most cases. Very helpful for me as the judge to evaluate any position. If there is no framework, I typically default to utilitarian framework (for debate purposes this means body count), but I will tend to go with the flow of debate.

Theory: Can be useful if taken seriously. Quick, unwarranted theory arguments are annoying to any judge. In order for me to vote on theory there needs to be a substantial amount of warrant analysis.

My email is Turner138@hotmail.com

I encourage teams to ask questions. I am always willing to help a team write blocks or explain arguments, because again, debate should be educational

Shabaka Verna Lane Tech College Prep H.S. 6 rounds None

Aaron Vinson New Trier High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:45 PM UTC

Aaron Vinson

Debate Coach, New Trier High School, Illinois

Formerly, Head Coach, Princeton High School, Ohio

Glenbrook North Alum, Miami University of Ohio Alum

email = vinsona@newtrier.k12.il.us

==Updated 8/1/23==

Overarching philosophy of debate/judging (scroll down for thoughts on arguments)

I used to judge a good amount. That has not been the case. I taught at Michigan this summer and probably judged about 15 debates there .

Debate is about having fun - you should read arguments that you enjoy regardless of my past debate background or what arguments my students may or may not read.

Debate is about communication, response, and oral argumentation - if it wasn't in the debate or if it was not clear to me in a debate, it's not a thing. All arguments should have some level of engagement with what the opposing team is saying or they are just floating statements. I try to judge all debates through a lens of, how will I explain to the losing team why they did not win and how can I explain how they could have won.

Debate should be a safe space - be respectful to your partner and opponents; if your "thought experiment" includes trivializing genocide, suicide, x identity, you should consider the impact that that argument might have on your opponents and anyone watching the debate. I understand that discomfort in engaging new areas of literature can be beneficial but there is a line between that and making people feel uncomfortable talking about their own identity (literally referring to CX exchanges with this example). If this is egregious I will feel compelled to intervene.

Thoughts on specific arguments

Topicality - it's fine. Probably hard to win in front of me. What I would call a "low probability victory" because I think most debates fall down into infinitely regressive limits debates that are easily resolved - for me - with reasonable interpretations (that means the aff would have to extend a reasonable interpretation!). To be successful in front of me I think that debating topicality more like a DA (link explanation + impact) and then debating interpretations like a CP (what the debates under each interpretation would be like and why they are good).

Counterplans - they're good. Consult CP's are fine. Condition CP's are fine. Process CP's are mostly fine. Delay CP's are mostly fine. Advantage CP's are good. Agent CP's are good. International Actor CP's are fine. States CP's are good. 2NC CP's are questionable. Offsets CP's can be fine. Affs can be most successful in front of me by explaining what is different between the plan and counterplan and then explaining why that difference is impacted by a specific aff advantage / internal link scenario). Final thought is that the aff often forgets to point out that the billion plank advantage cp prolly links to politics.

Counterplan theory - conditionality is probably good because the alternatives create worse debates. I evaluate these debates technically, which often gives a slight advantage to the neg, and look for impact calculus that never materializes (which is also good for the neg). Also, most things just don't make sense as voting issues except conditionality. If you want to be successful with counterplan theory in front of me, see my notes about topicality. And be very clear about what you want me to do and why (reject the argument, stick them with it, they lose, etc).

Disadvantages - they're good. Politics DA's are good. Elections DA's are okay. Rider DA's are so-so. Tradeoff DA's are good. Economy DA's are good. Spending DA's are so-so. I think intrinsicness is interesting, turns case is a big deal, contextualizing size of DA vs size of case is helpful for all. Negs who make their DA's bigger in the block (impact wise) are often successful in front of me.

Kritiks - they're good. I believe my voting record skews neg because of most aff teams' inability to generate offense. Aff perm strategies are okay but should be contextualized with offense, solvency deficits, etc. I default to fiat meaning "imagine" so sure we arent going to start a world revolution but I could certainly imagine that or we could talk about if that's a good thought experience. I would give myself a "B" for K literacy fluency.

T USFG/Framework - it's good. But ... I believe my voting record skews the other way. I've had the pleasure of many coaches angrily asking me about arguments that weren't in the debate. I view debate as a communication activity and I only consider the arguments presented in the debate. Coaches get upset when this emphasis on technical execution seems to "hurt" their framework team. I think the data bears out that I am winnable for either side. I will say that affs that don't read a plan AND are not in the same direction as the resolution OR don't read a plan AND are not related to the resolution have a low win rate in front of me. See notes about debating topicality in front of me.

Ethics - clipping is bad. Miscutting evidence is bad. Misrepresenting evidence is bad. Misdisclosing is bad. Are any of these things auto-losses in-front of me? Probably not. Context matters. If one piece of evidence is miscut or misrepresented, it seems reasonable to just imagine that card wasn't read. If someone does want to stake the debate on one of these things that can be verified, I can be persuaded. If team A asserts that team B has clipped or miscut evidence, and stakes the debate on it, and is wrong, team A would lose. That's what it means to stake the debate on something.

Speaker points - I know I look 16 but I'm much older. So are my points. I'm trying to be better to represent changing norms but that's a thing. If you lose you're probably getting a 28 something if you were reasonable. If you weren't reasonable you're probably getting a high 27. If you win I try to think about if I would expect the team to break at the tournament. If so they're probably getting a 29. Then relative comparisons to other people in the debate kick in. Things that bump your points up: clarity, cx, respecting your opponent, judge instruction, evaluation and assessment based arguments at the end. Things that can bump your points down: being hard to understand/follow, being mean, not kicking arguments correctly, not attempting line by line, only reading cards, not answering / not letting your partner answer in cx, not disclosing to your opponent before I get there, tech incompetence, prep shenaningans.

Jon Voss Glenbrook South High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 20, 2024 at 4:14 AM CDT

Jon Voss

Northside College Prep

I coached high school policy debate full-time for 12 years, National Service through Legal Immigration. I've been around debate, first as a debater and then as a coach, since 02. I sat out Legal Immigration and Arms Sales, but I judged and researched some for the Criminal Justice Reform, the Water Resources, and NATO topics. Debate is not my full-time job – I work in higher education as a program/product manager – so I don't cut a ton of cards, I'm not really up on what teams are reading, I don't know what topicality norms were established over the summer, etc. I can still flow just as well as I used to, which is to say "deficiently."

Yes email chain: jvoss1223 AT gmail DOT com. I don't read along during the debate, I just like it so that I can ensure nobody's clipping cards and also so that I can begin my decision-making process immediately after the debate ends. This is important for how you debate -- using the speech doc instead of your flow as a guide is to your detriment.

-- fiscal redistribution topic - I heard a few debates on it before the season started but (as of the early season tournaments) you should consider my topic knowledge extremely limited, especially as it relates to topicality norms and complex explanations of fringe economic theories. I do have a basic understanding of the academic concepts that undergird the topic, however, and I will be somewhat involved in argument production this year.

-- Almost every debate I've seen so far this year has collapsed into a very-hard-to-resolve "growth good"/"degrowth good" debate. These have been late-breaking and I spent the bulk of my decision time wading through ev that didn't get me any closer to an answer I found satisfactory. In each instance, I was unhappy with amount of intervention and lack of depth involved in my decision. In that regard:

*if there's a winning final rebuttal that does not require you to wade into these waters, give that speech instead. I am willing (and maybe even eager) to grab onto something external and use that as a cudgel to decide that the growth debate was difficult to resolve and vote on <other thing>. I think I would be receptive, too, to arguments about how I should react in a debate that you think might be difficult to resolve, but this is just a hunch.

*you would almost certainly be better-served debating evidence that's already been read instead of reading more cards. This is especially true if the 1ac/1nc/both included a bunch of evidence on this issue...your fourth, "yes mindset shift" card is unlikely to win you the debate (or even the specific argument in question) but debating the issue in greater detail than the other team might.

*debated equally, I'm meaningfully better for the standard defenses of growth, especially as it relates to successfully achieving the changes that would be necessary to create a sustainable model of degrowth.

-- a note on plan texts: say what you mean, mean what you say, and have an advocate that supports it. If the AFF's plan is resolutional word salad, will be unapologetically rooting for NEG exploitation in the way of cplan competition, DA links, and/or presumption-style takeouts. I guess the flip side of this is that I have never heard a persuasive explanation of a way to evaluate topicality arguments outside of the words in the plan text, so as long as the AFF goes for some sort of "we meet" argument, I'm basically unwilling to vote NEG. "The plan text says most or all of the resolution (and another word or three) but their solvency evidence describes something very different," is an extremely persuasive negative line of argument, but I think it's a solvency argument.

-- Rehighlighting - you've gotta read itand explain what you believe to be the implication of whatever portion of their evidence you read. I'm somewhat sympathetic to allowing insertion as a check against (aggressively) declining evidence quality in debate, but debate is first and foremost a communicative activity.

-- I don't need nor want a card doc at the end of the debate. I have everything in my inbox already. I know what cards you did/didn't read because I was flowing. I'm honestly a little skeptical of debaters providing judges a lens through which to evaluate different controversies after the 2AR has ended. And to be frank, most of these debates aren't so close that judgement calls on ev are necessary to determine who won.

-- In favor of fewer, better-developed 1NC arguments. I don't have a specific number that I think is best: I've seen 1NC's that include three totally unwinnable offcase arguments and 1NC's that include six or seven viable ones. But generally I think the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Burden of proof is a precondition of the requirement that the affirmative answer the argument, and less ev/fewer highlighted words in the name of more offcase positions seems to make it less likely that the neg will fulfill the aforementioned burden of proof.

-- Highlighting, or lack thereof, has completely jumped the shark. Read more words.

-- Clarity, or lack thereof, has been bad for awhile, but online debate really exacerbates the problem. I won't use the speech doc to bail you out. Just speak more slowly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.

-- I am generally bad for broad-strokes “framing” arguments that ask the judge to presume that the risk of <> is especially low. Indicts of mini-max risk assessment make sense in the abstract, but it is the affirmative’s responsibility to apply these broad theories to whatever objections the negative has advanced. “The aff said each link exponentially reduces the probability of the DA, and the DA has links, so you lose” is a weak ballot and one that I am unexcited to write.

-- I am generally better for a narrow solution that tackles an instance of oppression than an undefined/murky solution that aims to move the needle further than the pragmatic alternative. Some of this new stuff about philosophical competition and associated negative framework arguments that block the AFF from leveraging the 1ac as offense is wild.

-- I am often way less interested in "impact defense" than "link defense." This is equally true of my thoughts toward negative disadvantages and affirmative advantages. For example, if the aff wins with certainty that they stop a US-China war, I'm highly unlikely to vote neg and place my faith in our ability to the big red telephone at the White House to dampen the conflict. Similarly, if the neg wins that your plan absolutely crashes the economy by disrupting the market or causing some agenda item to fail, I will mostly be unconcerned that there are some other historical explanations for great power wars than "resource scarcity." The higher up the link "chain" you can indict your opponent's argument, the better.

-- Sort of a related point, but I thought it might be good to separate this out. I have found myself mentally exhausted at the end of almost every Zoom debate I've judged. There is something about flicking your eyes across three screens while transcribing an entire debate that's occurring in my headphones that is so much more draining than what debate looked like back in the day. I think this impacts how I judge. I certainly don't have any inclination to spend the decision time reading a bunch of evidence if I can avoid it. I don't think that's laziness (but maybe...) -- I'm just tired of staring at a screen. Anything the 2NR / 2AR can do to help craft a simple path to victory that allows me to minimize the number of "decision tree" questions I need to resolve is highly recommended.

-- Don't clip cards. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction. If you advance any sort of ethics challenge, the debate ends and is decided on the grounds of that ethics challenge alone.

-- Yes judge kick unless one team explicitly makes an argument that convinces me to conceive differently of presumption. Speaking of, presumption is "least amount of change" no matter what. This could mean that presumption *still* lies with the neg even if the aff wins the status quo is no longer something the judge can endorse (but only if the CP is less change than the plan).

-- Fairly liberal with the appropriate scope of negative fiat as it relates to counterplans. Fairly aff-leaning regarding counterplan competition, at least in theory -- but evidence matters more than general pleas to protect affirmative competitive equity. I could be convinced otherwise, but my default has always been that the neg advocate must be as good as whatever the aff is working with. This could mean that an “advocate-less” counterplan that presses an internal link is fair game if the aff is unable to prove that they…uh…have an internal link.

-- T-USFG: Debate is no longer my full-time job, so I think I have a little less skin in the game on this issue. I also suspect the Trump presidency and the associated exposure of explicit racism within the United States may have made me a better judge for affirmatives that do not instrumentally defend the topic/federal government action. I'm not sure how much better, though, and I'm probably at best a risky bet for affirmatives hoping to beat a solid 2NR on T-USFG. If you do have me in this type of debate:

**Won't vote on any sort of argument that amounts to, "debate is bad, so we will concede their argument that we destroy debate/make people quit/exclude X population of student, that's good."

**Affirmatives would be well served to prioritize the link between defending a particular state action and broader observations about the flaws of the state.

**Procedural fairness is most important. The ballot can rectify fairness violations much more effectively than it can change anything else, and I am interested in endorsing a vision of debate that is procedurally fair. This is both the single strongest internal link to every other thing debate can do for a studeny and a standalone impact. I am worse for the “portable skills” impacts about information processing, decision-making, etc.

Roger Waite Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 11, 2015 at 8:02 AM CDT

I flow on paper. Be particularly clear when reading cites. Signpost and make some allowances for my attention when moving between flows.

If you can spread very clearly, great. If not, put clarity ahead of speed.

Debate jargon as well as topic-specific acronyms are fine. Jargon’s great when it makes things quicker and clearer, but make sure it’s not merely substituting for thought or argument.

I call cards pretty sparingly, to verify claims actually made in round or for my own curiosity. You need to do the work to explain your warrants in round; your evidence is no better than the use you put it to.

I’m not a very ‘technical’ judge. Quality of evidence and analysis moves me a lot more than quantity or cheap debate tricks. I’m not too eager to deem an argument dropped and dropped argument are considered true but they don’t magically morph into something stronger than they were to begin with. If you have a card that says there’s about a 10% chance of impact x, and the other team drops it, you don’t have 100% probability, you still just have 10%. If you spin all sorts of fantastic claims without warrants, I may well ignore them, even if uncontested.

My threshold on T and theory used to be pretty low, but I’ve seen the error of my ways. I’m not particular about in-round abuse, but I expect real development of the impacts before I’d vote for it: the more concrete, the better. Also, standards and voters in the 1NC/2AC ought to resemble actual arguments, not catch-phrases or meaninglessly vague clichés, e.g. ‘education’ or ‘explodes limits.’ I wave away blippy theory arguments like some many gnats; I’m never going to decide a round based on someone dropping one of a laundry list of barely intelligible theory args.

By default, I look at the round as a policymaker, but I’m open-minded. So framing will be important if you go for anything outside the traditional policy framework. At the same time the framework arguments I’ve seen run against K affs have rarely impressed me. In a similar vein, I find most generic k answers fall flat. I’m not a fan of, or necessarily familiar with, ‘high theory’ sorts of Ks, though I try to be fair. You need to explain your K in a way understandable to someone with no familiarity with the relevant literature—both for my sake and your opponents’—but also in a way that doesn’t distort or caricature it. This is especially true of the alternative debate: how am I supposed to have real-world solvency when I don’t even know what I’m doing by voting neg?

Well thought-out counterplans with specific solvency evidence are awesome in my book, especially exclude PICs. I take a pretty broad view of competition, i.e. it competes as long there are net benefits. Perms in the 2AC should have at least some basic explanation of how the perm moots competition, e.g. the perm solves at least as well as the CP because of x, and doesn’t link to net benefit because of y, where x and y are warranted claims.

Personally, I vastly prefer modest, realistic impacts with strong, high-probability link stories to high-magnitude impacts linked by a concatenation of worst-case scenarios and power-tagging. Not that you can’t argue your extinction scenario, but with good impact analysis I tend to err to probability. I’m also pretty suspicious of ‘crazy’ impact turns (e.g., death good, de-dev) though I’ve voted for them on occasion.

If you have any specific questions, just ask me.

Patrick Willet Rufus King 4 rounds

Meg Young Walter Payton College Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 5, 2018 at 8:39 AM CDT

Background:

Walter Payton College Prep (2011-2015)

Northwestern University (2016-2020)

Meta-level: Run what you like. I’m not going to pretend that I’m completely tabula rasa, but if you debate well, make the right framing arguments, take advantage of strategic concessions, etc., I’m going to vote for you (which probably means you would win the debate anyway). Please add me to the email chain: meg.young43098 [at] gmail [dot] com.

Topic Knowledge: I haven't worked at a camp or done any research on the education topic. Not only does this mean that you might need to explain certain acronyms, policies, etc., especially in a highly specialized debate, but also that I have little sense of what the topic looks like / what the topic should look like for topicality debates. Therefore, saying "but everyone knows this aff is SO not topical" isn't going to resonate with me; providing case lists and examples, impact explanations that are aff-specific and emphasize how the other team's interpretation would create a worse topic will go a long way.

Basics:

Tech > Truth – there have been some arguments that have pushed me to my limits on this, but if it’s a dumb argument, it should be that much easier to beat.
An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact – the first two are obvious, but you need to explain how an argument implicates the others in the debate or provide a lens with which to view arguments.
A conceded argument is a true argument unless a predictable cross-application can be made – however, it’s not enough to say “they dropped X” – you must have an articulated explanation of what the concession means for the rest of the debate.
Evidence comparison, whether through qualifications or warrants, is crucial for resolving major questions in the debate and for avoiding judge intervention when calling for cards.
0% risk is hard but so-low-it’s-irrelevant risk is an easier sell.
Unless the aff makes an argument otherwise, I don’t have a problem kicking the CP/alternative (especially if the neg states that the status quo is a logical option) even if it’s not an argument in the 2NR.

K Affs:

Some form of stasis is important – what that stasis is up for debate. In terms of framework, the aff should at least affirm or be in the direction of the resolution; there also needs to be a clear articulation of why the topical version of the aff and “do it on the neg” don’t solve.
Comparing political strategies and/or impacts is crucial in deciding these debates. Does activism outweigh fairness? Does engaging the government outweigh individual resistance?
Agnostic about whether no-plan affs should be allowed a perm – the theory debate is winnable for the neg, but if that’s your main strategy because of a non-sensical or poorly-explained link, you’re in trouble.

Topicality:

Debate T like a DA – you need terminal impact and internal link comparison and flowable warrants and not simply vague claims about “limits” or “topic specific education.”
Everything must have an impact – for example, discussions of the quality of interpretation evidence should be impacted with precision/predictability/grammar arguments.
What makes the best vision of the topic is not necessarily what is the smallest or biggest topic – what kinds of advantages, mechanisms, core topic debates does their interpretation prevent?
Usually default to competing interpretations, but reasonability is certainly winnable.

Theory:

Same as T – terminal impact and internal link comparison with flowable warrants instead of throwing around random buzzwords like “neg flex” or “strat skew.”
Anything other than conditionality is generally just a reason to reject the argument, not the team. However, using theory to justify other arguments can be strategic and is often underutilized, such as “winning Process CPs bad justifies Perm do the CP.”

Kritiks:

I’m very knowledgeable with the classic IR, economics, environment, etc. critiques as well as many identity-based arguments, and (unfortunately) I know way more than I’d like to about high theory arguments such as Bataille, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, and Schopenhaur (thanks Lenny and Luisa!).
Specificity is crucial. Pulling lines from their cards, discussing their authors, reading cards about the mechanism/advantages can help counter aff specificity claims. Same thing goes with impact comparison – explanations of why the K turns the impact / why the alternative resolves the issues of the 1AC can help counter alternative solvency presses. Also, turns aff solvency arguments are often underutilized.
Alternative explanations are best for me when what happens if you win framework is explained and when the alternative is discussed in terms of scholarship and action. Like with framework, comparing differing political strategies is important.

Counterplans:

Solvency advocates – There are merits to both sides: can be good for predictability, can impede logically testing non-intrinsic aff advantages. Therefore, the logic of a CP without a solvency advocate will determine my decision. Any other interpretation will depend on the availability of negative ground and the theory debating. However, neg teams should call out affs whose solvency advocate doesn’t meet their standards.
Theory/Competition – Two sides of the same coin. If the neg can prove that the CP is a legitimate opportunity cost to the plan, then aff theory arguments are much less persuasive. Again, legitimacy depends on topic lit and the availability of other neg ground; although a Recommendation CP is very likely never going to be competitive, it depends largely on how the theory debate is executed.

Disads:

Link generally controls the direction of uniqueness. However, if the link and uniqueness arguments aren’t cohesive (i.e., politics uniqueness is about Republicans but the link is about Democrats), then uniqueness arguments become substantially more persuasive. Your link cards must resolve the warrants in your uniqueness cards.
DA overviews are more than just magnitude, timeframe, probability, and turns case arguments (although those are important). Filter the debate through the arguments the aff conceded or misinterpreted. Answering “what is certain about the DA after X speech?” and then framing your answers to other aff arguments in terms of that makes your debating much more persuasive. For example, if they’ve conceded the link, how can you use that as leverage against a link uniqueness argument they made?
Agnostic about theory (intrinsicness, bottom of the docket, etc.), but the aff should be able to defend their vision of debate with an internal link and an impact. For example, "DA not intrinsic – a logical policy maker could do both" doesn't meet this standard, because there is no impact.

Ethics:

If there is evidence that you have clipped cards, you will lose and recieve the lowest points possible. Your partner and the other team will receive normal points as best as I can determine.

Questions, comments, concerns? Email meg.young43098 [at] gmail [dot] com.

Login to Tabroom

2015 Niles Township Invitational

2015 — IL/US

Open Policy Paradigm List

How I evaluate a debate round:

Judges