Background:

I did LD for a small high school in SC and policy at Vanderbilt ('15). I had some reasonable success my senior year through clearing at various tournaments and winding up at the NDT. I was a 2A for the vast majority of my rounds.

I judge probably 1-2 tournaments a year and am not actively involved in the activity otherwise, so I have zero idea what new acronyms/trends/drama has emerged recently. This probably can help you for two reasons: 1. I have no prior on "rep", so repping out is a nonissue 2. I will not lose any sleep from voting on a particularly uncouth argument

Big Picture- 2018 Update:

The longer I'm out of debate the less I care about what arguments you make. Whatever position I may have had on the "ideal" round is based on pre-2015 data which may no longer hold true. I encourage you to read whatever argument you're most comfortable with. As long as you can justify what you say/do, I am theoretically okay with voting on it.

Full disclosure- I read exclusively plan-based policy arguments on the aff and was about 50/50 on policy vs. K on the neg, so I might have a slight bias towards "traditional" arguments, but I wouldn't say its dramatic enough for you to alter your strategy.

In general, the more you adhere to the belief that debate is a game and that arguments are just tools, the more likely you should pref me. If you instead feel that debate serves some other primary purpose, you'll probably have to do some work on framework explaining it.

I generally reward strategic risk taking with high speaks, even if you don't necessarily win.

Everything else (updated 2015):

Evidence

I am probably far more concerned about evidence quality than the average, I’d imagine. I took debate really seriously and value hard work over anything else. If you can demonstrate a good comprehension of your (or your opponents’) evidence and just all-around topic knowledge, it could really help you out. I won’t read every card after the round, but there’s definitely a threshold for how much spin you can get away with that isn’t grounded in what your cards actually say. Powertagging cards is way too common and is a pretty bad practice.

Also, please for the love of God stop reading terrible impact cards. You know the ones (Khalilzad 95, Diamond 95, Strait Times 2K, etc…). All of these are highly outdated and lacking in warrants. Especially in the era of free camp files and open-source, there really isn’t much of an excuse anymore.

Counterplans

Advantage CPs are severely underutilized. 99% of aff advantages are not intrinsic to the plan, so doing it through a non-topical way is a pretty easy way to go. Teams should also bring back uniqueness CPs and 2NC CPs.

Conditionality- I don’t understand why 2 conditional advocacies is the magic number to equalize the playing field. I think if you win condo good, then you probably get as many as you want. However, if they contradict, then I think they are probably bad. Reading a neolib K and privatization CP simultaneously is so much worse than 6 conditional advantage CPs. Showing how making an argument on one flow can be conceded to gain offense on another is a pretty easy way to show me that the neg is cheating.

Other CP Theory- I err neg on almost everything else, but barely. I won’t tank your speaks for reading delay, consult, etc. Debate’s a game, do what you want if you can defend it. Similarly, I think 2ARs need to be more willing to just go for theory as a reason to reject the CP. Both in the cases of the aforementioned CPs, but even with agent or process CPs as well. Even though I think those are probably good, 2Ns are oftentimes pretty terrible at the debating them, so take advantage of the almost inevitable under-coverage in the 2NR. I also have a soft spot for really old-school theory args like no neg fiat and topical CPs bad. I thought those were fairly fun to debate.

Judge-kicking for the most part seems far too interventionist for me. If 2AR goes for CP links to the DA or some external offense, then the neg is stuck with the CP.

Disads

Zero-risk is real. There’s a 1% risk of almost anything happening, so I can be persuaded the risk of the DA is so low I should just round down. The same goes for aff advantages

I did a lot of politics work and we went for it a lot, but I think the DA is outrageously over-relied on.

If you win a time-frame distinction, then I am extremely persuaded by DA turns case.

Kritiks

If you like “old-school” Ks like Nietzsche, security, biopower, etc. I’m probably great for you. These were pretty much the only types of Ks I went for when I debated. Although the link to the aff isn’t great, I understand them and think the aff definitely needs to defend everything they say, even on such an epistemological level.

If your first thought when your opponent breaks a new CTBT aff is “gee-whiz, we can finally read these nuclear policy links to our Bataille K!”, I am probably not a great judge for you. The fact that I’m not even sure what the nuclear policy link to Bataille actually is probably indicates my lack of knowledge/interest on the subject.

If you go for a K, pull out all the tricks out-tech the other team. If that means going for framework so I don’t weigh the aff, so be it.

Non-Traditional Debate

If your definition of a “critical aff” is one that defends a topical plan text with structural violence or other non-standard policy advantages, I’m a great judge for you. I love these debates.

Other than that, my main gripe with K affs is the fairness question. I think it's *probably* good for the neg to be able to read the Topic DA against an aff. What this means is that the aff may not need to have a "plan" per se and might not actually have to defend a US policy, but if the aff makes an argument in the topic area of marijuana legalization, for example, the negative should probably get a DA about why legalization is bad and a competitive alternative for why non-legalization options are better. If your aff wants to critique this question and can do a solid job on framework, I'm probably good for it.

I also think affs have a high burden to prove that they actually do something. I understand that the 1AC speech act might be a good thing, but why does that need to be tied to a ballot? Voting neg doesn’t mean that the 1AC disappears from everyone’s memory. I am more than willing to vote neg on presumption here if the aff doesn’t do an adequate job of proving that winning is key. If your answer to this is that “we need to win so our argument gets more exposure”, I'm probably not your guy.

If you want to win with a non-topical aff in front of me, it will 100% be because you out-debated the other team and are just better on the technical aspects of the flow. I am not persuaded by any pathos-based claims about your qualms with the debate community or your personal experiences. If your default 2AR includes a prewritten two-minute overview, I’m probably not the best judge for you. I am also thoroughly unpersuaded by claims that minorities can’t participate in traditional policy debate or that minorities can’t defend the state. If you do not understand why this argument in front of a brown judge who debated many rounds with a black partner is offensive, you probably shouldn’t pref me.


Misc. Things

Be nice—I understand debate can get heated and being aggressive in CX can be useful versus an uncooperative opponent, but there’s zero reason to scream, insult your opponent, or be rude in general.

Please stop using vacuous debate phrases like “cold-conceded” or “Pepsi challenge”. To paraphrase Nick Ryan, I might drop your speaks by a full point for the phrase “cold-conceded”, but I’ll add it back if you can explain the difference between cold, hot, and regular conceded.

I studied economics in college and worked in finance, so I think I have a decent understanding of economic arguments. I would kill for a good, technical econ impact debate.

My favorite argument of all time is “courts shield the link”.

My favorite judge was Hays Watson.


email me with questions: arbilgi@gmail.com

Debate History

1 - Nevada Union (2009-2014)

2 - Weber U (2014-2015)

3 - UCO (2015-Present)

Round judged on Education topic: 4

Currently coaching Cabot

Helloooo! It is nice to see humbleness and kindness. I find it to be more important relative to debating because you might find yourself as far as a across the country from the person your debating, or in your dorm when you get to college. Just be nice, play friendly, but don't let that deter you from establishing the arg in a manner you usually do. Just don't be uncomfy.

Short Version:

To be honest, I think I could consider myself "flexible" in most regards. I think the best example of this is my ability to go for a Domestic PIC in one debate against Texas and then "T-Domestic" against the same team when they took it out against me 3 months later. So I think your 2NR on any argument will be okay.

I've been debating for a second now, but don't believe that I will be able to handle your queer deleuzian k of semiotic wounded attachments. I'm gonna need you to explain that one to me. Put simply: Just because I go for it doesn't mean I'm going to get your argument. I don't think about these arguments like a lot of debaters do, and a lot of my mentors aren't debaters. So there will for sure be disconnects. I think part of being that debater is being held to the standard of applying your argument, but that is generally true for all arguments. For example - "diseases cause extinction" is no more of an extension than "The subject is interpolated into a pretextual paradigm of discourse that includes consciousness as a paradox" (Literally taken from the post modern generator). 

Condense the 2NR, and frame the debate by the end of it. Same for the 2AR, but tell me what I need to do, why I should do it, and what the impact to that reason is.

Just have fun, remember what an argument is, and make funny references that are clever. 

Long Version - More about argumentative preferences.

First and foremost: anyone who tells you they're tabula rasa is lying almost as much as my coaches do when they say I'm good at debate. No one is tabula rasa. We were all predisposed in one way or another. Can we control that? No, because if we could the concept of "accountability" would be a wild one to think about. So, my job is to ensure that you know what ways my conscious, subconscious, and unconscious might lead when thinking about the debate.

Case - I actually have a lot of these, but I will be honest. I am the rare few that doesn't like a huge case debate. I think it is nice to have a separate flow to evaluate. Like, if it is a case debate against an aff without a plan. then hell yeah, I could go with that. If it is like a one off, 3 card cap K, and 7 minutes of case against an aff with a plan, then I might be thinking this is going to be interesting. Not because I dislike the nature of those debates, but so many people end up just reguritating the taglines that it ends up being 13 minutes of blips or card reading instead of comparative claims. I think so many of you are so so smart and super talented. In fact, I think probably all of you are, but I don't think you show it when you do this, and I just want you to give that 2NC, let the timer go off, and feel like Mr. Hotspot did when he first ate rap snacks with the migos on the front. 

T - I love a good topicality debate. I probably think that I shouldn't be the person deciding what's reasonable on the topic. I don't have a good track record, but I mean I need you to tell me why I shouldn't. If not, looks like some random aff on education about a specific military project in India is going to be topical. I don't wanna do it, but ya made me, and I'm telling you not to make me when we cross that bridge. I think my fav T strategy is a Small TVA, Huge Limits DA, and a heavy impact comparison. 

DA/CP - do it, don't go for the case if it solves 100% of the aff. Just win that it solves the aff with a tie breaker. I think comparative UQ claims about the NB are good ways to justify any impact to the DA to or for a solvency deficit to the CP. 

K - Most of this is above. I'll understand your argument, but I will not just let you throw buzzwords at me. I think the link needs context. I think it should quote their evidence. I think that the link should then explain the context based internal link to their impact argument. For instance - education policy results in militarism should be explained as why the research in this debate on education policy can inform the research algorithms we take from the debate to inform later research which materializes our ideological relationship to X event.

FW - I think there are some instances where they get to weigh the aff. I think it is REALLY easy to make the argument that the aff's internal link claims have some remote relation to the way we teach people about policy (it's literally the education topic - if your aff isn't already making a research argument, we should talk). TVA is less convincing that SSD and a limita DA - I think TVA is a CP in most instances. I think fw debaters tend to be kind of lazy when going for it, and I'm going to actively refuse those 2NRs. 

Overall, just do you. I'm here for two hours, want to help you learn, and to be honest, I'm actually super excited to see all of you debate. You all are awesome, talented, and your coaches stick around because of that. Just enjoy each other, and thank you for letting me sit in the back! 

I've been in debate for a little over a decade now as a high school policy debater, coach for numerous teams across multiple events, as well as professionally at the Bay Area Urban Debate League. Essentially, do what you want. Debate is a unique educational and competitive space, please make the most of it. I will vote on most things if you give me a good enough reason. I do not lean towards traditional or K/performative debate. Both are good and valuable. Again, do what you want. Have fun. Be nice to each other.

Go ahead and add me to whatever email chain: gabriel.gangoso@gmail.com

Flex prep is fine. In's and Out's are fine. Any other practices like this are probably fine. If you don't recognize these terms don't worry about them.

CSU LONG BEACH JACK HOWE 2022 UPDATE: I haven't judged circuit debate since 2017 so I'm out of practice. If you have me in the back of the room, please go slower - ESPECIALLY ON ANALYTICS. I won't be able to understand you if you fully spread your pre-written analytic blocks, so please slow down. I'm the head director for Bellarmine's program so I spend most of my time these days coaching speech and slow debate. 

FOR STATE & NATIONALS: If I am judging you in debate at the CHSSA State tournament or NSDA Nationals, please do not treat me as a purely circuit judge, especially if I'm on a panel with other judges who are clearly not circuit-oriented. I believe that those tournaments are excellent forums for a type of debate that prioritizes judge adaptation and a slower, more lay style of debate. So, do not feel you have to go fast to try to cater to me. At these tournaments, I'll hold you to much higher standards in terms of the evidence quality, the specificity of the link, and the logical coherence of your positions. I will love you if you successfully criticize contrived internal link scenarios, the squirelly/shady arguments, and blippy line-by-line analysis in your CXs and speeches.

How to get high speaker points and win my ballot:

My greatest frustrations with the vast majority of debate rounds are two-fold: 1) a lack of comparative engagement with the other team's arguments and 2) a lack of well-impacted analysis of why your arguments are reasons I should vote for you. Speech docs seem to exacerbate both of these problems, as teams rely on reading pre-written blocks. More and more, I feel a sense of impending existential dread as I realize that nothing meaningful in the debate round is going to happen until the 2NR and 2AR and that everything else is a game of seeing which issues get undercovered. Let me break down my two biggest frustrations:

1) comparative analysis - I understand that you have beautifully constructed blocks to certain arguments but often times, those blocks are not directly responsive to the other team's argument, and so I'm left with back-and-forth disputes with no clear framework of how to resolve them. The quickest way to get good speaker points with me is to listen critically to the warrants of the other team's arguments and give comparative analysis that explains why your warrants are superior.

2) impacting important arguments - Though debaters implicitly understand the importance of impact calc, they often think about it incorrectly. Meaningful impact calc isn't exclusively about magnitude, timeframe, and probability. That's rarely how rounds are resolved. That type of impact calc presupposes that you're ahead on the other parts of the flow. The best impact calc explains why the arguments that you're ahead on in the round are reasons to vote for you and why those arguments are more important than the other teams arguments. Often times, teams get frustrated that a dropped argument didn't warrant an immediate vote for their team. If a dropped argument is not adequately impacted and framed, and the other team has more compelling offense, then most rational judges will still not vote for you. I see this most often in framework debates against identity politics affirmatives. The framework debaters are often confused how they lost the round, despite being "ahead" on some line-by-line issues. However, in those debates, the identity politics team is often far ahead in terms of impacts and framing why those impacts outweigh any of the line-by-line framework arguments. So, to put it simply, explain why your arguments matter.

Finally, please go slower on theory than you would with other judges - I debated in high school and coach policy debate now, but I also direct a program that coaches students in speech (IE) and lay debate, so I don't watch 20+ fast rounds a year, like many judges on the circuit.

My experience: I debated in high school for Bellarmine College Prep (San Jose, CA) from 2007-2011 and went to Michigan 7-week during that time but did not debate in college -- so I was out of the circuit for a couple of years when identity politics K and planless affs became popular. Now, I'm a coach at Bellarmine. I don't judge much on the circuit now that I direct Bellarmine's S&D program. I would recommend going a bit slower, especially on theory arguments, if you want to make sure that I'm able to flow everything. That also means that you should explain your warrants and arguments more than you might for other judges.

Policy
The more case-specific you are, the better. Far too many teams do not engage with case in a substantive way. Also, don't be afraid to make analytics – smart, true analytics hold a lot of sway with me, and it’s very strategic to have them in the 1NC and 2AC. If I see that you’re actually engaging the debate and critically thinking instead of just reading blocks and ignoring what the other team said I will be much more willing to give you higher speaks. That said:

Topicality – you must do a good job of explaining your interpretation and why it’s good for debate (or why allowing the aff to be included in the topic is bad for the topic), as well as the terminal impacts to your claims about predictability and fairness and education, etc. I generally err towards interpretations that are the best for the literature base of a topic -- for substantive, deep debates at the core of the resolution -- rather than arbitrary lines which found their entire argument on generic disad link distinctions. Good topicality debates should be grounded in excellent evidence (T- subs. w/o material qualifications is a good example of a violation that does not fulfill this criteria).

DA – I love strategies that are either CP/DA or even DA/case. As a 1N/2A, I took the DA a lot in the 1NR and loved doing 2ARs against the DA. Generic DAs are okay, but I’m going to like you a lot more if you’re reading a tight case-specific DA that has good, specific links and internal links.

CP – don't be abusive or shady, otherwise I'll have sympathy for the aff on theory args.

Case – I LOVE case and I think it’s totally viable to win a debate with a simple strategy like case-DA. Case is what these sorts of debate SHOULD be about. Don’t let the 2A get away with the entirety of case and you have to defend on a CP to win! Make them defend the plan. I could even be persuaded to vote on presumption.

K debates
I'm down with Ks. I'm familiar with much of the K lit - but take time to explain the core thesis of the K in the neg block (or 2ac) and especially the link story. Contrived and jargon-filled tags that lack substance but just try to sound smart / catch the other team off guard is a huge pet peeve of mine. For the aff, definitely poke fun of the link, as well as the alt - if the K cannot explain an articulate non-generic formulation of these parts of the debate, it'll be hard for me to vote for the kritik. I'm fairly knowledgeable with regards to the K literature base, particularly Foucault, Nietzsche, Bataille, Marx, critical IR, but that means I hold kritiks to a high standard of explanation. If you are reading some variation on Lacan, for instance, you'd better understand exactly what kind of argument you're making. There are many points in fast debate rounds when I feel an impending sense of existential dread but one of the more egregious examples of such moments occurs when teams completely and utterly bastardize a brilliant philosopher with a kritik and have no idea what that author's argument actually is.

Also, please do not read framework at the same pace that you would read a card. Especially when you are talking about the role of the ballot, slow down a little.

Identity debates
I'm open to debates on identity politics. Again, I didn't debate when these types of arguments were gaining currency so I don't have as much familiarity but I'm open-minded about them. I do believe they force debaters to grapple with ideas that are ultimately good for the community to confront. The most important thing for FW debaters in these situations is to not just focus on the line-by-line. In these sorts of debates, the identity politics teams typically win through in-depth overviews that impact turn essentially everything on the line-by-line. You HAVE to respond to their top-level impact claims - it's hard to pull the trigger in this type of round on dropped argument on the line-by-line if you haven't been addressing the framing of the debate itself.

If you have more specific questions, please ask me before the round.

UC Berkeley '19 - Go UC BERKELEY DEBATE!

Debated for Chattahoochee High School in Georgia 2011 - 2015

Judged For: College Prep, Hooch, Bellarmine

Updated  2/2/2016

Debates Judged on the Surveillance Topic: 15

Debates Judged on the Oceans Topic: 35

Debates Judged on the Latin America Topic: 9

A few thoughts on debate.

Tech vs truth - TECH matters. Truth still matters somewhat - arguments need a claim and warrant + spin is hugely important for how I read evidence. Also, make sure to answer arguments like "turns case" and "counterplan leads to the plan" in the 1AR, even if you know your evidence is infinitely better.

Read what you are good at and go with it. I'll try to evaluate every argument to the best of my ability. That being said, I am far more familar with case, da's, topicality, and counterplan arguments than I am with critical literature. I may not be the best judge for performance debate but that doesn't mean you can't read those arguments. Try your best!

Debate matters more than cards. that doesnt mean i wont ever call for them, but id rather go off my flow. if i have to read cards then i usually reconstruct the debate based off of the evidence as opposed to the actual debating. Flowing is important; the biggest flaw of paperless debate (among many) is the transition to over relying on the speech doc

Any sort of ethical violation (clipping cards, cross reading) will result in an immediate loss and a 0 given to the violator, if sufficient evidence exists. if you dont have enough evidence, dont stake the debate on it

Speed/clarity - debate is a communicative activity. If I don't comprehend an argument then I'm not going to flow it. I'm not sure who the source of this quote is, but it's great advice: "Speed is the number of arguments you make that the judge thinks the other team has to answer".

About me:

I debated for 4 years at Saint Francis High School, went to the TOC twice (junior and senior year), and debated for 1.5 years at Dartmouth College. I have periodically judged tournaments (at the Dartmouth Debate Institute during the summers and any local tournaments to the Bay Area), but in general I have been fairly removed from the debate community since my graduation. In other words: Assume I do not know the topic. Any topic specific knowledge will have to be explained to me.

Argument preferences:

Kritiks

I am comfortable with Kritiks as a concept, but I am not familiar with all literature. So please explain things to me. I have run D&G, Nietzsche, Agamben, and Foucault, so I am familiar with the basic K strategy and most common terms; but if this is some obscure literature, assume I don't know it.

Some debaters use the K to avoid having to talk about the case. I am not part of this school of thought. The best K's are *extremely* relevant to the case and they use the case to contextualize their generic links. This will also help you in terms of any 'K turns case' claims, and also color the actual explanation of the alt, should the K have one.

K's don't necessarily need alts, but nearly every K I've ever seen in a debate would be helped by having one.

Topicality

Stop going so fast. Warrants matter.

RVI's are silly.

I will vote on reasonability, if properly explained and articulated.

Politics

Intrinsicness is a reason to disregard the DA, and I will do it. Blame Wake Forest; they have influence me heavily in this regard. Take the argument seriously (if it's made well). On the other hand, a 2 second blip is not a proper intrinsicness argument either.

The quality of your links matter a great deal - something people often forgt about.

General stuff

a. There is such a thing as 0% risk (it is merely a 100% risk of that thing's opposite). Both are very rare to win in a debate.

b. Arguments are merely claims until you make warrants. Let me put it another way: As Ross Smith said, a dropped argument is merely as true as when it was first made. If you didn't explain it properly, dropping it doesn't give it any more weight.

c. I will vote on pretty much anything that is well explained (module point b). For example: I will vote on Obama is an alien - but you better have phenomenal evidence and great warrants; otherwise, the other team dropping this (or any other awful, unspecific evidence) doesn't mean anything.

d. I've found that, while important, most debaters overvalue impact calculus and undervalue the internal link and probability debate.

e. I have a soft spot for affs that have smaller, true impacts (when properly executed). Blame Kathryn Kernoff. :)

f. I like people who debate the case; you may not win, but you'll probably get high(er) speaker points.

g. Be nice. Believe me, you *can* win without having to be rude. Nothing you have to say in C-X is as important as you think it is.

h. Have fun. I've gone for wacky, fun arguments (ice age, spark, D&G reality doens't exist) - at the end of the day, you have a limited number of debates in your life. Enjoy them - and believe me, it will show when you do.

Things that irk me:

1. Stealing Prep - don't do it. Prep starts as soon as the speech is over. Debate is about trust. This is especially important with paperless debate.

2. I am 'you', the other team is 'they'

3. CX starts as soon as the speech is over. I keep time during all debates; my timer is official. CX does not start after you stack papers for 5 seconds and take 30 seconds to walk over.

4. STOP going so fast on plan / cp texts - be clear; same applies with huge theory debates.

I have been doing policy debate for about 6 years now. Did 2 years in high school, debated for 1 semester at UC-Berkeley, and then ended up coaching for 4 years in college. I have a lot of experience with K debate, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for a T violation or a fire framework debate.

For evaluating K debates - Please make sure you contextualize your arguments into the world of the affirmative. ( my theory says this which implicates the affs ability to do x) Read whatever you want, but just make it clear why and how I should vote.

* amendment as of february 17th * : read whatever you want, but make sure you can contextualize your theory into a real world example. I'm totally down to theorize outside of current realities/ mindsets/ whatever, but if the debate becomes too theoretical

( deleuze v deleuze) or even afro pess v afro pess then i'll get lost. I'm not the judge in the back that knows everything. This becomes an issue when teams try and re read authors against folks in order to win super intricate links... which of course - only make sense if you are really deep into the literature or it gets really explained in the block. These concrete examples help me latch onto to your argument and better evaluate.

For evaluating T/Framework debates - Blippy violation extensions are intimidating and will end up on the flow, but if you don't impact them out in front of me, then I can't really do much for you when it comes time for an RFD. Predictability might make it to the end of the debate, but if you haven't done work on why the debate was hurt then why vote neg?

Policy vs K debates

These may come down to " extinction on the physical plane vs death on some sort of identity axis". If the policy aff beats the k in explaining why their framing comes first or outweighs - i'll vote aff. Please do the work of winning why yours comes first ( for either side) like how pusha T did to Drake - it just makes it really easy for me once rfd time comes.

Policy heavy debates --> you need to explain scenario stories very explicitly in rebuttals if that is your specific reason for winning. Easy way to get my ballot is to slow down for a second and break down the internal links between your argument. If you don't have a " HELLO - judge wtf" moment in your rebuttal ( especially for LD) , then these can be hard to judge debates for me.

If i'm ever giving an RFD, and stop mid sentence. Then it means I've worked through some random argument and am now changing my mind about how I feel usually. Or i'm just awkwardly re framing something. I may end up "re nigging" on my decision especially when tournament staff is being pushy/ forcing us out of rooms/ threatening folks with tournament fees if they don't submit a ballot or evacuate a space in time. So, yes to the few who I had to force out of rooms sorry. I try to hold myself and others to a high standard of theorization and sometimes that just takes longer than we have.

Pronouns: He/ Him. Will respect whatever your preferred pronouns are.

Role/ Experience: Director of Debate @ Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose, CA. Formerly debated circuit Policy & coached @ Logan, & Parli @ UC Davis.

Evidence: Put me on the chain: mwoodhead@mitty.com & mittypolicydocs@gmail.com. However, I try to avoid reading speech docs for substantive issues- you have to make the arguments, interps, weighing clear to me in your verbalized speech. I will try to intervene/ "do work" for the debater as little as possible, so don't expect that I will buy all of the "fire analysis" of your card if you aren't extending or explaining any of it. Prep stops when you send out the doc. Don't burgle. Don't clip cards. Mark your docs if you end early.

Decorum: Be respectful of all in the round. Ad hominem attacks (about a person's immutable identity/ characteristics/ background) are never OK and will cost you speaker points at the very least. If you cross the line, expect the L and a talk with your coach. Attack arguments and their justifications, not the person.

Policy:

• Open to any argument. I would say that I default policymaker but am completely open to K arguments/ affirmatives. If going for the K, please overcome my general skepticism by clearly explaining the role of the ballot and demonstrating some level of competitive fairness in your framework. I want to know what exactly I am voting for, not simply that the other side was thoroughly confused.
• Speed is fine, but slow down on tags, blippy analytics, interps, alts, and CP and perm texts. Pause after cites. Introduce acronyms. I'll yell clear if necessary. Avoid other distracting behaviors like loud tapping, pen-dropping, and super-double breadths. Non-speaking teams should limit their decibel level and overt facial indignation.
• T, theory, Ks, etc. are fine. But, as with any argument, if you would like for me to vote for these, you need to give me a clear reason. I am not as well-versed in some K Affs or high theory Ks, but am certainly open to evaluating them if you can make them make sense. I am more comfortable adjudicating T, CP, DA/ case debates, but I am open to voting for arguments of all types (Ks, K Affs, etc...). I will vote for non-conventional argument forms (songs, dance & poetry, etc...), but will be very acutely focused on the education and fairness implications of these alternative styles. I will give you more leeway on unconventional arguments (on the aff) if they bear some relation to the topic. Topic education is valuable. But, other things matter too.
• I leave my assessment of the round largely in the hands of the team that presents me with the best explanation of how to frame the major issues in the round, and why that favors their side. If that work is done thoughtfully and clearly, then my decision about which way the round should go becomes much easier. Oh yeah, it typically helps when you win the actual arguments too (warrants, evidence, links, impacts, & all that micro stuff).
• On theory, I usually will only pull the trigger if I can see demonstrable abuse or unfairness. The "potential for abuse argument" alone doesn't usually cut it with me (unless it's cold-conceded). Show me what specific limitations their interp caused and why that's bad for debate. Condo bad may be a good time trade-off for the aff, but probably won't convince me without some demonstrable in-round fairness/ education loss.
• I appreciate strategy, creativity, and maybe a little humor. Speaks typically range from 27-29.5. I am not impressed by shouting, bullying or obstruction- these will cost you points!! Most importantly, have fun! If you have questions, you can ask me before the round.

LD:

(Please see my policy paradigm above as this is where I draw most of my experience and perspective from. You can also find my thought on speed/ evidence/ speaks there. The gist is that I default as a policymaker, but this can be upended if you convince me your framework/ ethical system is good or preferable)

Cross: Speaking over or past your opponent goes nowhere fast. If you ask a question, allow them an answer. If you want to move on, kindly ask to move on, don't shout them down.

Plans: I love them since they impart a clearer sense of your advocacy and one concrete comparative world. Still, you will be held to that plan. Shifting advocacies, vagueness on key functions of the plan, inserting extra-topical provisions to deck case neg offense are likely to get you in trouble. Spec args and funding questions need to be reasonable. Aff can, and probably should, defend normal means in these instances, but clarify what that probably looks like.

Whole Res: This style of debate is fine, but it makes affs vulnerable to a large set of topical, but terrible, ideas. It is each debater's job to weigh for me the preponderance of the evidence. So, even if you prove one idea is the res could cause nuke war, I need to weigh that eventuality's probability versus the rest of the aff's probabilities of doing good. This is a daunting task given the limited speech times, so make your examples as clearly defined, relevant, and probable. I am often persuaded by the most salient example.

Theory: I am far more receptive to theory arguments that pertain to choices by the opponent. Attacking structural differences of the aff/ neg in LD as a justification for some unfair strategy choice is not likely to persuade me and often ends up as a wash. Tell me what arguments their interp specifically limits and why that's bad in this round or for debate in general.

Other things: I do not favor whimsical theory arguments that avoid debating the topic or avoid normative questions of public policy in general. So, save your font size theory for another judge.

Parli:

Plans are cool/ extra-topical planks are not. Evidence is cool, but warranted and empirically supported reasoning is best. DO NOT take 45 seconds between speeches. DO ASK POIs! Please take at least 2 POIs in constructive for the sake of clarity and education.


PF:

Years Judging Public Forum: 9

Speed of Delivery: moderately fast, I would say full speed, but since people throw 8 "cards" up in 20 seconds in PF, you're better off at like 70% of full speed.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Line by line with some framing/ voters if it helps to clarify the round.

Role of the Final Focus: Establish voters, demonstrate offense, and weighing.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: do it, please don't shadow extend everything, I won't do the work for you.

Topicality: cool
Plans: fine/ unless impossibly narrow
Kritiks: if it links, sure
Flowing/note-taking: Do it, I will.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Arguments matter more. But, as a member of the human species, style and conviction impact the level to which I am persuaded. Still, I prefer a style that oriented to a calm and reasoned discussion of the real facts and issues, so I think they go hand in hand.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Typically, yes, especially in the summary. The rebuttal may not necessarily have to extend defensive elements of the case.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Opponents case only; though, you won't get back the time later to explain and frame your best responses, so I'd try to cover responses to case too.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Not unless something unique prompted the response for the first time in the immediately prior speech/ grand-cross.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. Be civil, succinct, and provide plenty of examples (either common knowledge or your evidence).