Tabroom.com

College Prep LD Invitational

2015 — CA/US

OLD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Tim Alderete The Meadows School

MacLean Andrews Gonzaga Prep 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 7, 2019 at 2:39 AM PDT

MacLean Andrews—Gonzaga Prep

I debated policy in high school and NPDA/NPTE parli at Point Loma. I then coached NPDA/NPTE at PLNU. I am now the Director of Forensics at Gonzaga Prep in Spokane, WA. I mostly coach and judge high school CX and LD now. I see debate as an academic game and that’s how I will judge the round. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round or email me if you have questions while filling out pref sheets (first initial last name at gprep.com)

1.Speaker points

28-29.9 usually.

2.Critical Arguments

I think there are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. I am more than willing to listen to any type/kind of arguments but nothing will make me cringe more than a bad K debate. In the end it is up to the debaters in the round to tell me what framework I am to use to evaluate the round.

3.Topicality.

I tend to see T through a competing interpretations framework unless told so otherwise. I used to say that I have a fairly high threshold for T but I am finding myself voting for it more and more. If it is the best strategy you have to win the round go for it.

4.Theory

I am willing to listen to all theory arguments as long as a team can give me a reason to vote on the position. Theory positions should have a framework/interp, arguments for your position, and voters/impacts. Simply stating fairness or education as voting issues usually isn’t enough to win. Impact out why fairness or education or (insert voter) is important.

5.Weighing Arguments

I will default to Net Bens…but if you want to use an alternative weighing mechanism please explain and provide justification for it.
I appreciate it when weighing is done in the speeches. The last thing you want is for me to have to weigh your arguments for you.

7.Random Thoughts

Speed is great if clear.
The round is for the debaters, do what you have to do to win. I will try to adapt to you instead of you adapting to me.
Impact calc wins debates
Debate should be fun.

Deirdre Baker College Prep 6 rounds None

Patrick Berger The Nueva School 2 rounds None

Andrew Bower Ventura 6 rounds None

Abbey Chapman The Harker School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 7:00 AM EDT

toss me on that email chain: aacchapman2@gmail.com

I graduated from UCLA in 2019. I coached LD for 4 years at Harker. I work in a volunteer capacity with the Heights now. That said, I have always had a lower threshold for speed. I'll yell slow twice then I stop flowing until I can comprehend the argument.

I am the most familiar with policy/framework/theory arguments. I won't vote on an RVI on T

Practices Trigger Warnings

Debaters reading positions about suicide, depression/specific mental health, sexual violence, or any similarly traumatic issue, the onus is on them to ask those in the room permission to read the position. Spectators may leave, but judges and opponents do not have that option, meaning there is an expectation that if one of them objects to the triggering subject, that the debater will not read that position. If a debater does not adjust their strategy after being asked to, they will start the round with a 25. If you do not ask before round, but someone is triggered, speaks will similarly be docked. If there is no trigger warning but no one is triggered, the round can continue as normal.

The question for what necessitates a trigger warning is difficult to objectively delineate - if you have a reasonable suspicion someone could be negatively impacted by your position, ask before you read it - explicit narratives are probably a good starting point here. Trigger warnings are contentious in debate but I've seen students negatively impacted in rounds because they were not present and have engaged in conversations with other coaches that lead me to conclude something along these lines is necessary. At the very least, debate is (or should be) a 'safe space', and I believe this is a necessary first step towards achieving that goal. Feel free to discuss this before the round if you are worried it will become an issue in round.

This (admittedly strangely) probably means I'm not the judge for "must read a trigger warning" shells - they often make debate rounds uncomfortable and i have seen them leveraged in ways that make debate spaces unsafe - if no one was triggered, don't spend your time on that shell.

https://medium.com/@erikadprice/hey-university-of-chicago-i-am-an-academic-1beda06d692e#.bqv2t7lr6

This article is very good at articulating my views on the importance of trigger warnings
It is not up for debate that if someone was triggered on account of your failure to adequately make use of trigger warnings, you'll be punished through speaks and/or the ballot

[Evidence Ethics]

Things I will drop a debater on whether or not their opponent brings it up: Card clipping, mis-representing the authors claims, grossly misrepresenting a cite (Use discretion here - but a completely missing site would seem to qualify here). The round stops if I notice this happen, or if the opponent brings up this claim. If the opponent brings forward this claim, I will evaluate the claim after the round has stopped.
Things I believe should be debated out (with the caveat here that it's an uphill battle - I think these are good norms): Other disclosure norms (not including the whole paragraph in a cut card, broken links, etc).
If you expect the round to be stopped (Category #1, or Category #2 but its a panel) I expect clear standards/arguments in a doc emailed out laying out the evidence claim, and specifically, why I should vote on it
I will not vote on evidence ethics claim that hedge on the TFA constitution. While I respect the TFA executive board and generally agree with most of the constitution, I think it sets a bad precedent in requiring debaters, especially in Texas, to be beholden to overarching academic councils.

[Things I would like written out before a speech]

Interps & Counterinterps
Perm texts

[Strategies I love]

A good internal link debate w/ deep evidence comparison
Having a true/stellar response to UQ or Inherency
Nuanced T
A unique plan aff that is extended the whole round & leveraged correctly

[Strategies I don't love]

Tricks
Dense Phil
Analytical args
Dense critical lit

Steve Clemmons Saratoga High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:32 PM PDT

Steve Clemmons

Debate Coach, Saratoga HS, proving that you can go home again.

Former Associate Director of Forensics University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, Debate Coach Saratoga High School

Years in the Activity: 20+ as a coach/director/competitor (Weber, LMU, Macalester, SCU and Oregon for college) (Skyline Oakland, Saratoga, Harker, Presentation, St. Vincent, New Trier, Hopkins, and my alma mater, JFK-Richmond R.I.P. for HS) (Weber State, San Francisco State as a competitor)

IN Public Forum, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the author's intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. The proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but the probability of me voting for it is low.

How to WIN THE DAY (to borrow from the UO motto)

1. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC. The current debate topic gives you a lot of ground to talk about the topic and that is the types of debates that I prefer to listen to. If you are a team or individual that feels as though the topic is not relevant, then DO NOT PREF ME, or USE A STRIKE.

2. If you are attempting to have a “project” based debate (and who really knows what it means to have a project in today's debate world) then I should clearly understand the link to the topic and the relevance of your “project” to me. It can't always be about you. I think that many of the structural changes you are attempting to make do not belong in the academic ivory tower of debate. They belong in the streets. The people you are talking about most likely have never seen or heard a debate round and the speed in which some of this comes out, they would never be able to understand. I should know why it is important to have these discussions in debate rounds and why my ballot makes a difference. (As an aside, no one really cares about how I vote, outside the people in the round. You are going to have to convince me otherwise. This is my default setting.)

3. Appeals to my background have no effect on my decision. (Especially since you probably do not know me and the things that have happened in my life.) This point is important to know, because many of your K authors, I have not read, and have no desire to. (And don't believe) My life is focused on what I call the real world, as in the one where my bills have to be paid, my kid educated and the people that I love having food, shelter, and clothing. So, your arguments about why debate is bad or evil, I am not feeling and may not flow. Debate is flawed, but it is usually because of the debaters. The activity feeds me and my family, so think about that before you speak ill about the activity, especially since you are actively choosing to be involved

SPEAKER POINTS

They are independent of win/loss, although there is some correlation there. I will judge people on the way that they treat their partner, opponents and judge. Don't think that because I have revealed the win, your frustration with my decision will allow you to talk slick to me. First, I have no problem giving you under ten-speaker points. Second, I will leave the room, leaving you talking to yourself and your partner. Third, your words will have repercussions, please believe.

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

One of my basic rules for debate is that all time comes from somewhere. The time limits are already spelled out in the invite, so I will stick to that. Think of it as a form of a social contract.

With an understanding that time comes from somewhere, there is no invisible pool of prep time that we are to use for flashing evidence over to the other team. Things would be much simpler if you got the cards DURING CX/Crossfire. You should either have a viewing computer, have it printed out, or be willing to wait until the speech is over. and use the questioning time to get it.

Evidence that you read in PF, you should have pulled up before the round. It should not take minutes to find evidence. If you are asking for it, it is coming out of your prep time. If it is longer than 20 seconds to find the evidence, it is coming out of the offending teams time.

CX/Crossfire

This should be primarily between the person who just spoke and the person who is not preparing to speak. Everyone gets a turn to speak and ask/answer questions. You are highlighting a difference in ability when you attempt to answer the questions for your partner, and this will be reflected on your speaker points. Crossfire for PF should really be the one question, one answer format. If you ask a question, then you should fall back and answer one from your opponent, or at least ask if a follow up is acceptable. It is not my fault if your question is phrased poorly. Crossfire factors into my speaker points. So, if you are allowing them to railroad you, don't expect great points. If you are attempting to get a bunch of questions in without allowing the other side to ask, the same thing will be reflected in your points.

Evidence in PF

My background is in policy debate and LD as a competitor. (I did CEDA debate, LD and NDT in college and policy debate and LD in high school) I like evidence and the strategy behind finding it and deploying it in the round. I wish PF would read cards. But, paraphrasing is a thing. Your paraphrase should be textual, meaning that you should be able to point to a paragraph or two in the article that makes your point. Handing someone the article is not good enough. If you can't point to where in the article your argument is being made, then all the other team has to do is point this out, and I will ignore it. This was important enough that I say it twice in my paradigm.

This is far from complete, but feel free to ask me about any questions you might have before the round.

Salim Damerdji Mission San Jose High School 6 rounds None

Danny DeBois Harvard-Westlake School 5 rounds

David Dosch Immaculate Heart High School 2 rounds

Zoe Dove College Prep 6 rounds None

Travis Fife Harvard-Westlake School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 6, 2023 at 2:29 AM PDT

TFA 2023: I haven't judged much since TOC 18. Prior to that, I was heavily involved in the activity and taught / coached for Harvard Westlake. I'm a civil rights attorney now. I love debate and really don't have that strong of feelings on things. It's your debate, do as you will. Just start a bit slower than you normally would..... it's been awhile.

Hard and Fast Rules:

Flashing counts as prep if you are assembling the document. If everything is in one doc and you are just saving then that is not prep.

You must either flash or email your opponent your docs.

Evasiveness of any kind before round is highly frowned upon. My expectation is that debaters are honest with one another in all their dealings.

In general, I really enjoy judging debate. If you have a well thought out and interesting take on the topic/debate, I will be happy. If you use strategies that reflect a shallow understanding of the arguments you're running that avoid clash i will be less happy.

Toc 18:

Here are 8 things i'd like for you to know:

1.I keep a good flow. I will hold you to what you say. I do not mind justifying my decisions after the debate by reading back to you what i have on my flow.

2. I will read your evidence and compare it to your explanation in round. Putting powerful spin on your ev is good and highly encouraged. Falsely representing what your evidence says is not. Similarly, having good ev but explaining it poorly will also hurt you.

3. I like philosophical debates. I majored in philosophy. I read ethics, philosophy of mind, political theory in my free time. But i have found that i do not like "phil debaters" because debaters who identify as such seem much more inclined to try to obscure clash and rely on spikes/tricks. If you debate philosophy straight up and have read primary source material to enhance your explanations, I might be the best judge for you. If you intend to read a million analytics and use trickery, i would be a terrible judge for you.

4. On K's, I start from the perspective of "why are the aff and alt different?" This means i focus my decision on 1. links application to the aff and how they turn case or gut aff solvency. 2. does the alt solve the k or the case?

i tend to think the AFF gets to "weigh" the case in the sense that the plan is some what relevant. I think framework arguments best indict how i evaluate the plan and impact calc more broadly. I think the aff commonly drops a lot of 1NC f/w arguments, but negs rarely capitalize on these drops in persuasive ways.

5. I research the topic a lot. I like debates about the topic grounded in a robust academic/theoretical/philosophical/critical perspective.

6. I think debate is both a game and contains an important educational aspect. I do not lean either way of "must defend the topic" but i tend to believe the topic has a role to be played in the community and shouldn't be totally ignored. How that belief plays out in a given round is much more hard to say. I think my record is about 50/50 on non-T AFF's vs topicality.

7. I like CX. You can't use it as prep.

8. I don't think i've voted in an RVI in like over 2 years. I would consider myself a hard press.

Andrew Garvin Brentwood School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu May 3, 2018 at 4:47 AM PDT

I debated for Mission San Jose from 2000-2003, winning the TOC my senior year. I then coached the team while in college. I taught at several camps. I moved on in 2006, but I try to judge a couple times each year, and coach on the side on occasion.

Key Issues

Speed: Nearly any pace is fine. Emphasize with inflection the rhetoric you want me to record. I will say 'Clear' if I cannot understand you. If it is obvious that either your opponent or a spectator cannot follow your speed, I will reward you with higher speaker points for slowing down.

Theory: Theory is meant to check abuse. As a no-risk issue itself - particularly in the context of a 5-speech activity - theory is often employed in an abusive manner. So, I evaluate theory differently than I do the rest of the debate. Feel free to run theory against actual abuse. But, if the strategy is borderline abusive or not abusive at all, please do not run theory. The 'reject the argument' vs. 'reject the debater' distinction is usually moot since what is being questioned is usually fundamental to the person's strategy.

To be explicit - If you run theory for its strategic value, and not as a response to real abuse, give me a low preference. I will intervene against theory arguments where I believe the violation or interpretation is weak. If the violation is borderline, I will discount theory heavily in my decision-making. My stance is aggressive, so make sure to adapt if I judge you. Ask me questions to clarify beforehand if you are worried.

Abuse: The difficulty with taking a hard line on theory is that what counts as abuse is not objective. As an attempt to define it broadly and succinctly, 'abuse' is the employ of a strategy that skews competitive balance. Here are examples of strategies I believe are abusive:

- multiple no-risk, asymmetric ways to win (e.g. multiple sufficient standards as the AFF, or multiple burdens as the NEG)
- non-textual advocacies (i.e. a plan with no text to be bound to)
- severance

Again, ask me questions before the round if you are worried.

Non-Traditional Arguments: I am open to any substantive argument regardless of how weird it is either in content or in form. This means that I am more amenable to critiques and narratives than the average judge (and, of course, plans/counterplans, etc.). That being said, I think about things intuitively and simply, so give adequate translation of your 'ballot story'.

Speaker Points: I give below average speaker points with high variance. The average score I give is between 26.5 and 27, though I will regularly give scores from 24 to 29. Higher scores are associated with politeness, responsiveness, weighing, clarity, substantive argumentation, and effective use of CX.

General Thoughts/Miscellaneous:

1) Compare the arguments you are winning to the arguments your opponent is winning at the end of the round. A key phrase to use is, "Even if she's winning X, that doesn't matter because Y". Even an unsuccessful attempt to evaluate the big picture will net you higher speaker points.

2) I give a lot of weight to empirical arguments. If you have strong analysis leading to an impact, but your opponent has empirics showing that impact, in actual fact, hasn't materialized, you'll have a tough time recovering.

3) Extinction link-stories - as well as the conjoined 'infinite risk' weighing argument - are extremely weak.

4) If there is a logical connection between arguments on different parts of the flow, I will consider their implicit interaction. Weighing/big picture analysis that crystallizes this interaction is welcome, but avoid the phrase 'cross apply' in the early speeches.

5) Flash/email/Dropbox what you intend to read before the round. If you decide what to run just before your speech, transfer the files quickly before your speech. If the transfer is taking too long I will let you know and deduct from your prep time. If you don't have a means to transfer your files, (a) why? you can buy flash drives at the dollar store, and (b) you must provide your computer/papers to your opponent at their request.

Finally, I give long critiques, offering advice before my decision. Don't hesitate to ask if you would like help improving your arguments or strategy.

Michael Greenbury Clovis North 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 6, 2021 at 12:48 AM PDT

Stanford 2021

Former college policy debater at UC Berkeley

I mostly did K debate that's definitely my area of expertise but argument flex is fine I can flow and understand just about anything

I would slow down for more complicated theory args and if you don't make them a significant portion of the final speeches I am not likely to vote for them

don't be offensive

ask me specific questions if you have them

don't have a lot of rounds on the topic

2020 update

mggreenbury@gmail.com

Not much experience on this topic

Been away from the scene for the past semester. Don't worry, I can still listen to speed, but you might want to assume I'm not fully aware of all the topic details.

I like K debate. Prefer poststructuralism or whatever you call it - would probably be what I have the most experience in. Performance debate is cool. Policy debate is good too, just not what I did for the most part. Good plans with solid solvency mechanisms vs intriguing CP/DAs are always engaging to judge for me but politics debates are boring so if you come with generics you better do it right. I consider myself open minded but I do find myself unpersuaded by the same generics FW args that teams have been reading since 2015. Try explaining things in new ways, using new words and examples. I will reward that.

almost all ideas are fair game, except those which offend or harm other people. please use common sense in this regard or I'll dock speaks.

2019 update

very few rounds on the policy topic, please explain any acronyms or details that one might assume a judge with experience on the topic would understand

speed is fine

argument flexibility is fine and good

focus on explaining things; less is more

”debate does not necessarily take the form of a disagreement; it can yield a more complex disimplication or displacement”

i don’t vote on things not In the final speeches

2017 for Stanford

Very few (<20) rounds on the topic. Mostly policy, weirdly, but it's been three months. Please explain any terms (locations, documents, events, concepts, etc.) that may require more experience.

Aside: the term high theory now for me demonstrates the general implosion of meaning.

Out of competition since last season. Everything below still true, with the caveat that my appreciation for the the decorum and the ethos of debate has diminished. I think you can interpret that how you want. Creativity and clarity are awarded with speaker points.

Lastly the authors of flavor for the rhetoric department are Schmitt, Heidegger, and Hegel. Please do not read a critique of Bildung.

2016 Update

About two dozen total rounds on the 2015-2016 HS topic. Mostly on the non-topic but plenty of K affs with plans and a few policy debates.

I do and prefer K debate for the most part, but I am still interested in hearing policy arguments. I understand and like them, at times.

I vote on T/FW, but I think most teams would be helped by substantive and explicated impact calc vs the aff, articulating a strong T version solves arg, etc. You can't just extend T like you would in front of a judge who ideologically prefers your args.

If you're too fast I might ask you to slow down. You should do you. Within reason, try to offend me.

Most familiar in high theory arguments: afropessimist, feminist, queer theory, and Marxist-derivative literatures. I sort of major in critical theory at Berkeley so sometimes I just happen to know a lot about Ranciere or Edward Said depending on the semester.

Feel free to ask any other questions.

Chris Harris Saratoga High School 2 rounds None

Nathan Hart Mountain View High School 6 rounds None

Haley Hayashi Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun December 20, 2015 at 1:50 AM PDT

Hi all, I’m Haley Hayashi.

Edison High School '14

UC Berkeley '18

Rounds judged on ocean topic: 16

I have only judged a few tournaments on the oceans topic so please explain acronyms and other arguments that aren’t central to the topic.

I debated for 3 years in high school at a public school with little to no debate funding. Because of this I had minimal exposure to circuit debate in high school. What I may lack in circuit training and experience, I try to make up for in focus and how much I do care about being a good judge. I had some dabblings reading ks in hs but I was no expert which means if you do want to read critical arguments you need to go heavy on the explanations.

-Speed is fine. If I cannot understand you I will say clear and you won't see me flowing what you are saying.

-I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument, but it is impossible for me to be 100% impartial to every argument. I will do my best to not bring my own opinions into the debate.

-Try to be amicable to each other. Excessive rudeness will not only annoy me, but will cost you speaker points.

-I don’t count flashing as prep, but don’t abuse that.

-I think Kritiks can be interesting and lead to good debates but I am not an expert so you will need to go heavy on explanations and light on jargon.

-Speed is fine but I am not the fastest flower. If I can’t understand you I’ll say clear. If you want me to listen to your argument, make sure I can understand you. So signposts are greatly appreciated.

-overviews are great

Ts, CPs, and Das: All good arguments to run in front of me. To win on T you need to prove in round abuse.

Theory/FW: Needs to be contextualized and clearly articulated why it is important enough to vote on and what the other team did wrong.

Ks: As I said above, be sure to clarify and explain a lot, especially if it is a more obscure k.

-The team with the best analysis and explanation is much more likely to win.

If there is something you would like clarification on or if you have questions, feel free to ask me.

Shania Hunt Harvard-Westlake School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 6:45 AM PDT

Updated March 2023(note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview

I debated for Northland and graduated in 2014. Mostly competed in LD, but also did a bunch of other events and worlds schools debate for Team USA. Coached Northland for a bit, then Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, then I was the director of the MS speech and debate program at Harker for 3 years. Now, I'm in law school and an assistant coach for Harker.

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., ASEAN, NATO, WHO, etc.)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Rory Jacobson College Prep 6 rounds None

Michelle Jiang Los Altos High School 6 rounds None

Tom Kadie Mission San Jose High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 8, 2024 at 5:05 PM EDT

I did two years of circuit LD at Miramonte High School and graduated in 2015. I graduated from UC Berkeley in 2019 after doing four years of NPDA parliamentary debate.

I have no desire to impose my own views upon the debate round. In deciding the round, I will strive to be as objective as possible. Some people have noted that objectivity can be difficult, but this has never seemed like a reason that judges shouldn't strive to be objective. I, overwhelmingly, prefer that you debate in the style that you are most comfortable with and believe that you are best at. I would prefer a good K or util debate to a bad theory or framework debate anyday. That's the short version--here are some specifics if you're interested.

May 28th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

1. Cards v. Spin: I tend to err that spin and analysis trump evidence quality in the abstract. Intuitively, a card is only as good as its extension. However, I will listen to framing arguments that indicate judges should prioritize debate's value as a research activity and prefer cards to spin.

GGI 2019 Parli-Specific Update:

While I will generally vote for any strategy, I would like to discuss my thoughts on some common debates. These thoughts constitute views about argument interaction that should not make a difference in most debates.

K affs versus T: Assuming the best arguments are made, I err affirmative 60-40 in these debates (The best arguments are rarely made.) However, I tend to believe that impact turns constitute a suboptimal route to beating topicality. I differ from some judges because I believe that neg impact framing on T (procedural fairness first, debate as a question of process, not product) tends to beat aff impact framing. However, I err aff on the legitimacy of K affs because I'm skeptical of the neg's link to that framing. Does T uniquely ensure procedural fairness? Thus, to win my ballot, teams reading K affs must take care to respond to the neg's specific impact framing. They cannot merely read parallel arguments.
Conditionality: I lean strongly that the negative gets 1 conditional advocacy. 2 is up for debate and three is pushing it. Objections to conditionality should be framed around the type of negative advocacies and the amount of aff flex. For example, perhaps 2 conditional advantage counterplans is permissible, but not 2 conditional PICs.

Past Paradigm:

Also:

Absent weighing on any particular layer, I default to weighing based on strength of link.
I probably won't cover everything so feel free to ask me questions.
Taken from Ben Koh because this makes sense: "If I sit and you are the winner (that is, the other 2 judges voted for you), and would like to ask me extensive questions, I will ask that you let the other RFDs be given and then let the opponent leave before asking me more questions. I'm fine answering questions, but just to be fair the other people in the room should be allowed to leave."

Delivery and speaks:

Fine with speed.
I'm not the greatest at flowing, so try to be clear about where an argument was made.
High speaks for good strategic choices and innovative arguments. I will say clear as much as necessary and I won't penalize speaks for clarity.

Frameworks:

I default to being epistemically conservative, but will accept arguments for epistemic modesty if they are advanced and won.
I am willing to support any framework given that it is won on the flow.
I'm willing to vote for permissibility or presumption triggers. However, there must be some implicit or explicit defense of a truth-testing paradigm. The argument must also be clear the first time that it is read. If the argument is advanced for the first time in the 1AR and I think that it is new, I will allow new 2NR responses.
Many framework debates are difficult to adjudicate because debaters fail to weigh between different metastandards on the framework debate. For example, if util meets actor-specificity better, but Kantianism is derived from a superior metaethic, is the actor-specificity argument or the metaethic more important?

Theory and T:

I default to no RVI, drop the argument on most theory and drop the debater on T, competing interpretations, and fairness and education not being voters. Most of these defaults rarely matter because debaters make arguments.
I don't think that competing interps means anything besides a risk of offense model for the adjudication of theory. That means, for example, that debaters need to justify why their opponent must have an explicit counter-interpretation in the first speech.
I, paradigmatically, won't vote on 2AR theory.
I'm willing to vote on metatheory. I probably err slightly in favor of the metatheory bad arguments such as infinite regress.
I'm willing to vote on disclosure theory.
Fine with frivolous theory.

Utilz:

I default to believing in durable fiat.
Debaters should work on pointing out missing internal links in most extinction scenarios.
I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.
I probably err aff on issues of counter-plan competition.
Err towards the view that uniqueness controls the direction of the link. However, I'm willing to accept arguments about why the link is more important.
I will evaluate 1ar add-ons and 2nr counter-plans against these add-ons. This is irrelevant in most debates.

K's:

There are many different kinds of kritikal argumentation so feel free to ask questions in round.
I'm unsure whether I should default to role of the ballot arguments coming before ethical frameworks. I personally believe that ethical arguments engage important assumptions made by many ROB arguments. However, community consensus is that ROB's come first so I will usually stick with that assumption if no argument is made either way.
I default to fairness impacts coming before theory, but I'm willing to evaluate arguments to the contrary.
I don't have strong objections to non-topical positions. However, I believe debaters should probably engage in practices like disclosure that improve the theoretical legitimacy of their practices.
Willing to vote on Kritikal RVI's/impact turns to theory.
I'm willing to listen to arguments that there shouldn't be perms in method debates. However, I find these arguments not very persuasive.

Note for HS Parli:

Everything above applies. Except for the stuff about prep time. The only parli specific issue is that I will listen to theory arguments that it is permissible to split the block. Feel free to ask me any questions

Makarand Kale Ventura 6 rounds None

Steve Knell Harvard-Westlake School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 29, 2022 at 1:27 PM PDT

Alta 2022 Judging Philosophy

Email: stevejknell@gmail.com

Education:

- DMA, University of Texas at Austin (2019)

- MM, University of Georgia (2013)

- BMus, University of Utah (2011)

Debate experience:

- Harvard Westlake School––Upper School LD Assistant; Middle School Head Coach (2014–2016)

- DebateLA––MS Parli and LD Instructor (2014–2016)

- Weber State Debate Institute––Director of LD Debate (2014)

- Wasatch Mountain Debate––Founder and LD Instructor (2013–2014)

- Rowland Hall-St. Marks––LD Coach (2013–2014)

- Bingham High School––LD Coach (2007–2011)

- Sun Country Forensics Institute––LD Instructor (2010–2011)

- Debated for Cottonwood High School––4A Utah State Champion in LD (2004–2007)

Foreword: I have judged a lot of circuit debates, but it’s been six years since I judged my last round. I’m not up-to-date on trends or new jargon in the activity, and otherwise rusty on jargon I knew in the past. You should probably not read at your top speed. I have not seen any rounds on the topic, nor coached/researched it.

TL;DR philosophy: I have over a decade of experience in LD and should be able to handle any style or argument you throw at me. I view resolutions as normative statements that are tested through some kind of evaluative standard––straight-up util, more nuanced meta-ethical frameworks, etc.––and offense which funnels through that standard. The rest is up to you, with a few exceptions:

- I will not vote on moral skepticism.

- This is new for people who know my philosophy:

o I don’t think judges have jurisdiction to evaluate the out-of-round implications of what happens in the debate. My ballot has no role except to inform the tab room of the winner of the debate.

o I also don’t think judges have jurisdiction to make an in-round decision about anything that might occur/might have occurred out-of-round. I will not vote for positions that ask me to evaluate people and not arguments.

- I will not vote for arguments endorsing or justifying any pernicious “-isms” or “-phobias,” like racism, homophobia, etc.

More things consider:

- Policymaking: These tend to be my favorite debates. Plans are great. Counterplans must be competitive and should probably negate the resolution. PICs are okay but I think they are generally bad and/or poorly executed arguments.

- Kritiks: Ks are fine, but these debates tend to be at once dense and poorly explained, and thus require good storytelling and clarity.

- T/Theory: I default to competing interpretations but will hear arguments to the contrary. Topicality and theory debates are, to my mind, the most boring variety, and uniquely challenging to judge, so I may not be the best judge for complex theory debates. High threshold for RVIs, especially for T; having said that, if the shell is clearly ridiculous and merely designed to suck your time so it can be kicked in the 2N, feel free to go hard for the RVI.

- Speed: It’s not my job to tell you how fast you should talk, but I’ve been out of the activity for years, so anything close to your top speed isn’t advisable. You’re responsible for my understanding of your arguments; if I miss a game-changing argument, you weren’t clear enough. I’ll say “clear” or “slow” twice; after that, you’re on your own. Overviews are excellent. Please don’t speak at any speed at which your opponent can’t understand what you’re saying.

- Speaker points: 27.5 is my guidepost for the "average" debater at a given tournament and I go up/down from there. I rarely go lower than 26.5 unless you are disrespectful. You can earn higher speaks through clarity, savvy strategic execution, good management of the macro-level of the debate (i.e., good storytelling), and respectful conduct.

- Presumption: Neg gets presumption, though you can always argue why that shouldn’t be the case. Please don't make me vote on presumption.

- Odds and ends: I have heard there are new arguments floating around asking the judge to decide the round after a speech which is not the 2AR––I will not vote for these arguments. Suspected evidence ethics violations must be flagged immediately, clearly verifiable, and will be a win-lose issue for both parties.

-Questions are fine, but I am wholly uninterested in arguing with you (or your coach) after the round.

Feel free to ask any questions you have, or shoot me an email before the round.

Kevin Krotz Ventura 6 rounds None

Paras Kumar Hire 6 rounds

Chris Kymn Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 2:04 PM PDT

Background: I competed in LD for four years, finishing in TOC finals. I actively judged/coached/taught at debate camps from 2014-2018 but since then have been less active.

General:

I'll vote for the side that requires me to do less work. When flowing, I try to get down as much of your original rhetoric as possible; when giving the RFD I'll try to reference and directly quote as much of that as I can. So comparing/weighing/impacting arguments will go a long way.

The round belongs to you! So please run arguments that you're excited to talk about, rather than content you think I'll prefer. In any case, I'd suggest you err on the side of over-explaining jargon (debate-specific, academic, or otherwise) and making sure arguments have been warranted in-round.

A few other points:

I don’t need super formal extensions. If your 5-card extinction scenario is conceded, briefly summarize the argument and move on to weighing. Just signpost carefully if your extension is short.
I'll give an argument the function you tell me to so long as (a) there's a warrant for that function, and (b) I understand what the function means. An example of (b) I don't understand is when a debater says "this turns all arguments" - you're better off labeling it as pre standards or an impact turn to X, whatever it may be.
If I have to call clear, I’ve probably missed something.
If you have questions regarding specific arguments, feel free to ask prior to round. I’m most likely “okay” with evaluating whatever argument you bring up, and I’m happy to comment on how to run it better.

Speaker Points:

Mostly based on (execution of) strategy and effort in giving a clear decision calculus. Especially creative arguments and high-clash strategies will also be rewarded. Here are some other things you can do to get higher speaks:

Make the round enjoyable to judge
Use little prep, and/or extemp significant portions of speeches
Give clear and concise overviews in final speeches
Compare/indict evidence effectively
Neutralize silly arguments efficiently

Ask before the round if you want more suggestions.

Tips:

Slow down for advocacy texts, theory interpretations, and other short arguments, such as lists of weighing arguments or paragraph theory.
If you’re affirming, make permutations and ask the status of counterplans, when applicable. (Do ask if you don’t know what either means.)
You should verbally emphasize parts of evidence that you think will be important later on. Slowing down in rebuttals to re-explain or state an important line in evidence is also appreciated.

Jackson Lallas Brentwood School 6 rounds

Charlotte Lawrence Hire 1 rounds None

Nathan Leal BASIS Independent Silicon Valley 6 rounds

Jerry Li Ventura 5 rounds None

Peng Luo Quarry Lane 2 rounds None

Madhavi Mahavadi Dougherty Valley High School 5 rounds None

Kevin Mahoney Hire 6 rounds None

Alex Martel The Harker School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2018 at 4:12 AM PDT

Hey I did speech and policy in high school. Started off with the straight-up style but got to college and saw the rest. I'm better suited for K-style feedback but go with your heart on w.e you want.

I'll evaluate every argument. The debate room can be a fun place so feel free to throw some humor into your speeches. Videos and dank memes are cool.
On an unrelated note, bringing granola bars or some snackage would be appreciated. I don't care much for soft drinks though. In other words please feed me nice food because in-round picnics make everyone's day. <--

What you care about:
Please don't make judges do the work for you on the flow. If you don't do the line-by-line or clearly address an argument, don't get upset if I reach an unfavorable conclusion. Reading me cards without providing sufficient analysis leaves the purpose a bit unclear.

T
Aff- reasonabilty probably has my vote but I can be persuaded to vote for creative and convincing non-topic-related cases.

Neg- Get some substance on the flow. T should not be a go-to-argument. I hate arguments dealing with "should", "USFG", etc and you should too. Impact out the violation. Simply stating that the team is non-topical and attaching some poorly explained standards will not fly or garner support. On K affs remember you can always go further left as an option.

Theory- Typically a pretty boring discussion but if it's creative I'll approve. If you notice yourself thinking "I wish I were reading something else" then it's a clear sign I wish you were too. Remember to slow down on those analytics though- hands cramp.

Case
Aff
Being able to cite authors and point to specific cards = speaks. (same for neg)

Neg
Throw some case defense at the end of your 1nc after you do your off-case arguments. Aff has to answer them but you already know that. Reading through aff evidence and showing power tags or misuse is great.

Da
Aff- if you can turn this in some way then you'll be fine. Point out flaws in the Link story when you can. Figuring out a solid internal link story might be a good idea.

Neg
Internal links will only help you. Let's avoid generic stuff.

CP
Aff
You need to show that it's noncompetitive and you can perm or that their argument just sucks.

Neg
Show a net benefit and how you solve the impacts. Furthermore show how your cp is awesome.

K
Aff
Explain: how case doesn't link, perm, or alt doesn't solve or do anything. Weigh your impacts if appropriate. If the neg is misinterpreting an author and you sufficiently illustrate his/her message, then you'll be doing well in the round.

Neg
I like K's a lot. Hopefully will know what's up. Just explain your story clearly (seriously). Stunt on em.

Side note for everyone: In round actions are easy performative solvency to weigh btw

Performance
Aff
It's going to come down to how well you can explain the impact you are addressing with your performance and the solvency story under framework.

Neg
I suppose you can do framework or T if you have nothing else but try and interact because the aff team will be prepared. Or if you want to go down this route it's cool. Swayed by creativity though.

Maseih Moghaddassi Syosset HS 2 rounds

Bill Neesen Harvard-Westlake School 5 rounds None

Todd Newkirk Presentation High School 4 rounds None

Bob Overing Loyola High School 2 rounds

Michael Overing Loyola High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 20, 2018 at 8:29 AM PDT

I am Head Coach at Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I have judged hundreds if not thousands of debate rounds. [updated: February 20, 2018].

So long as your arguments are not philosophically repugnant, I expect arguments, interpretations, frameworks and other positions that intentionally exclude your opponent's offense. Simple Ballot Strategy: Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat.

Parsimony, relevance and path of least resistance: I am a critic of argument. I am very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative in how you do it. Assertions without warrants mean very little to me and invites me to supply meaning to positions if you do not articulate what you mean. I look at the flow and ask, "to vote aff, what does the aff have to win?" ... and ... "to vote neg, what does neg have to win?" from there, I look at each of the arguments, evidence, and how well each side has put the issues together in a bigger picture. Most times, the simpler explanation (that takes into account and explains away the opposition) is likely to carry the day. The longer the argument chain, the more effort it takes to evaluate it, the easier it is to vote against you.

Full Case Disclosure Should Be Mandatory: Hiding your case is an excuse for bad debating and if you can't win without a trick, maybe you should rethink your strategy. I may have (some, slight) sympathy for not disclosing before you break new, but very little.

RVIs and Reverse Voter Standards: Fewer better explained standards are better than 20 blips.

Theory, rightly, checks abuses. Articulate the violation, standard and remedy. Actual demonstrated inround abuse is far more persuasive than hypothetical abuse.

Cross-Ex: I flow CX. I don't mind additional questioning during prep. I see little to no benefit to arguing in CX. Please refer to CX responses in your speeches.

Rebuttals: Let's admit that all debaters make new responses in rebuttals. Let's admit that new arguments are permissible when they are extensions of prior positions or answer to args by the opposition.

Win/loss/Points Disclosures: If I don't volunteer the information, please ask me. All good judges disclose.

Judges should be accountable for their decisions. Ask questions. How else do you learn what I was thinking in the round? How can can you improve in front of me? That said, I will follow the tournament's rules regarding disclosure. Also know, that I will be arguing behind the scenes in favor of disclosure. I will do my level best to answer your questions in a clear and concise manner; I may not see the round you did and maybe we can both learn from an after-round discussion.

That's the best I can promise.

Satya Pandey Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds None

Ari Parker Hire 3 rounds None

Jared Paul Brentwood School 6 rounds None

Ashan Peiris Loyola High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 24, 2015 at 2:58 AM PDT

(Updated 10/14/15)
Asst LD Coach @ Loyola High School
Coached Loyola the past 10 years.
Judged numerous TOC level outrounds including the TOC and TOC outrounds as well.

Flashing/Prep
I will give an extra minute of prep for flashing/emailing but it is included in prep.

Speed
It's important to know that I flow by hand. The arguments show up on my flow in proportion to the amount of understanding I have of them, which is directly proportional to the amount of time you spend making the argument.

RFDs
At the end of the day my decision is almost entirely technical. I formulate my RFDs in almost an entirely technical manner. I vote for the side with more offense to the relevant framework.

Argument Evaluation
If there's more than one framework, layer the frameworks. If you're not the only one with offense to that framework THEN WEIGH THE OFFENSE. I absolutely abhor injecting my own beliefs into the debate round. Ideally, my RFD will just be me saying back to you only things that have been said in the round. I generally do as little embedded clash as possible because it involves what I believe to be intervention. Thus, you should take it upon yourself to do as much argument comparison as possible.

Rebuttals
I highly recommends that you start with framework debate at the beginning of your rebuttals. It will make my decision easier. Also have solid overviews that evaluate the issues of the round. The overview should predict the answers to the questions I will have at the end of the round. For example, does Fairness come before the K? Does their turn link to your Deont framework? etc. Generally, the rebuttals should collapse. I'm not particularly fond of new offs in the rebuttals. The best 2ARs I've seen so far collapse to the positions the neg collapsed to and spend the 2AR weighing offense.

T/Theory
My least favorite part of judging debate rounds is T/Theory. There are two reasons. First, if you're spreading analytics its almost impossible to flow by hand. Please power tag your analytics (at least the important ones) with one or two words that I can write down. Second, no one evaluates or weighs standards level offense. Please tell me what to do with offense under each standard, for both sides. Please tell me which standard comes first and why. Then please tell me which voter comes first.

ROB
Please tell me how the ROB relates to all other frameworks. Is it pre-fiat and weighs against T? Or is it post fiat and precludes ethical frameworks. Lastly, tell me what offense links and doesn't link and how it weighs out. (Am I sounding like a broken record yet?).

Speaks
Persuasive styles, strategy, solid and compelling overviews, dominant cross-ex's, ease of decision and less prep time use.

Dallas Phillips Evergreen 6 rounds

Srikar Pyda Ventura 4 rounds None

Artem Raskin Evergreen 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 30, 2024 at 5:20 PM PDT

Parli Paradigm

Background

Currently Washington HS head coach.

I did parli and LD in high school, NPDA and BP in college, and I've been a debate coach since 2012.

High school teacher - economics, government, history.

Pronouns - he

Approach to judging

- I vote for a team that has more offense in the end of the round; defense almost never wins rounds.

- I will typically vote on one specific argument which I come to believe is the biggest issue in the round rather than on a wholistic evaluation of your round performance. Use your rebuttal to tell me what that argument should be.

- If an argument could have been run out of the first constructive, don't wait until your second constructive to run it – this creates a truncated discussion of an argument. I will be sympathetic to PMR turns against new arguments coming out of the Opp Block. In short, each argument needs to be made on the first opportunity to make that argument.

- If there is new offense coming out of a second constructive which could not have been run out of the first constructive, I will cross-apply and weigh MOC arguments against PMR responses myself in order to offset the Gov getting the last word.

- I am not a fan of splitting the Opp Block, but I don’t think MOC and LOR should be identical. The LO doesn’t need to extend non-essential defense if the MO already made the responses. I give LOR some leeway on extensions: simply referencing an argument is fine, you don’t need to spend too much time extending MO warrants. In general, LOR should briefly extend chief pieces of offense and crucial defense and spend most of the time on big picture argument comparison.

- If an argument is unclear the first time I hear it, I won’t vote on extensions which clear it up.

- I do not require a Point of Order to strike a down a new argument. In a lot of cases, however, an argument is borderline new, and in these cases, I will typically give the speaker the benefit of the doubt unless a POO is called.

- I prefer that argument extensions extend the warrant, not just the tagline.

- I will not vote on blips. The best - though not the only - way to ensure your argument isn’t a blip is to structure it.

- I prefer arguments that rely on common knowledge and logic. If there is a factual dispute, I will resolve it using my own knowledge or, if necessary, Google.

Argument preferences

- I like positional cases. This means that the Gov should have a specific plantext for policy resolutions or a thesis for fact/value resolutions. I welcome specification theory on vague plans.

- I enjoy listening to critical arguments with a clear and realistic alternative made by debaters who have read the philosophy behind them. I resent Ks that are intentionally obscurantist and meant to confuse opponents who don't have a background in critical debate.
"Reject" alternatives are mostly dumb. I prefer critical arguments to contain policy alternatives. Reading a K does not exempt you from the need to engage with your opponents' arguments. I don't like lazy generic links (e.g. "their actor is the government, so they're capitalist!") – adapt your K to the specific issues discussed in the round, don't just regurgitate arguments you dug up from policy backfiles. Reading a K also does not exempt you from the need to make quality warrants - just because some French philosopher agrees with you does not mean that you are right.

- For offense coming out of the PMC to be unique, it has to link to the resolution. For offense coming out of subsequent constructives to be unique, it has to link to either the resolution or to something the other team said.

- I prefer arguments that do not hinge on the identity of the debater or of their opponent. People should not have to out themselves in rounds.

- I am open to arguments that theory should be a reverse voting issue if the team that introduced the theory argument loses the argument. I default to reasonability over competing interps.

- Unless there is a debate over the round framework, I default to net benefits – specifically, the terminal impacts of death, dehumanization, and quality of life.

- Counterplans are very strategic. I don’t think the Opp should be able to fiat alternative actors, though I won’t go so far as to intervene against that. I prefer counterplans to be unconditional, and I default to assuming that they are unconditional unless you explicitly state some other status right after reading the counterplan text. The same goes for other Opp advocacies.

Presentation preferences

- Moderate speed is fine if it is used to present more in-depth arguments, but using speed as a tool to exclude your opponents from the round is not okay. If you try doing that in front of me, you will lose. If you want to go fast, take a lot of clarification POIs. If your opponents are going too fast, yell "Clear!" If your opponents or judges yell "Clear!" you should repeat the sentence you said right before that, and then either start enunciating better or slow down.

- Slow down on advocacy texts (plans, counterplans, theory interps, et cetera). I prefer that you give your opponents a written copy of your advocacy text. Lack of a stable advocacy text is a recipe for a messy round.

- I have a strong aversion to unnecessary jargon and intentional obfuscation. If your use of jargon makes it difficult for your opponents to engage with your arguments, I will disregard your arguments even if I myself am familiar with the jargon you are using.

- I will flow each argument (advantage, disad, framework, et cetera) on a different piece of paper. When signposting, indicate clearly when you are moving on to a new argument. Tell me in which order I should arrange my papers in a roadmap; roadmaps are not timed. Do not include any information in your off-time roadmap other than argument order. Don't give PMC roadmaps.

- I prefer teams to take at least two POIs per constructive speech. On top of that, if the tournament doesn't allow POCs, you should take clarification POIs after reading an advocacy text, or you will open yourself up to various specification arguments.

- Please avoid whispering to your partner during your opponents' speeches - it can get very distracting. Instead, pass notes.

- Tag teaming should be kept to a minimum. Pass notes.

- Don't go over time in your speech. I stop flowing when the timer beeps. As soon as your opponent is done speaking, you should give a quick roadmap and then start your speech. Don't stall so that you can prep your speech.

- On parli decorum (pre-speech thank-you’s, shaking everyone’s hands after the round, etc) – I am not a fan. I won’t prohibit it, I just think it’s pointless.

Pranav Reddy The Harker School 6 rounds None

Sanjeev Redkar Dougherty Valley High School 2 rounds

Connor Riano Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 3, 2017 at 9:56 AM PDT

Updated 11/13/16

I debated for four years at Dougherty Valley High School, and competed in LD for three years. I mostly competed in circuit LD and earned a bid to the TOC in my senior year. I currently attend the University of Pittsburgh and am double-majoring in philosophy and communication.

You can do whatever and I’ll vote on what you tell me to vote on. That being said, I prefer to see kritiks and/or theory, as that was the majority of what I read in high school. I often enjoy a good straight-up policy aff, but if your strategy is going hard for a generic DA/CP you probably want someone else to judge you.

SPEED
Go as fast as you want, but PLEASE be clear. I’m probably not going to yell clear at you. Just be clear. Pls.

Also, this should be obvious, but when you tell me the order before your speech I expect you to follow it. Additionally, if you’re about to deviate from the speech doc and extemp some arguments, TELL ME. I hate it when debaters jump from the speech doc to random arguments off the top of their head and back again without warning. Keep it organized and let me know where you are and where you’re going. Again, this is pretty basic but it seems like a lot of debaters are doing this now.

THEORY, T, AND FRAMEWORK
As a general perspective to all theory arguments (including topicality and framework), I tend to think of these debates as competing models for debate (this can also occasionally be a valuable way to frame kritik vs theory debates). A good overview comparing the use of one interpretation over the other as a way to evaluate debates is important. Tell me the story of the theory debate; how does theory shape the debate space and why is your advocacy the best way to interpret and perceive debate?

THEORY
Go for it, whether or not there’s legitimate abuse. I think good theory debates are educational, and I really appreciate debaters who take the time to really flesh out their theory arguments. I generally prefer one or two well-constructed theory shells to a lot of short, blippy ones. That said, theory spikes in the AC are fine. One minute of offense and five minutes of theory spikes is a legit strategy, if that’s your thing.

I default to competing-interpretations, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I’m happy to vote on an RVI if you win RVIs good.

My one caveat to theory is that I don’t like it when debaters genuinely read a shell that’s like: “my opponent read such a complex argument, and because I don’t get it I should win.” I’ll still vote on this if you win it, but seriously, debate is about a clash of arguments. Reading a theory shell that avoids the point of debate itself will not make me happy.

TOPICALITY
When you’re going to read topicality (and I mean topicality in the sense that you are actually contesting what an operative word or phrase in the resolution means, not framework or a theory shell about the round itself), I find that the best T debates are about linguistics. That is, you should be debating why the word or phrase means something specific in the context of the topic. Language is a fascinating thing, and the way language is understood is what I feel T debates should be about. Evaluating T debates is a lot less interesting when I have to listen to you spread a bunch of blips. Technical skill is important, but I think it shouldn’t come at the expense of a serious and deep discussion about what the words of the resolution actually mean. Topicality challenges the meaning of words, so that should be your focus. In other words, I think your interpretation and justification for it should be as important as the rest of the T debate.

KRITIKS
I love kritiks. Read any kritik you want. The most important thing is being able to intelligently and clearly explain the kritik and its implications (and substantively leverage it against what your opponent is reading, especially theory). It’s obvious when debaters are reading a k they understand, and I urge you to have at least a basic understanding of what you’re reading. If you can give detailed and educational answers to cx questions about your k, that’s a good sign. If you’re just repeating tags, that’s a bad sign. I find that kritikal debate is the most educational and interesting type of debate, and the best k rounds are ones that genuinely inspire thoughtfulness and challenge mindsets. Good explanations, articulations of the alternative, and overviews about the specific worldview that the kritik advocates are crucial.

Also (and this is more of a personal view than a paradigmatic stance), postmodern philosophers buried in your backfiles are not the only source of good kritikal literature out there. Read more. Cut your own cards. Honestly, even Plato is easily just as kritikal as any of the authors debaters are reading now. If you take the time to actually read and learn about authors outside of the usual k authors you could create some seriously valuable and educational positions, and I think that is what the activity of debate should be about. That’s just my opinion though.

K VERSUS THEORY
I default to evaluating k before theory, but I can be persuaded otherwise. That being said, I think it is crucially important to really clash and evaluate the fairness first claims against the kritikal role of the ballot. It usually isn’t enough to spread a blip about not being able to evaluate the truth of the kritik without fairness. I find that most of the good kritikal debaters take time to explain and flesh out their role of the ballot and leverage the specifics of their position against the fairness claims on theory. If you want to win theory first, you must be doing work on this debate. Don’t just read a few cards with blippy explanations. Take some time to compare the implications and meanings of those cards against the worldview of the kritik.

Please don’t assume this means that I’m always going to vote for k before theory, or that as a theory debater you’ll have to do significantly more work than your kritikal opponent. I have voted for theory over a kritik plenty of times. I just want to see debaters who are committed to explaining the framing of the debate in a way that is substantial and meaningful.

PREP TIME
Don’t steal prep. Flex prep is fine (honestly, why wouldn’t it be?). Compiling the speech doc and emailing/flashing does not count as prep. That being said, it shouldn’t take more than 30 seconds to compile and email.

SPEAKER POINTS
Be respectful. Creativity and humor will earn you higher speaks. The average number of speaker points I gave last year was 28.48. I was a bit of a point fairy last year though, so I’ve tried to rein it in a little.

Please ask me questions before the round. If you’re confused about anything, I am happy to explain it. Specific questions are usually a lot easier for me to give good answers to and are a lot more helpful to you. Asking if I vote for X argument or how to get higher speaks is fine, but those things tend to be highly dependent on what actually happens in the specific round.

Please include me on your email chain for the round. I much prefer email chains to flashing. It’s much faster and a lot easier to include me.

Nicholas Rogers Mountain View High School 6 rounds None

Siddhanth Sabharwal Mission San Jose High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu December 17, 2015 at 6:15 AM PDT

Conflicts: Mission San Jose HS

I am a sophomore at UC Davis. I debated for 4 years for Mission San Jose High School. I competed in Varsity Policy for two years, and Varsity Lincoln-Douglas for two years. I competed at several circuit tournaments and am familiar with most arguments.

This is a basic overview, if you're lazy and not going to read the rest:

I haven't debated in 2 years, so while I can still flow pretty quickly, your absolute top speed will probably be too quick for me, especially if you have a high voice. Other than that speed is fine. If I can't understand you, I'll say clear twice, and then stop flowing
I'm a blank slate at the beginning, I come in with no prior opinions on the topic.
If you're aff I highly advise you to have some kind of advocacy, if you're running some weird performance aff, you should strike me. Neg gets the status quo at the beginning of the round.
I'll vote on anything, everything is fair game. However if your strat is to throw 10 off cases and drop whichever ones your opponent undercovers, you're less likely to get 30 speaks, unless they were all quality arguments (highly unlikely)
Speaker points depend on clarity, types of arguments you ran, and overall style of debate. If you're a snarky asshole, I'll still give you the W, but you're probably not getting a 30 out of me. I generally give pretty good speaks (28.5 - 29.5). To me a 30 is just a flawless round, that being said I have given 30 to a losing debater. I give high speaks to debaters who use humor well, and are strategic with prep time. Nothing more ballsy then the 2AR saying "no prep" and killing it.
If you're paperless, prep time stops when the flash drive leaves the computer. Otherwise, give opponents access to your evidence.
I pay attention to CX, but I don't flow it, and believe it is binding.
Please signpost before your speeches, so I can put my flow in order, if you're just going line by line, let me know where to flow it, so you can generate clash (don't expect me to fill in arguments for you).
Please spend 45 seconds in your final speech going over voting issues, and some impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame) should be done in every speech. Do some "even if" style of comparisons and try to generate clash.
I have only called for cards once, when a debater claimed that their opponent wrongly stated what was in the piece of evidence, other than that I don't call cards, if I don't understand your argument it's probably because you didn't explain it well.
Here is how I default to evaluating arguments: 1. Theory and Topicality, 2. Framework 3. Kritiks, Disadvantages, and Counterplans. That being said if you make an argument otherwise, I'll hear it and evaluate it.

Specifics:

THEORY:

NEG: I will vote on shitty theory regardless if its a clear voting issue, and you're running it for strategic purposes, I just think it takes away from the educational value of debate. Honestly, if your strat is to run a ton of BS theory because you know the aff won't be able to cover the theory and a bunch of blippy off cases, I'll vote for you if you're ahead, but its an asshole move. I absolutely hate it when teams think they should win the round because they can speak faster than there opponents. I'm going to need an interpretation, violating, standards, and voter. Just to be clear I'll vote off your BS theory if the aff doesn't respond to it, but don't expect a 30 from me. In my opinion, there should be some clear abuse (strat skew, ground skew, moving target etc.) I default to competing interpretations.

AFF: Aff can also run theory if there is abuse, although my threshold is just a bit higher, since the aff has the first and last speech. I've noticed in many rounds that the aff just gets intimidated when the Neg spews through a theory shell, and undercovers a lot of it. Respond to theory how you would respond to a T shell, go through the link story, and show how there is no abuse or how there is no harm even if you violate the standard. I don't think theory is an RVI for the aff. If no argument is made on the theory shell, I default to dropping the debater.

TOPICALITY:

NEG: I love T, it was one of my favorite arguments when I debated, but I do believe Topicality needs have a clear abuse story. This isn't a very popular opinion nowadays, but as a debater I hated when judges would intervene and let their opinions into the round, so I default to competing interpretations, however, if you make a more convincing argument that T is about reasonability, I'll frame the T debate that way. That being said, I'm not a huge fan of "potential abuse is a voter" arguments, the neg should tell me what arguments they couldn't run because the aff's interpretation of the topic limited them from generating any ground. Topicality needs to have an interpretation, violation, standards, and a voter. Good topicality needs internal links to the impact.

AFF: If you can show me why your counter interp isn't limiting, or why the neg interp isn't the right way to look at a word or a phrase, it'll probably be enough for me. If you can also show me why the Neg isn't losing some ground with your advocacy, I'll also buy it.
If an Aff runs T on some CP the neg runs, I'll kill your speaks. T isn't an RVI, obviously, the aff shouldn't win just for being topical. I also default to dropping the debater on T.

FRAMEWORK

NEG: When I was debating on the neg, and the aff was really fast and had a bunch of impacts coming out of there AC, I would run FW to negate some of those advantages. Neg should show why their education and ground is good, and why they should even get it. I reallylike seeing framework debates, I think they're a smart strategy and underused.

AFF: In LD, especially at the circuit level, I realize the standard value and value criterion way of debating is getting outdated, however that doesn't mean you shouldn't provide me with some way to frame the round in your first speech, if you don't do this the Neg can jump ahead on the flow really quickly, and it becomes harder to recover. I like to see good framework debates, you can read whatever philosophy you want, just go a bit slower on analytics. If you realize you're behind on FW and kick it, make sure you can generate offense under the neg FW.

KRITIKS:

NEG: I always interpreted K's as just non-unique DA's. I never ran that much of them in HS, mostly just the Cap K, but I understand them well, as people ran them on me almost every round. I'm decently versed in critical literature, but if you start throwing out buzz words and don't explain what they mean, it's going to be very hard for me to flow you. If you're going to be running a K, please go a tiny bit slower as you run through the guts of the card, so I can flow the important arguments. Additionally, if you're running a K, I'm going to need a link, impact, alternative. Your alternative should solve the problems in the aff, otherwise what's the point? Additionally, if you're running a dense K, with a lot of weird terms, and if the Aff asks you to explain something and you can't, it looks really poorly on you. Please don't double turn yourself, I've judged rounds where people run a fem K, and use "he" as there stock pronoun everywhere else in the round. That being said, if the aff doesn't call you out on it, neither will I.

AFF: Understand that a K is just a way to test the world you present in your aff advocacy, even if you don't understand a single word of what some obscure late 15th-century French guy is saying about something, don't be worried. Clarify your doubts in CX, and if you can show that the alt doesn't actually solve, or how there is no link to your aff, it'll be a good start.

DISADVANTAGES:

NEG: I love hearing unique DA's, like I'll vote on a Politics DA, but they aren't exactly my favorite. Congress doesn't do much these days anyways, so I find a lot of Politics DA's to be non-unique. Do your research, and cut recent evidence. Be knowledgeable here. Specific links to the Aff, and then internal links to the impact are awesome, and I love when a debater clearly explains why the aff advocacy will cause something bad to happen.

AFF: DA's are chains, if you take out the link to your plan, or some internal link to the impact it's good enough. If you can show something is non-unique and then do an impact calculus and show 0% chance of neg impact happening is also okay, you could also clearly show how your impacts outweigh.

COUNTERPLANS:

NEG: You must have some other advocacy, and show how it competes with the aff. You MUST have some net benefit. Just like DA's a unique CP to an aff advocacy is devastating. I have voted on actor CP's in the past, but I find them to be pretty generic, and the net benefit is normally non-unique. I'll also vote on Word PICs but honestly if you can beat an Aff with a "The" PIC, you probably would've beaten them with anything else too.

AFF: The Perm is becoming an underused strategy, especially in LD debate. Use it, show me that the CP isn't mutually exclusive, and that's a good beginning strat. Otherwise take out the net benefit.

Feel free to ask me any more questions before the round, and good luck to everyone!

Sabir Saluja MV Independent 6 rounds None

Melanie Shackleford The Meadows School 6 rounds None

Sujay Singh Del Mar Independent 6 rounds None

Allison Stamm-Kirk Bentley School 2 rounds None

Mark Stowitts Cajon High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 1:23 AM PDT

Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA

I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for nine years, judging it for fifteen. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have judge two rounds of Policy as an adult and am not a fan.

LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.

Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.

Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.

In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.

Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

Debnil Sur Notre Dame San Jose 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 7:38 AM PDT

he/him/his

Pronounced phonetically as DEB-nil. Not pronounced "judge", "Mister Sur", or "deb-NEIL".

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains. If you have my personal email, don't put it on the email chain. Sensible subject please.

Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. I don't think I'd ever be in a setting where I'm the sole lay judge. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread.

Resolving Debates: Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor.

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the speech doc when online. I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

I take an above-average time to decide debates. My decision time has little relationship with the debate's closeness, and more with the time of day and my sleep deprivation. I usually start 5-10 minutes after the 2AR, so I can stretch my legs and let the debate marinate in my head. Debaters work hard, and I reciprocate that effort in making decisions. My decisions themselves are quite short. Most debates come down to 2-4 arguments, and I will identify those and explain my resolution. You're welcome to post-round. It can't change my decision, but I want to learn and improve as a judge and thinker too.

General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018. I am involved in strategy and research and have coached both policy and K debaters to the TOC. I am, quite literally, a "framer", as a member of the national topic wording committee. Before that, I read policy arguments as a 2N at Bellarmine and did youth debate outreach (e.g., SVUDL) as a student at Stanford.

I've judged many excellent debates. Ideologically, I would say I'm 60/40 policy-leaning. I think my voting records don't reflect this, because K debaters tend to see the bigger picture in clash rounds.

Topic Background: I judge and coach regularly and am fully aware of national circuit trends. I'm less in the weeds as many other coaches. I don't cut as many cards as I did in the pandemic years, and I don't work at debate camp.

If you're reading the web3 UBI affirmative, I implemented one of the first CBDC pilots back in 2018/19. If you know what you're talking about, I'm the best possible judge. But if you don't, I'll be much more easily persuaded by the negative, especially on the case debate.

Voting Splits: As of the end of the water topic, I have judged 304 rounds of VCX at invitationals over 9 years. 75 of these were during college; 74 during immigration and arms sales at West Coast invitationals; and 155 on CJR and water, predominantly at octafinals bid tournaments.

Below are my voting splits across the (synthetic) policy-K divide, where the left team represents the affirmative, as best as I could classify debates. Paradigm text can be inaccurate self-psychoanalysis, so I hope the data helps.

I became an aff hack on water. Far too often, the 2AR was the first speech doing comparative analysis instead of reading blocks. I hope this changes as we return to in-person debate.

Water

Policy v. Policy - 18-13: 58% aff over 31 rounds

Policy v. K - 20-18: 56% aff over 38 rounds

K v. Policy - 13-8: 62% aff over 21 rounds

K v. K - 1-1, 50% aff over 2 rounds

Lifetime

Policy v. Policy - 67-56: 55% for the aff over 123 rounds

Policy v. K - 47-52: 47% for the aff over 99 rounds

K v. Policy - 36-34: 51% for the aff over 70 rounds

K v. K - 4-4: 50% for the aff over 8 rounds

Online Debate:

1. I'd prefer your camera on, but won't make a fuss.

2. Please check verbally and/or visually with all judges and debaters before starting your speech.

3. If my camera's off, I'm away, unless I told you otherwise.

Speaker Points: I flow on my computer, but I do not use the speech doc. I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

2. I will vote for the team whose impact comparison most clearly answers the debate's central question. This typically comes down to the affirmative making negative engagement more difficult versus the neg forcing problematic affirmative positions. You are best served developing 1-2 pieces of offense well, playing defense to the other team's, and telling a condensed story in the final rebuttals.

3. Anything can be an impact---do what you do best. My teams typically read a limits/fairness impact and a procedural clash impact. From Dhruv Sudesh: "I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments."

4. Each team should discuss what a year of debate looks like under their models in concrete terms. Arguments like "TVA", "switch-side debate", and "some neg ground exists" are just subsets of this discussion. It is easy to be hyperbolic and discuss the plethora of random affirmatives, but realistic examples are especially persuasive and important. What would your favorite policy demon (MBA, GBN, etc.) do without an agential constraint? How does critiquing specific policy reforms in a debate improve critical education? Why does negative policy ground not center the affirmative's substantive conversation?

5. As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote affirmative. This especially happens when impact turning topicality---negatives do not seem to catch on yet.

6. I quite enjoy leveraging normative positions from 1AC cards for substantive disadvantages or impact turns. This requires careful link explanation by the negative but can be incredibly strategic. Critical affirmatives claim to access broad impacts based on shaky normative claims and the broad endorsement of a worldview, rather than a causal method; they should incur the strategic cost.

7. I am a better judge for presumption and case defense than most. It is often unclear to me how affirmatives solve their impacts or access their impact turns on topicality. The negative should leverage this more.

8. I occasionally judge K v K debates. I do not have especially developed opinions on these debates. Debate math often relies on causality, opportunity cost, and similar concepts rooted in policymaking analysis. These do not translate well to K v K debates, and the team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus typically wins. While the notion of "opportunity cost" to a method is still mostly nonsensical to me, I can be convinced either way on permutations' legitimacy.

Kritiks:

1. I do not often coach K teams but have familiarity with basically all critical arguments.

2. Framework almost always decides this debate. While I have voted for many middle-ground frameworks, they make very little strategic sense to me. The affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge actually compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? As a result, I am much better for "hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik.

3. I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.

4. If the kritik is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.

5. I will not evaluate non-falsifiable statements about events outside the current debate. Such an evaluation of minors grossly misuses the ballot. Strike me if this is a core part of your strategy.

Topicality:

1. This is about the plan text, not other parts of the 1AC. If you think the plan text is contrived to be topical, beat them on the PIC out of the topic and your topic DA of choice.

2. This is a question of which team's vision of the topic maximizes its benefits for debaters. I compare each team's interpretation of the topic through an offense/defense lens.

3. Reasonability is about the affirmative interpretation, not the affirmative case itself. In its most persuasive form, this means that the substance crowdout caused by topicality debates plus the affirmative's offense on topicality outweighs the offense claimed by the negative. This is an especially useful frame in debates that discuss topic education, precision, and similar arguments.

4. Any standards are fine. I used to be a precision stickler. This changed after attending topic meetings and realizing how arbitrarily wording is chosen.

5. From Anirudh Prabhu: "T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet." Topicality 101---the violation is a negative burden. If there's some uncertainty, I almost certainly vote aff with a decent "we meet" explanation.

Theory:

1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.

2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.

3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.

4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.

Counterplans:

1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.

2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.

3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on. That said, if everyone is just spreading blocks, I usually end up negative on the ink. Block to 2NR is easier to trace than 1AR to 2AR.

4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!

5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Absent this instruction, if there is an advocacy in the 2NR and I do not judge kick it when deciding, I'm probably not voting on presumption.

6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo. (To be honest, this has never mattered in a debate I've judged, and it amuses me that judge kick is such a common paradigm section.)

Disadvantages:

1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.

2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.

4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.

Ethics:

1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.

2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.

3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.

4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.

5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.

IMPORTANT: I will only vote on an ethics violation about previously-read evidence (missing an author, missing a year, paragraph missing but no distortion, etc) if the team alleging the violation has evidence that they contacted the other team and told them about the issue. Clearly, you had the time to look up the article. As a community, we should assume good faith in citation, and let the other team know. And people should not be punished for cards they did not cut. But if they still are reading faulty evidence, even after being told, that's certainly academic malpractice.

Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.

6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.

2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.

3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.

4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.

5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.

6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.

Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.

Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!

Melissa Svoboda La Reina High School 4 rounds

Sakthi Swamy Presentation High School 6 rounds

Sarah Teng Ventura None

Henli Tjokrodjojo Dougherty Valley High School 5 rounds

Dhruv Walia Interlake 6 rounds

Shayne Walton Palo Alto (Independent) 6 rounds None

Sabrina Whitfill Talley 2 rounds

William Windsor Summit Rainier High School Debate 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 11, 2018 at 6:21 AM PDT

I debated Policy Debate for two years at Maine Township High School South in the metropolitan Chicago area. In my senior year, my partner and I won Third Place in the state of Illinois, in the NFL Policy Debate State Championship Tournament that year. I work in the electronics industry, and I assist in debate coaching at Irvington High School in Fremont, CA. This is my fifth year judging Policy, Parliamentary, and Lincoln-Douglas debates.

I am a flow judge; I definitely prioritize depth of analysis over spread.

I prioritize four key debate criteria:

(1) Clarity.
Clarity of presentation, clarity of logic applied to the debate. Clear articulation and enunciation are paramount for intelligibility and comprehensibility.

(2) Depth of Analysis.
Analyze the logical foundation of the arguments: strengthen the foundations of your team's arguments, challenge the foundations and assumptions of your opponents' arguments. In Policy debate: argue harm, significance, inherency, and advantages/disadvantages.

(3) Show Impact.
Show why your arguments are the most important for the debate resolution, and why your arguments are more important than your opponents' arguments. Show why your evidence and references are more logically substantiated and thorough than your opponents'. Prioritize your arguments, and rank your arguments in order of importance. In rebuttals, rank the most important arguments in the debate as a whole; show why your arguments are more important and impactful.

(4) Clash.
Directly address the opposing team's arguments. Show why your arguments are superior to your opponents' arguments.

Additional Notes -- other debate strategies and methodologies are fine: frameworks, counterplans, topicality, etc. Make sure that these arguments are important and impactful to the resolution, with strong analytical reasoning, and with evidential support where applicable. I think frameworks are good and map to real-world professional decision-making.

Kritiks that directly relate to the resolution are fine: for example, philosophy of law applied to the resolution, philosophy of reason applied to the resolution. But please note: I am highly suspect of Case Ks, having judged some Case Ks where it seemed the students were just yelling about stuff.

Kevin Yanofsky Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 28, 2016 at 6:07 AM PDT

Background:

I debated npda/npte parli for UC Berkeley from 2011 to 2015, where I graduated with a degree in computer science. I also debated three years of circuit LD in high school. Overall, I largely view debate as a game, and think that you should do what you think gives you the best chance to win it.

Overview:

- I am fine with whatever level of speed you wish to debate at, but be sure to make sure the rest of the debaters in the room are as well.

- I will listen to any type of argument you like, as long as you are able to justify it. However, I’ll go into further detail in later sections as to my tendencies that might deviate from the average parli judge.

- I evaluate the round based on my flow. As of now I'm not sure what to do about arguments telling me this is bad. Perhaps the best case for you if you tell me this method of evaluation is problematic is that I will be slightly less picky about my flow, but don't count on it.

- My overall knowledge of the world is limited mostly to news headlines and debate experience. If you are reading an intricate scenario, just explain it carefully and you should be fine.

- My personally experience of debate was split fairly evenly between policy and critical.

- I do have a moderate preference that the affirmative defend the resolution (perhaps if you want to be critical, find a topical way to do so without fiat). That being said, good argumentation can certainly override this preference, and while I might like a good framework debate, I will not give credence to a bad one.

Case Debate / Disads:

- For both the aff and neg, the more specific your links are to the plan the better.

- Be sure to fully terminalize your impacts, I might feel uncomfortable doing that work for you. If the terminalized form of your opponent’s impacts are not obvious, I find pointing this out to be a strong way to outweigh them.

Counterplans:

- I have little bias for or against condo, debate to your style here.

- If you want to run other “cheater” counterplans, I find that topic specific reasons those counterplans should be relevant are persuasive responses to theory.

Theory/Topicality:

- A personal favorite of mine, at least early in my career. I will appreciate nuanced and well thought out theory debate, but don’t think that I’ll give you credence on a bad shell or make internal links for you.

- I default to competing interpretations, and absent a clear definition of some alternative, I find it very difficult to evaluate theory under reasonability.

- Competing interpretations means you need to either win a we-meet or superior offense to a counter interpretation.

- I personally find fairness claims more compelling than education, but any arguments about the order of these two made it round will instantly override that.

- By default I will assume any 4 point shell is reject the team, and any paragraph theory (often seen as responses to cheater perms) is reject the arg, absent the team reading the shell specifying the opposite.

- RVIs will be a very uphill battle, if you really want to go here please read unique, maybe round specific arguments.

Kritiks:

- I read and collapsed to Ks in the majority of my neg rounds. I believe I would be comfortable evaluating most Ks that could come up in parli.

- Specific warrants and examples from the real world, as opposed to making the same assertion that your author claims, will generally help put you further ahead both when reading and answering a K.

- A pet peeve of mine is when every alt solvency argument is just a perm pre-empt (you'd be suprised how often I've seen this). Please also warrant why your alt solves your K.

- I might be slightly less inclined to wave away the framework of a K than the average parli judge, especially if there are more specific arguments being made than the standard stuff where everyone’s impacts seem to end up getting compared on the same level. That being said, if all you plan to do is read the super generic K framework arguments, I’m perfectly fine if you just cut it out from the beginning and go for root cause. Side note, if you do this, be wary of timeframe on extinction impacts.

- I read a lot of pomo as a debater, so if you want to bite the bullet and make people to justify why intuitive things are real/bad, go ahead and do so.

Aff-Ks:

- As I said earlier, I prefer that teams find a way to defend the topic.

- I find topic specific critical affirmatives or smart critical advantages to be very strategic.

- If you are answering framework, saying that the shell is a re-link to the K is not independently a logical takeout of the theory. Often these debates devolve and become a circular mess of each position denying that the other should exist. Find a way to make your approach to this problem more nuanced than your opponents'.

last updated: 1/3/2016

Brian Yao Monte Vista 6 rounds

Jady Zhang College Prep 1 rounds None

Taha Ziaee Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds

Login to Tabroom

College Prep LD Invitational

2015 — CA/US

OLD Paradigm List

Judges