//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign '19

Debated at Oakton High School

TL;DR
- I vote on the flow so you better not drop something significant
- Run your best arguments but don't assume I have prior knowledge of them
- Case debate is probably important, whether it is straight-up or performance aff
- I'm not very good at hiding my facial expression, so you'll know what I'm thinking most of the time

General

In high school, I ran policy affirmatives for all 3 years. My view on "right" affirmatives have been softened heavily over the years, going from big stick heg affs to environment or even soft left affirmatives. I ran one off K in the neg, which occasional FW or T based on the affirmative. I have voted on "Heg solves K impacts" to "sacrifice the aff to the Turkish Gods". I will be less inclined to vote for dumb arguments but I will if the other team handles these dumb arguments poorly.

I default to utilitarianism unless you tell me otherwise. Impact framing should be a bulk of your speech in the 2AR or 2NR if you decide to defend a K impact vs policy framework. If you are defending a policy impact vs a Kritik, then you have to also defend the probability of your impacts. Just saying "policy impacts good, Kritiks are bad" will not make me pull the trigger on your impact.

Without a clear reason, I will try not to vote solely on defense or presumption, as 1% chance of impacts happening is probably enough for me to vote. I default to an offense/defense paradigm.

I'm an CS major, and I love it when science is discussed in debate. I love warming and biodiversity impacts, so it would be a little advantageous for you to run them in front of me. I also like cybersecurity discussions. I don't usually have strong bias in arguments when coming into a round, but I will probably not buy that warming isn't real or evolution fake etc etc etc. Also you probably don't want to BS things in that area, because I will know about it and I will dock speaks.

I am very flow-centric, and I will generally not pick up dropped arguments or allow new args in the rebuttals (unless the neg block did something abusive that justifies new args in the 1AR). I discourage new offcases in the 2NC, unless the 2AC shifted their plan/advocacy heavily that a 2NC T is justified.

Don't argue with me on the flow afterwards. If I didn't flow your argument it was probably because 1) You did not say it or 2) Your organization was so shitty that I missed your arg while shuffling between flows, or 3) You were super unclear despite me yelling "CLEAR" a couple of times. Otherwise, I flow everything. If you really wanted me to flow a crucial argument that is key to the ballot, you would have emphasized it and there would be no reason for me to miss it. Speed is not a concern as much as clarity, but slow down on taglines and especially STANDARDS on theory.

DA
You can never go wrong with a solid case + DA debate. I have a special place for Politics in my heart, and I would love to see more of these in rounds. Make sure you don't run DAs with Ks that contradict each other (Security/Neolib) because I will be happy to vote on Perf Con if executed properly. Oh, and by the 2NR I expect a more solid link story rather specific to the aff, because that's really the heart of any offcase arguments that many teams often overlook. If I hear "they link bc they're surveillance" in the 2NR you're probably not doing a good enough job.

CP
Multiple CPs are okay unless they contradict. Make sure you flush out the net benefit and answer all perm arguments. It's often a good strategy to kick the alternative and just go for the NB as a DA. 
When answering a CP, try to always run at least one theory argument. Also make sure you ask whether the CP acts as a PIK or not. PIKs are probably a bad thing unless you drop em.

T/Theory
I really love T debates, and it used to be my go-to neg strat when facing a completely unfamiliar aff. I default Reasonability, but don't let that preventing you from running T if necessary. I will gladly vote on FX or Extra-T if your spin on it is flushed out really well. I also flow every standards you make, so make sure to slow down on those or I might not catch them. I won many rounds on obnoxious theory like Vague Alts or Utopian Fiat, so I will be very pleased if you manage to explain them well.

If you drop Theory or T, you will probably lose. If they manage to just extend one piece of offense that has a terminal impact, then you will lose. (Unless they dropped a theory too and its a complete shit-show) Please Please PLEASE don't make me vote on stupid shit like A-spec...

Kritiks
During my senior year my neg strat was 1 off K or T+K. So I know the fundamentals of Kritiks and I know what you need to do in order to win. I'm familiar with the generics like Cap, Security, along with other Ks that I've ran. I'll vote on any K as long as you can explain (1) what the alternative actually does (2) defend your framework and impact framing. I will know when you are not debating and just reading blocks. Please explain your Kritik even if you think I know it. Slow down on overviews. 
If you are answering Ks, make sure you go hard on framework and answer all K tricks. If you are running a big stick aff, impact turns along with alt fails are going to be very effective as well. 

Speaks
I usually give high speaks unless you really pissed me off by saying something offensive. I think aggressive speeches/Cross-exes are good and strategic, but you know where the line stands between that and just plain rude.

My Previous Debate History: 2014 VA Division State Champion, NCFL Nationals Qualifier, Cleared at most local/national varsity tournaments

Paradigm.

I am a criminal attorney practicing in Colorado. I used to debate in high school, I went to Dow High in Midland, MI. I exclusively did policy debate.

I judged in college but have not judged a round since. I don't know anything about the topic this year. Literally nothing. You are going to have to go slowly and explain a lot.

I would really like it if everyone had their cameras on.

I need weighing - tell me why I should vote for you and why your world is better than your opponents.

T -

I really liked T when I was in debate and I think good debates where the interpretation or counterinterpretation provides a meaningful definition of the topic are great. I do need standards and voters, too, but I need the whole shell to be developed and extended.

DAs -

Naturally I am fine with DAs and they can be really useful in any negative strategy. A major issue I see is that link chains are sometimes really shoddy and rely on a lot of jumps in logic to be true. The more specific your evidence is to the link chain (i.e. impact threshold, timeframe), the better your DA will be able to withstand attacks. Link specificity always > generic links.

CPs -

Unless you argue otherwise, I will default to the aff if the CP provides no clear net benefit. I really love CPs, and I love when they are used in combination with DAs. There is a lot of potential for you to make links to DAs to the plan, the perm, or even the CP, especially apart from impact debate.

On perm debate, make sure the perm is actually clear instead of just saying perm do both. Perm debates are really great when either side can provide evidence about what it would look like.

Ks / K Affs -

Probably not the best idea to run high-level Ks in front of me, especially if you don't want to explain the basic terminology.

Also, be clear about the impact of your K, and what the alt does. It's up to either side how to weigh the impacts, but it gets messy when one side is talking about fiat and the other is talking about impacts in round. Like I said, I am a policymaker by default, so be sure to give me an ROB to explain how and why I should vote outside of that paradigm.

Framework + Theory -

Like with T, I love FW and T because they let you lay out what you think debate should be and why. You can tell me how to prioritize arguments, which ones to reject, or why to vote down the other team. There is a lot of freedom here so feel free to put them out there, as long as you can argue against your opponents and prove what impact it has and why.

Case -

I love when case issues are included in the debate, because it creates a mix of offense and defense that I much prefer to straight offense. I think using your off strategically goes under-rated a lot of the times. I love a good case debate.

Misc. -

I don't really like when the 1NC has about 7 off case only for most of them to be dropped by the 2NR because the neg is going for whatever their opponent drops. These often overlap, so please make sure your negative case is clear, substantive, and (mostly) cohesive.

I'm going to vote, to the best of my ability, solely on what is presented to me in the 2AR and 2NR. I will flow the whole round and try to include constructive feedback from the whole debate, and I will base my speaker points/rankings off the debate as a whole, too. But I cannot vote on an argument that was extended into the 2AC and never brought up again.

If you tell me to drop your opponent's argument because they didn't extend something/they didn't bring it up in the rebuttal, I'll probably do just that.

Also, please extend your evidence into as many speeches as you can. It makes the debate a lot messier if cards only pop up every other speech, and I will usually defer to the team that points out that your evidence wasn't extended in the speech before.

John Block: block.john.b@gmail.com please add me to email chain, thanks

LRCH ’09

Missouri state State ‘12

Last Updated: March 2024

General:

I am currently completing my final year of pediatrics residency so I have been out of the judging game to some extent so be aware that acronyms/the latest K lit I may not be up to date with. That being said I assist LRCH and judge practice debates/listen to practices. I believe that my job is to be a reactionary presence in the room. I do have my own opinions which I’ll get to in a bit but I should be receptive to basically anything you are doing. Being nice goes a long way. Make my job easy. If you can write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR I would be happy for you to do so. Even if statements are phenomenal, no one will win 100% of the arguments, recognize and embrace that.

Digital debate will be an adjustment to all. I have watched some debates but they were conducted over Zoom so I will be new to this software interface so please be patient if and when glitches arise.

You don’t need evidence for an argument, although it helps.

Specifics: T/Framework-I am not exclusively a policymaker. I’m just a person evaluating a discussion of ideas. That being said I went for Framework quite regularly in college and have voted on it multiple times. Be interactive with the other side, don’t just read blocks at each other. TVA’s are important and so are aff visions of the topic that are navigable to the negative team.

Theory: bad theory arguments are just that, bad. If you want to go for theory great but I am pretty easily swayed by reject the argument not the team. If you want to read consult/conditions style arguments I can get on board pretty easily. If you want to read multiple CPs without solvency advocates to simply skew the 2AC’s time I’m less on your side.

Case Debates-crucial to a good round. You can make my threshold to vote negative significantly lower if you have good case args, these don’t have to be supported by evidence but again it helps. Ev analysis has gotten somewhat lost in my opinion over the years. Read the text/read who this person is, discuss why one piece of evidence should be prioritized (does it assume the other team’s ev? Is it newer? Is it better analysis etc?)

DA’s-PTX is fun, elections is an exciting time to be reading it. Otherwise topic DA’s are great too. Don’t forget to have specific links to the aff and a good internal link. Similarly, don’t forget to identify flaws in the internal link chain or why your aff is different than what the link evidence assumes/why it would be perceived differently.

CP’s: having a solvency advocate is good but not necessary. I read a lot of hyperspecific CP’s in my day but also think a lot of it can become esoteric. If you have a great counterplan to read go for it, if you have a generic CP, go for it. Delay is questionable from a theory level but I’ll certainly listen to it.

K’s-Guide me through the K and what it means for the hypothetical world of the aff vs the hypothetical world of the alternative. Explain what specifically the aff does, specifically what the 1AC said or the assumptions that went into it. I may not be hip to the latest high theory K’s but I hear of some of them by proximity to debate even if I haven’t sat in the back of rounds in recent times.

K Affs: Most of what I wrote in the K area applies here. I think I am slightly K leaning as far as my threshold for voting on T or F/W so keep that in mind. What is the ballot and why does it matter for whatever the aff is. I am a bigger fan of embracing the K side of the aff and not as crazy about “soft-left” affs as I have been in the past.

CX-don’t just use it for prep. A good CX can end a debate round early on. This may be difficult with virtual debate and people just trying to talk over each other.

Cheating: If I suspect it I will report it. I will often read along and will likely do this even more because hearing specifics of spreading may be more difficult virtually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other things to know

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

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

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

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

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

(Updated 1/13/25)

Chain Email

browndarcell@gmail.com

Darcell Brown He/Him

Operations Director - Detroit Urban Debate League

Wayne State University Alum '22 (2020 NDT Qualifier)

My debate background in high school and college consisted of both policy strategies as well as Kritikal Performance & Structural K's (Antiblackness/Cap/Securitization)

-- Top Level --

I don't care how you choose to present/perform/introduce your arguments nor do I have a bias toward any particular type of argumentation. Just read your best arguments and give an impact that I can vote on. I'm like 60/40 tech over truth. I default to my flow but can be persuaded by pathos/performance in the debate to weigh my decision. I'll vote on presumption if persuaded the aff doesn't solve anything. I heavily prefer clarity over speed but can keep up with a fast pace as long as you're still coherent. I'll vote on theory args but am not the person you want for 2NR/2AR theory throwdowns.

-- Aff Stuff --

- On the policy end of the spectrum, I don't have too many comments for the aff besides the generic ones. Have an internal link to your harms and if you're gonna go util v vtl/deontology stuff then go all in or go home. On the Kritikal side, I'm down for whatever and will vote on rejections of the topic if there's an impacted reason as to why engagement in the context of the resolution is bad as well as Kritkal interps of the topic. Be clear about what your argument is early on. It serves better to be straight forward with your claims with me instead of using a ton of jargon.

-- Neg Stuff --

- I'm fine with you reading whatever on the neg however you need to engage the aff. FW has to have a TVA otherwise I default aff. THE TVA DOES NOT SERVE AS OFFENSE FOR ME BUT IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY YOUR OFFENSE IS APPLICABE TO THE AFF! I rarely vote on fairness as an impact. There needs to be a reason why normative debate rules are good and what the off does that creates an inability for engagement with those good components of the topic/rez, not just "there are rules so vote neg". Not a fan of reading 5+ off and seeing what sticks kind of strategies especially in college debate. Any other questions you can ask me before the round.

Glenbrook South '16
Wake Forest '20

Debate is a game that's most enjoyable when two teams clash in-depth over a well-prepared topic. Succeed at engaging your opponent and I'll want to judge you and vote for you. If it looks like you don't care about the round, I won't either. I feel like a lot of philosophies people have written boil down to "articulate a nuanced position and I'll vote for you." Instead of repeating other people, I'll just list a few thoughts that differentiate myself from other judges:
-Affs should read a plan.
-Fairness is an impact, and a good one.
-Link/internal link defense is a lot more persuasive than impact defense.
-Counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy are not competitive.
-Conditionality is probably good but I can be convinced otherwise.
-I give speaker points solely based on how you sound, not the content of your speech.

Hamilton High School '15

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign '19

I HATE DEBATE. ANARCHY IS KEY. POLITICAL STRUCTURES ARE BAD. TOPICALITY AND FRAMEWORK IS A MYTH. FIAT IS ILLUSORY.

....now that I got your attention, please read the rest of this paradigm carefully. For, lack of doing so will be heavily reflected in those precious speaker points of yours.

 Pls Debate, don't just read off your computer.

Background: 4 years of High School debate, Arizona D1 State Champion, 2-time qualifier to the NSDA tournament. Coached at the SWDIT Debate Camp summer of 2015, so I have exposure to the Surveillance topic. During my career I debated policy arguments, policy affs with critical impacts, and full out kritikal arguments--finishing my senior year reading a Neolib aff. Oh yeah, I was a 2A/1N.

General Paradigm: Debate is yours, performance, policy, etc, it is what you make it. If you read anything offensive or promotes discourses that are negative for the debate activity and/or environment I will be very upset and it will reflect in your speaker points. Just run the arguments you want to run genuinely, debate well, and everything will be okay. Impact your arguments well and be a persuasive speaker. I hate tagline extentions and will also frown upon them. 

Specifics:

- Aff: I'm okay with any kritikal affirmative, or if you want be as policy as you want to. I will not favor one type of affirmative debating over another granted that I have done both. For the framework debates, prove to me why I should prefer your interpretation over the negatives and if a framework flow lacks well-impacted arguments and many impact turns to the neg, you're in a bad position. While this may sound pessimistic, if you are able to do well both on the line-by-line as well as the "big picture" explanations of your kritikal argument against the framework the neg reads you will be very well rewarded. For policy affirmatives, please be topical. Be clear if judge kick is a thing for your advantages...but on the same note kick out of advantages properly please. Impact well, and you will be rewarded. Don't fall behind on the line-by-line.

- Neg: 

--Case: THIS DEBATE IS A MUST. I LOVE A GOOD CASE DEBATE I THINK IT TEACHES THE MOST IN THE ACTIVITY. Even if you don't have specific cards for an affirmative, please try to engage with the affirmative don't do your own thing. Good case debate will be rewarded.

--Topicality: While I have not judged many debates under this topic, I will vote for Topicality if the negative provides sufficient reason why the affirmative is violating the resolution. Well impacted topicality and good caselists will help in this process.

--Counterplans: Explain the net benefit well please. I will vote on counterplans. Also, if the affirmative calls you out on a cheapshot counterplan, best be prepared for the theory debate.

--Disads: Links are important, please give them the explanations they need. Impacts are also important, please do well-done impact comparisons. Also, please don't read 10 second DAs that waste my time.

--Kritiks: Links are important. Impacts are important. Alternatives need explanation, though if you're going for the K as a case turn make that clear please. I've ran Neolib, Marx, and the Fiat K. I know the general thesis for many other K's but don't expect me to understand your Baudrillard. Just explain it well, impact it well, relate it to the aff, and we'll all be happy campers. Aside from that ask any specific questions in round. Oh yeah, floatings PIKs are abusive.

--Theory: I pull the trigger on condo when there are contradicting worlds, also 2 worlds is enough, 3 pushes it, 4+ is abusive. Perf con is a great argument, if you drop it on either side, I will search for the easy ballot (ON THE CONDITION THAT THE OTHER TEAM EXPLAINS AND IMPACTS THE ARGUMENT WELL)--aside from that, it'll probably end up as a tiebreaker argument if not well addressed on either side. Vague alts theory-- be prepared to answer why your aff isn't vague as well. General rule, if you drop a big theory argument that is well extended with a terminal impact by the opposing side, you will lose.

Speed is okay, be slower on tags and analytics.

If you know Malhar Patel, my debate partner, jokes are nice. Jokes about Rohit, Nisarg, Joe, and Manav are also fair game--entertain me pls.

Jokes are fine, just don't be offensive.

Debate well, be chill.

Joshua Clark

Montgomery Bell Academy

University of Michigan - Institute Instructor
Email: jreubenclark10@gmail.com

Past Schools:
Juan Diego Catholic
Notre Dame in Sherman Oaks
Damien

Debating:
Jordan (UT) 96-98
College of Eastern Utah 99
Cal St Fullerton 01-04

Website:
HSImpact.com

Speaker Points
Points will generally stay between 27.5 and 29.9. It generally takes a 28.8 average to clear. I assign points with that in mind. Teams that average 28.8 or higher in a debate mean I thought your points were elimination round-level debates. While it's not an exact science, 29-29.1 means you had a good chance of advancing in elimination rounds, and 29.2+ indicates excellence reserved for quarters+. I'm not stingy with these kinds of points; they have nothing to do with past successes. It has everything to do with your performance in THIS debate.


Etiquette
1. Try to treat each other with mutual respect.

2. Cards and tags should have the same clarity
3. Cards MUST be marked during the speech. Please say, "Mark the card," and please have you OR your partner physically mark the cards in the speech. It is not possible to remember where you've marked your cards after the speech. Saying "mark the card" is the only way to let your judge and competitors know that you do not intend to represent that you've read the entirety of the card. Physically marking the card in the speech is necessary to maintain an accurate account of what you did or didn't read.

Overview
My 25 years in the community have led me to formulate opinions about how the activity should be run. I'm not sharing these with you because I think this is the way you have to debate but because you may get some insight about how to win and earn better speaker points in front of me.

1) Conceded claims without warrants - These aren't complete arguments. A 10-second dropped ASPEC is very unlikely to decide a debate for me. Perm, do the CP without a theoretical justification; it also makes zero sense. Perm - do both needs to be followed by an explanation for how it resolves the link to the net benefit, or it is not an argument.

2) Voting issues are reasons to reject the argument. (Other than conditionality)

3) Debate stays in the round -- Debate is a game of testing ideas and their counterparts. Those ideas presented in the debate will be the sole factor used in determining the winning team. Things said or done outside of this debate round will not be considered when determining a winning team.

4) Your argument doesn't improve by calling it a "DA" -- I'm sure your analytical standard to your framework argument on the K is great, but overstating its importance by labeling it a "DA" isn't accurate. It's a reason to prefer your interpretation.

Topicality vs Conventional Affs: I default to competing interpretations on topicality but can be persuaded by reasonability. Topicality is a voting issue.

Topicality vs Critical Affs: I generally think that policy debate is a good thing and that a team should both have a plan and defend it. Given that, I have no problem voting for "no plan" advocacies or "fiat-less" plans. I will be looking for you to win that your impact turns to topicality/framework outweighs the loss of education/fairness that would be given in a "fiated" plan debate. Affirmative teams struggle with answering the argument that they could advocate most of their aff while defending a topical plan. I also think that teams who stress they are a pre-requisite to topical action have a more difficult time with topical version-type arguments than teams who impact turn standards. If you win that the state is irredeemable at every level, you are much more likely to get me to vote against FW. The K aff teams who have had success in front of me have been very good at generating a good list of arguments that opposing teams could run against them to mitigate the fairness impact of the T/FW argument. This makes the impact turns of a stricter limit much more persuasive to me.

I'm also in the fairness camp as a terminal impact, as opposed to an emphasis on portable skills. I think you can win that T comes before substantive issues.

One note to teams that are neg against an aff that lacks stable advocacy: Make sure you adapt your framework arguments to fit the aff. Don't read..." you must have a plan" if they have a plan. If a team has a plan but doesn't defend fiat, base your ground arguments on that violation.


Counterplans and Disads: The more specific to the aff, the better. There are few things better than a well-researched PIC that just blind sites a team. Objectively, I think counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy are not legitimate. However, I still coach teams to run these arguments, and I can still evaluate a theory debate about these different counterplans as objectively as possible. Again, the more specific the evidence is to the aff, the more legitimate it will appear.


The K: I was a k debater and a philosophy major in college. I prefer criticisms that are specific to the resolution. If your K links don't discuss poverty and redistribution strategies this year, then it's unlikely to be very persuasive to me.

Impact comparisons usually become the most important part of a kritik, and the excessive link list becomes the least of a team’s problems heading into the 2nr. It would be best if you won that either a) you turn the case and have an external impact or b) you solve the case and have an external impact. Root cause arguments are sound but rarely address the timeframe issue of case impacts. If you are going to win your magnitude comparisons, then you better do a lot to mitigate the case impacts. I also find most framework arguments associated with a K nearly pointless. Most of them are impacted by the K proper and depend on you winning the K to win the framework argument. Before devoting any more time to the framework beyond getting your K evaluated, you should ask yourself and clearly state to me what happens if you win your theory argument. You should craft your "role of the ballot" argument based on the answer to that question. I am willing to listen to sequencing arguments that EXPLAIN why discourse, epistemology, ontology, etc., come first.


Conclusion: I love debate...good luck if I'm judging you, and please feel free to ask any clarifying questions.

To promote disclosure at the high school level, any team that practices near-universal "open source" will be awarded .2 extra per debater if you bring that to my attention before the RFD.

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

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

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

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

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

PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

IN GENERAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: So I debated at H.H. Dow for 3 years and just recently started with coaching with the team. Fun Fun. I debated on a Varsity varsity level so most things that you run I will probably be able to understand. I know some of the topic due to me going to tournaments but I'm not as familiar with all of the cases and what they do, or literally any of the abbreviations, so some explanation during round would be much appreciated. :). Pokemon, Mtg, Dota, LoL, Anime... Love it all.

Truth/Tech: Basically I prefer tech. Its how I was taught to debate and so its likely that I will evaluate the round in that way. However, don't be discouraged from running anything in the Truth realm. Just because i prefer tech does NOT mean that I won't evaluate or look to during round or while making the decision. I.E. I'll probably disagree with Racism/Sexism/etc. good. Duh. 

T: T was like my favorite argument but it seems to be a bit less common this year. Just because its my favorite dont feel like you have to run it, especially because if you don't do enough work on it then it really wasn't worth running anyway. To win the T-flow for me you have to win the top, not the bottom (Although winning both wont hurt (:  ). I'm totally fine with Extra/Effects and K of T's, but if you can't articulate it then I probably wont vote on it. I don't think Potential Abuse is a voter and I also won't vote on an RVI.

Case Stuff: Do a good job on your case. Your strongest cards are in your 1AC so use them to your advantage. Don't drop it until the 2AR or I'll cry. The neg team should also put some stuff on case. The 1AC is their best cards so prove to me that its a bad idea. Non-Plan Text Cases are fine with me. Make sure I know your stance/advocacy at the end of the round or I won't vote for you.

K: I like hearing K arguments, when articulated well. If you can't tell me or the other team what the K is or how the Alt works then very low chance I'll vote on it. Same with perms for the Aff. I'm not super familiar with a lot of the authors but I know the thesis of most K arguments, just let me know what the K is all about. That's more important to me. 1 conditional CP and K is about my limit, if not then theory is fine (weigh the impacts on theory dont just say fairness and education.)

CP: Counterplans are cool. It needs to have some sort of netbenefit or a super solid reason that its strictly better than the aff. Aff needs to do the opposite and run/extend perms and explain why the CP is worse or not mutually exclusive to the Aff case. 1 conditional CP and K is about my limit, if not then theory is fine (weigh the impacts on theory dont just say fairness and education.)

DA: Run them. I think that DA's are often underused and actually can have a lot of weight if you do some impact calc. Spend time arguing the Uniqueness and the Link because just impact weighing is not enough to answer it. DA turns case arguments are super cool and should be run. 

Framework: I would like some form of framework argument when it comes to K's especially (other arguments too, but especially on K's). Tell me why evaluating the round in your framwork is better and why I should vote that way. 

Theory: Running theory just as a time and strat skew is super lame. Actually impact the theory in the round and tell me why the Theory argument is important and how they violate the theory that you're running.

Misc.: -CX: Be nice. I can tell you that if you're rude your speaks will definitely go down. Be nice to the other team, look at me, and ask relevent questions. Tagteaming is fine but dont take over your partners CX

          -Attitude: be nice, not rude, dont worry, be happy, dont be nervous, you're probably doing fine

          -Speaks: being nice and humor go a long way, and if your arguments are good they will also go up.

          -Flashing: if it takes longer than like a minute or so I'll probably start/take off some preptime. However, tell me if you have a tech issue and I will understand

          - Neg Block: shouldnt have to be said but for my sanity split the block. 

          - Spreading: I'm fine with speed, be sure you're clear. If I dont hear it, it's not getting flowed.

          - Cheating: don't, lol. Stealing prep is cheating, so is clipping cards, etc. If the other team accuses you I'll have them bring evidence. If you're caught, you lose and get the worst speaker points possible. If you aren't caught then they get reduced speaks and you probably get the round. There's no need for false accusations. 

Feel free to ask me any questions about arguments, tell me about your teams policy on an issue, special stuff about your aff or about you. I won't bite, if you're confused after a decision or have questions about what you could've done better then ask right after the round or whenever you see me. Happy to help. 

She/her.

My name is pronounced Ka-trail not Ka-trel.

I am a graduate from Wayne State and I debated throughout HS and college.

I am open to all forms of debate. To be transparent, I was a policy debater throughout my years of competing. All arguments/methods being presented have to be well explained and impacted out for me to be persuaded; if I find myself asking "why?" to your arguments then you have not explained/impacted it out. I'm not going to vote on anything that I don't understand.

Generally I hated debating theory and didn't find it convincing unless there was clear in-round abuse (unfair, education, ect.). Not to say I won't vote on it, but it's probably an uphill battle. This doesn't mean don't include theory in your strategies. Debate is fun to me because of strategy, not the type of arguments. So, you can utilize theory to bolster other arguments/time skew.

If you want higher speaks then I want to reiterate how much I love a good strat in debate. Make flows connect. Use weird arguments from one flow to take out your opponents' arguments, connect the dots, scrap flows to save time, use impact calculus, etc. Anyone can cut decent cards (except probably me) or read blocks from last year so do the cool stuff.

Framework is fine.

I don't really have any strong feelings about arguments or styles besides the obvi:
1. I don't vote for offensive arguments - any racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. is going to get you an automatic L
2. I will dock your speaks for obnoxious behavior towards your opponents (which is ironic given my behavior in college debate) ...unless it's funny...which I find most HS debaters not to be so you have been warned

you can contact me at katrail14@gmail.com

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

Top-level, I really love debate and am honored to be judging your debate. I promise to try my best to judge the round fairly, and I hope the notes below help you. Most of the below notes are just some general predispositions/ thoughts. I firmly believe that debaters should control the debate space and will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, regardless of if you adapt to these preferences or not.

I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative. I am probably not the greatest person for counterplan competition debates.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of "I will vote against you for bad decisions you made out of round" or allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

Yes, email chain. debateoprf@gmail.com

ME:

Debater--The University of Michigan '91-'95

Head Coach--Oak Park and River Forest HS '15-'20

Assistant Coach--New Trier Township High School '20-

POLICY DEBATE:

Top Level

--Old School Policy.

--Like the K on the Neg. Harder sell on the Aff.

--Quality of Evidence Counts. Massive disparities warrant intervention on my part. You can insert rehighlightings. There should not be a time punishment for the tean NOT reading weak evidence.

--Not great with theory debates.

--I value Research and Strategic Thinking (both in round and prep) as paramount when evaluating procedural impacts.

--Utter disdain for trolly Theory args, Death Good, Wipeout and Spark. Respect the game, win classy.

Advantage vs Disadvantage

More often than not, I tend to gravitate towards the team that wins probability. The more coherent and plausible the internal link chain is, the better.

Zero risk is a thing.

I can and will vote against an argument if cards are poor exclusive of counter evidence being read.

Not a big fan of Pre-Fiat DA's: Spending, Must Pass Legislation, Riders, etc. I will err Aff on theory unless the Neg has some really good evidence as to why not.

I love nuanced defense and case turns. Conversely, I love link and impact turns. Please run lots of them.

Counterplans

Conditionality—

I am largely okay with a fair amount of condo. i.e. 4-5 not a big deal for me. I will become sympathetic to Aff Theory ONLY if the Neg starts kicking straight turned arguments. On the other hand, if you go for Condo Bad and can't answer Strat Skew Inevitable, Idea Testing Good and Hard Debate is Good Debate then don't go for Condo Bad. I have voted Aff on Conditionality Theory, but rarely.

2023-2024 EDIT:

**That said, the Inequality Topic has made me add an addendum to my aforementioned grievance about being on my lawn: running blatantly contradictory arguments about Capitalism, Unions, Growth, etc. are egregious performance contradictions that I will no longer ignore under the auspices of conditionality. Its not that I am changing my tune on condo per se, its that this promotes bad neg strats that are usually a result of high school students not thinking about things they should be before reading the 1NC. Its pretty easy to win in-round abuse when a Neg is defending Unions Good and Bad at the same time. I encourage you to try.

Competition—

1. I have grown weary of vague plan writing. To that end, I tend think that the Neg need only win that the CP is functionally competitive. The Plan is about advocacy and cannot be a moving target.

2. Perm do the CP? Intrinsic Perms? I am flexible to Neg if they have a solvency advocate or the Aff is new. Otherwise, I lean Aff.

Other Stuff—

PIC’s and Agent CP’s are part of our game. I err Neg on theory. Ditto 50 State Fiat.

No object Fiat, please. Or International Fiat on a Domestic Topic.

Otherwise, International Fiat is a gray area for me. The Neg needs a good Interp that excludes abusive versions. Its winnable.

Solvency advocates and New Affs make me lean Neg on theory.

I will judge kick automatically unless given a decent reason why not in the 1AR.

K-Affs

If you lean on K Affs, just do yourself a favor and put me low or strike me. I am not unsympathetic to your argument per se, I just vote on Framework 60-70% of the time and it rarely has anything to do with your Aff.

That said, if you can effectively impact turn Framework, beat back a TVA and Switch Side Debate, you can get my ballot.

Topic relevance is important.

If your goal is to make blanket statements about why certain people are good or bad or should be excluded from valuable discussions then I am not your judge. We are all flawed.

I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I don't think that being a "small school" is a reason why I should vote for you.

Kritiks vs Policy Affs

Truth be told, I vote Neg on Kritiks vs Policy Affs A LOT.

I am prone to voting Aff on Perms, so be advised College Debaters. I have no take on "philosophical competition" but it does seem like a thing.

I am not up on the Lit AT ALL, so the polysyllabic word stews you so love to concoct are going to make my ears bleed.

I like reading cards after the debate and find myself understanding nuance better when I can. If you don’t then you leave me with only the bad handwriting on my flow to decipher what you said an hour later and that’s not good for anybody.

When I usually vote Neg its because the Aff has not done a sufficient job in engaging with core elements of the K, such as Ontology, Root Cause Claims, etc.

I am not a great evaluator of Framework debates and will usually err for the team that accesses Education Impacts the best.

Topicality

Because it theoretically serves an external function that affects other rounds, I do give the Aff a fair amount of leeway when the arguments start to wander into a gray area. The requirement for Offense on the part of the Affirmative is something on which I place little value. Put another way, the Aff need only prove that they are within the predictable confines of research and present a plan that offers enough ground on which to run generic arguments. The Negative must prove that the Affirmative skews research burdens to a point in which the topic is unlimited to a point beyond 20-30 possible cases and/or renders the heart of the topic moot.

Plan Text in a Vacuum is a silly defense. In very few instances have I found it defensible. If you choose to defend it, you had better be ready to defend the solvency implications.

Limits and Fairness are not in and of themselves an impact. Take it to the next level.

Why I vote Aff a lot:

--Bad/Incoherent link mechanics on DA’s

--Perm do the CP

--CP Solvency Deficits

--Framework/Scholarship is defensible

--T can be won defensively

Why I vote Neg a lot:

--Condo Bad is silly

--Weakness of aff internal links/solvency

--Offense that turns the case

--Sufficiency Framing

--You actually had a strategy

PUBLIC FORUM SUPPLEMENT:

I judge about 1 PF Round for every 50 Policy Rounds so bear with me here.

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at things from a cost benefit perspective. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Impacts need to be tangible.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote on what is on the flow (yes, I flow) and keep my personal opinions of arguments in check as much as possible. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

While I am not a fan of formal “Kritik” arguments in PF, I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. Racism and Sexism will not be tolerated. You can attack your opponents scholarship.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. Again, I am not a fan of the Kritik, but if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Often the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance and not style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

~Last update: 6/21/19~

Background: I debated for 2.5 years in high school for the Chicago Debate League (2010-2014) and I have been judging since my junior year of high school. I have judged many Chicago Debate League tournaments both at the high school and middle school level and judged some of the NC tournaments. I am the one of the coaches at Phoenix Military, where I debated and was the 2017 & 2019 Golden Gavel Finalist or Conference Coach of the Year Finalist (however you want to see it). I was also one of the Alumni Ambassadors for the National Association for Urban Debate League in 2017.

I am big on policy. I am not a fan of critical aff's or performance aff's. If you are aff, we are here to debate the resolution and, therefore, if K aff's that is not tied into the resolution it will be voted down. THIS IS POLICY DEBATE NOT CRITICAL DEBATE!

Resolutions debated/judged/coached:

2010-11: Military/policy presence reduction (debated)

2011-12: Space (debated)

2012-13: Transportation infrastructure (judged)

2013-14: Economic engagement toward Cuba/Mexico/Venezuela (debated and judged)

2014-15: Oceans (judged and coached)

2015-16: Surveillance (coached)

2016-17: China (coached)

2017-18: Education (judged and coached)

2018-19- Immigration (coached)

Aff: If you are going to use a specific agent (ex the Supreme Court) to pass your plan, please make sure that you know how the Court and the judicial system works or else your plan will fall apart (this can also be applied to CP's). If your plan is not topical to the resolution, chances are I will not vote on it.

T/CP/K: If you are going to run T, make sure you carry it out throughout the round. If you run it to eat up time and drop it at the end, I will take off speaker points and if the other team calls you out on this, I will vote you down (so start striking me if you know you normally do this). I don't like when debaters use T to eat up time because if the aff is truly non-topical why are we debating the resolution in the first place? On CP's, if you don't know how to run them correctly, stay away from them. On K's, make me believe the alternative o/w the aff's plan solvency.

DA's: I am open to any DA, just make sure that if you run a Politic's DA, or anything involving politics, that it is updated and you are not running outdated cards.

Speed: I must be able to hear the tag line properly with the author/year. Please slow down when reading this and if their is something critical for your argument within the card. This helps me when you reference cards in your speeches; the last thing I want to do is spend a minute trying to find the card you are referencing on my flow.

Theory: I am open to all EXCEPT disclosure theory/any arguments that involve before round disclosure. If you are truly a top debater, you should be able to win/debate no matter what. Before the age of computers and the internet, debaters diclosed right before the round and they still managed to be top debaters. I find disclosure arguments to be excuses for debaters and an easy way out. DO NOT DO IT!

Flashing/Email Chains: I only flow what you say in your speeches, but I would like to be included in the email chain (agarciarive@cps.edu). I am not a fan of email chains/flashing and will start running your prep if flashing/email chains are taking too long.

Other Stuff: I will not connect the dots for you; do not assume that I know the argument, you must say it or I will not flow it. Link stories normally help with this and impact calc is a must- especially if it is a close round.

Tag teaming during CX and speaking over your partner during his/her speech is not okay and I will deduct speaker points.

I like analytical arguments, it shows me that you can think on your own and that you know what's going on in the wold. I am okay if you reference things that are going on in the news or historical events. Of course, make sure that it is relevant to what you are running or debating.

If you are Varsity, I also expect you to be keeping your own time. I usually keep time just in case, but not always.

General Word of Advice: Don't be petty after the round, win or lose. You win some rounds and you lose some and no one likes a sore looser; your job is to make the judge vote for you within your speeches not after they have already made a decision. I get it, I've been in your shoes, but nothing gets accomplished if you start asking questions to make the judge feel dumb when they have already made a decision and have clearly told you what you did right/wrong over and over again. If you try to pull this, I will make you look dumb- yes, you are there to win, but you are also there to learn and if you don't learn or take away anything away from each round then I feel sorry for you.

Please respect your partner and opponent during the round.

Good Luck!

General Info: I debated at La Salle College High School for four years and am now a sophomore at the University of Michigan. As far as judging goes, the Michigan tournament is my first tournament of the year. In high school, my typical 2nr was security when applicable, but they varied anywhere from politics to Baudrillard (so read what you want). 

Thoughts:

• Go as fast as you want
• Don't sacrifice clarity for speed - if I stop flowing because you are unclear that will only hurt you
• I won't take prep for flashing
• I will vote on the flow - not on how I feel
• Act professionally - this is an academic activity
• Be smart - just reading blocks will make a lot of debates closer than they should be
• Tech is much more important than truth, but if you are making true arguments it is a lot easier to win a debate that is technical from both sides

Specifics:

Topicality  -  Definitely a voter, I will defer to competing interpretations but reading through the literature for the topic it shouldn't be too hard to win reasonability My only request is that you really impact out why it is a voting issue.

Theory  -  Any sort of condo is the most persuasive - I am personally not a fan of severance or intrinsicness as being reasons to reject the team.

Disadvantages  -  You need to win all parts of the disadvantage, not just that you have a bigger impact. That being said, it is critical that your uniqueness evidence is recent, but what makes a disad really persuasive is if the link, internal link, and impact are all recent. As far as my decision making goes, I have no problem believing there is no risk the disad could happen. Please do not tell me the link determines uniqueness because that makes no sense at all.

Counterplans  -  Big fan of a good advantage CP or one that solves the entire aff. I do not like condition counterplans or consult counterplans, but if the other team doesn't answer it well I will not punish you for going for it - strategic decisions are always the best idea.

K's  -  This is what I did most of my senior year. Kritiks can be very strategic, but please do not read it if you cannot explain it. Listening to someone read blocks and have it be apparent they do not understand the literature is brutal. ***important note: If you are reading a high level kritik please explain because I will not be familiar with the literature (ie: Lacan)

Critical Affirmatives  -  Go for it. You have the same burden as a non-critical affirmative: prove to me that the 1AC is a good idea.

Framework  -  I view this through the same lens as topicality. It should come down to a debate about who has the better vision for debate.

Have fun.

University of Michigan 2015-2019

La Costa Canyon HS 2011-2015

Please add jgold717 at gmail dot com to the email chain.

I debated for 8 years and qualified to the NDT 3 times for Michigan including a semifinals appearance. While I was in college, I was an assistant coach for various high schools and taught labs at the Michigan Debate Institutes. I am no longer a debate coach or actively involved in debate, I am a practicing attorney and I only judge occasionally. As such, err on the side of over-explaining things to me, don't assume I have topic knowledge, go easy on acronyms, etc.

Top level:

For me, the most important quality in a judge is that they put their biases aside and judge the debate on the terms the debaters give them, so I will try my hardest to do that. I always prefer judging slower debates with warranted presentation, quality evidence, and "truer" arguments than whatever the opposite of that is. I prefer to see debaters doing what they do best rather than adapting to me. During my time as a debater I mostly read traditional policy arguments and thus am most comfortable evaluating these kinds of debates, but I have read and/or coached basically every type of argument that exists.

A few things I would note that are important to me regardless of what kind of argument you are reading:

(1) Impact calc and comparison, judge direction, and explanation of meta-level strategic interactions between arguments. In almost every debate you will be able to poke holes in the other side's internal links (and vice versa), so most my decisions come down to whose central piece of offense I think is most important to achieve/avoid.

(2) Warranted explanations of your arguments as opposed to just tagline-level explanations.

(3) Argument quality. I wouldn't consider myself "truth over tech" - I am perfectly willing to vote on "bad" arguments if they are warranted and won, and I am very flow-centric, but I would rather hear well-developed arguments with coherent internal links.

(4) Two "rules" - No "inserting this re-highlighting into the debate" - you have to read it (paraphrasing in speech/cx is sufficient as well). I also will not vote on any arguments about things that occurred outside the debate.

Online debate: If my camera is off I am probably not at my computer so please don't start speaking. I would strongly prefer debaters also leave their cameras on while debate things are happening so I know everyone is present when needed.

Kritiks (neg): I am comfortable with most common kritik arguments, but if yours is particularly esoteric you may need to invest some time in explaining your theory to me. Specific links with embedded impacts/case turns are great. When I vote neg for kritiks it is often because the aff made an error on the framework debate and the neg was able to neutralize a lot of the aff's case offense.

Kritiks (aff)/planless affs: If I was the czar of debate all affirmatives would include a topical plan text that advocates USFG action, and those affirmatives would range from your typical big-stick heg/econ affs to creative and kritical ways to affirm the topic. The biggest piece of advice I can give you is to pick a central point of offense, do impact calc and comparison, and explain why your offense is more important than theirs. As a debater I almost always went for a T/framework argument based on fairness when debating an aff without a plan, so I am perfectly willing to vote on procedural fairness as a prior question, but that doesn't mean it's an automatic presumption I'll always apply. I often vote for the team that explains why their offense has a higher level of explanatory power than their opponent's by explaining the role of the ballot, the judge, debate as a whole, etc. These debates are frequently hard for me to decide because both teams build up their own points of offense well but don't interact with their opponent's offense sufficiently. I urge you to LISTEN carefully to exactly what the other team is saying, flow, think critically about their arguments and how they interact with your own, and then respond. Don't be overly block reliant, and don't give "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" speeches. Give me a story to tell in the RFD for why your offense is better than theirs.

Theory/CPs: Since I began my debate career neg terrorism via counterplans (e.g., multi-plank advantage CPs, CPs without a solvency advocate, multi-actor fiat, uniform 50 state fiat, 4+ contradictory conditional advocacies, etc.) has gotten way worse and as a former (slow) 2a I am sympathetic to aff appeals to fairness. However, most aff teams do a terrible job of extending theory objections to CPs and it has allowed the neg to get away with murder. If you are debating a CP like the above and invest time in advancing a warranted, coherent theory interpretation as a reason to reject the argument I will be very happy and likely persuaded. On the other hand, if you go top-speed through 15 unwarranted standards and hope the neg drops one that is not going to get you very far. I lean neg on conditionality with 1 or 2 conditional options, 3 is borderline, and at 4+ I lean aff (especially if they are contradictory). By default I will judge-kick a CP but I am persuadable the other way.

Misc.:

--An argument is a claim, warrant, impact and usually has to include application or reasoning to be coherent. I am lenient on allowing new responses to a dropped argument if it is blippy and lacks any of the above. In other words if your strategy relies on the other team dropping a one-sentence ASPEC violation hidden in the bottom of a T shell or something like that I am not the judge for you.

--I work in civil litigation and debate's understanding of how the courts work is suspect at best. I was definitely guilty of this myself as a debater. If you are reading a courts aff, you should be prepared to defend the legal procedure underlying your aff rather than just asserting fiat takes care of it all. One notable exception is judicial capital/balancing - I generally think debate has it right that judges do consider the impacts of their decisions on society/politics and their public image. That doesn't mean you can't persuade me otherwise.

--I think speaker point inflation has gotten a little bit out of hand. I struggle to deal with this because I don't want to punish debaters and give them lower speaks than average based on my own views, but at the same time it is hard to delineate performance if everyone is only giving 28.8s and above. It's subjective and varies by tournament, but the scale I will try to stick by is:

27.8-28.4 - bottom half speaker at a tournament/below .500 record

28.5-28.7 - middle of the pack/around .500 record

28.8-29 - top 20%/clearing as a lower seed

29.1-29.2 - top 10%/clearing as a higher seed/possible speaker award

29.3-29.4 - top 5%/clearing as a high seed/definite speaker award

29.5+ - elite

Good luck!

School: Stevens Point Area Senior High (WI)

Experience: I've got three years of high school debate experience, I'm the assistant coach of the SPASH debate team, and this is my second year judging.

I'm a tabs judge but I have a few preferences:

T: I'll always look to competing interpretations, and you should throughly explain your standards/voters. In round abuse will be more persuasive
Kritiks: I'll default to a policy framework if none is presented, so I guess I'm a little biased against Kritiks but if you win the framework flow I'm down. Also I have probably a higher standard for alt solvency.

Impact calc/ framing the round is key. In the end I'll vote on anything, but you need to tell my why I'm signing my ballot.

email me at dgord325@uwsp.edu if you have any questions

If I am judging you at a tournament with preferences, then you should strike me if you do not agree with all of the following:

-I am an educator first. If anything happens in the debate that I deem would not be okay in a high school classroom, I will stop the debate and vote against the team that engaged in the inappropriate behavior.

-The affirmative should defend a topical plan and defend the implementation of the plan.

-Affirmative plans these days are too vague. You only get to fiat what your plan says, not what it could mean or what you want it to mean. If you clarify your plan in cross-x, the negative can use that clarification to setup counterplan competition.

-The negative should prove why the plan causes something bad to happen, not why it justifies something bad. In other words - most of your Kritks are probably just FYIs.

-I evaluate debate in large part based on the line-by-line. If you cannot flow, I am not a good judge for you. If you cannot specifically answer the other team's arguments and apply your arguments to them and instead just read pre-scripted blocks, I am not a good judge for you.

-Debate is a communicative activity. I don't follow a card document. I listen to what you say. I will only read evidence if I cannot resolve something in the debate based on how it was debated.

-For something to count as an argument it must be complete and explained. I also must be able to understand what you are saying.

-My lifetime speaker point average range is probably lower than what you are used to.

-If you are visibly sick during the debate, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

Wayzata (MN) '15

Emory University '19

tiffany.s.haas@gmail.com

Things that might be important:

Topicality -

Against no-plan affs: I generally think that defending the hypothetical implementation of a policy action is good. Fairness is definitely the truest arg, and if you can find a topical version of the aff, you basically won my ballot. That being said, I can also be easily persuaded to vote against framework, as I have been on both sides of the debate and can respect different types of arguments. Framework against a "high theory aff" is particularly persuasive, whereas framework against an identity aff is not.

Against plan affs: I'm a 2A and I've been frustrated the most by losing to T, especially because my aff is my baby and being told it's "not topical" after months of reading it is always a heartbreaking experience. Negative teams will have a hard time going for T in front of me unless you can specifically point out the violation and how that effects limits/ground and what that means for the topic/debate.

Kritiks -

I view the K more as a DA - explain the impact and how it interacts/turns the aff. Do that and you're good.

I find the perm persuasive if the K doesn't actually provide an opportunity cost to the aff. Reading a bunch of links on the perm debate can make sense if they're well-applied and explained, but I'd rather you explain why the perm itself is nonsensical (why the K and the aff are mutually exclusive).

High theory K's are less likely to make sense to me, as I'm not familiar with the lit - don't say "not our baudrillard" because it's probably your baudrillard.

Case - please do it - should be around 4 minutes of the 1NC and a large focus of the block

Politics/DA's - This is a good and bad thing - I'm pretty well-informed on what's going on with 'tix every weekend, so if you're bs-ing I'll be able to tell and your speaks will be punished. It's better to go for what you want, rather than to overadapt and become a politics debate just because I'm in the back.

Jokes are well appreciated (puns, or jokes about Kate Gehling) - add a cat gif to the email chain and <3 <3 <3.

I have been in the debate world for 7 years as a head coach, a public forum debate and forensics speech student, a judge, and a state board member.

In a round I prefer road mapping (organized speech pattern), evidence, and follow-through. DO NOT road map outside of speaker time. You are in public forum, not policy, don't steal extra time. If you do a road map outside of the speaking time, I will take speaker points. Don't scream in the crossfire, be nice to each other. Please keep track of your own prep time- I will only give you an indication as to when you have used all of it. Framework is for policy, you shouldn't need it in pf unless it's paramount to your case (hot tip: it's not).

During crossfire be civil. Per NSDA rules, judges are not supposed to be voting based on crossfire, so I will only take comments in crossfire into consideration if it is brought up during a timed speech before the final focus. (Exception to this would be statements from grand crossfire.)

I hate writing down my RFD's so I will likely just do it verbally. I am a scientific and statistical judge- that being said you have to follow through with impacts to win. Laying down 5 warrants and pieces of evidence and not following through on why it should matter to the judge will NOT win you the debate, be sure to ALWAYS bring through your impacts and weigh them against your opponents.

jeremy.hammond@pinecrest.edu, pinecrestdebatedocs@gmail.com (please put both).

I have experience judging most policy debates that would occur. I have found that there is really only one argument type that I currently won't evaluate which are wipeout based arguments which prioritize saving unknown life to that of saving known life (human/non-human life).

I haven't calculated the percentages but I below are some feelings of where I am in various types of debates.

Policy aff v Core DA - Even

Policy aff v Process CP - 60% for the neg (mostly due to poor affirmative debating rather than argument preference)

Policy aff v K - Probably have voted neg more mostly due to poor affirmative debating or dropped tricks. Side note i'm pretty against the you link you lose style of negative framework, but I have regretfully have voted for it.

Theory v Policy Neg - Probably voted more neg than aff when the aff has a non-sense counter-interpretation (i.e. CI - you get 2 condo). When the aff is just going for condo bad with a more strict counter-interpretation I have voted aff more.

K aff v FW - Probably even to voted aff more (like due to poor negative debating)

K aff v K Neg - Probably judged these the least honestly they don't stick out for me to remember how I voted. I have definitely voted for the Cap K against K affs but I don't know the percentages.

K aff v Policy Neg - (Think State good, Alt Bad, or CP) have judged but can't remember.

I have plenty of more specific thoughts about debate, but mostly those don't play into my decisions. I will add more as the year progresses if something bothers me in a round.

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clear signposting is a good thing.

Speaker Points

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

• I started debating for Dow High School in 2007 and debated for four years. Since the I have coached and judged for Dow. After high school, I went to Central Michigan University and did not debate there.

• I’m not going to disregard any type or specific argument just because I don’t like or agree with it. But in order to win an argument or have me consider it in my BOD, you have to be able to adequately explain and understand the argument. For example, don’t run a K if you don’t understand the K completely.

• If you have a topicality flow, you need to be able to win both the top and bottom of the flow. If you just read me a definition and violation, but no voters in the shell, I’m not going to vote for it.

• Tag teaming in cross-ex is okay with me, as long as it isn’t excessive. Your partner should be able to answer some questions on the arguments that you are running, without you answering every question for them. If you have questions that you want your partner to ask, write them down. But if needed, it’s okay by me.

• I’m not a huge fan of performance affs, I want to actually talk about and listen to the debate topic for the year. I’m all for teams branching out and running these arguments, but it’s going to need to be very well articulated and have excellent framework in the round telling me where and why to vote for you.

• Framework in general is really great to have. Weighing the round at the end is always going to be beneficial for you, since it eliminates the need for me to blindly judge the round by myself at the end. Impact calc is always great. Weighing your framework (why I should prefer yours).

• Always feel free to ask me questions before the round starts if you need any further clarification!

Conor Hogan

La Salle College High School '15

University of Notre Dame '19

Debate Experience: Debated for four years in high school, qualified to the TOC and was in semis of the NDCA my senior year.

General:Read whatever you think you will be able to debate the best in the round. One of my least favorite things as a debater was when judges thought they were more important than the debaters, and said "spreading means you lose" or "I won't even listen to your k." Does this mean you should spew words to the point that I can't understand you and read morally reprehensible arguments? Of course not. It means read whatever arguments you want and Ill listen. I can flow speed and I'll yell clear if you aren't.

Aff: The aff should defend something, as in have some sort of plan or advocacy that the negative is able to clash with. I'm fine with affs that end in extinction and just as fine with affs that end in some sort of structural violence impact. No plan affs will be explained more below.

Neg: Debate the case. I love good and warranted out case debate. Attack their internal links and uniqueness arguments just as much, if not more, than you attack their impact scenarios. Most affirmative advantages are poorly constructed and can be easily picked apart with a bit of decent research and debating.

Topicality: I didn't go for T very much against policy affs, but this was more out of a lack of skill on my own part than a dislike for the argument. I think you clearly need to prove that they explode limits or skew your ground for debate to win the topicality debate. I hate T debates that get into case lists where each team is trying to prove their list includes two or three more/fewer affs than the other team's. Sit more on your internal links and give specific examples rather than trying to rattle off as many affs as you can.

Dis-ads: Yes obviously fine and good. The aff should attack all portions of the disadvantage, especially the internal link. Impact defense is obviously important, but there are usually weaker parts to the DA that can be exposed.

Counterplans: If you're going for a cp in the 2nr and the aff has solvency deficits, please don't tell me about how you get 100 percent risk of solving the case. Instead, explain how the affirmative's solvency deficits are outweighed by your disadvantage. I don't want to be sitting there after the debate trying to sort out how I should weigh two solvency deficits against some risk of a da. If you're going to read a cheating CP be prepared for the theory debate. The aff is 99 percent on the side of truth in these sorts of debates so be prepared to defend why stealing their ground was fair. I am most persuaded by actor cps, advantage cps, and PICs.

Kritiks: The K is also fine. I am much more familiar with Reps Ks or Neolib than I am with Lacan or Baudrillard. That being said I am familiar with almost every K in debate so just explain your argument and how it interacts with the affirmative. I have to be able to thoroughly explain to the affirmative why they lost if I am to vote negative on the K, so the work should be done in the 2nr.  Turns case analysis on the K makes the 2nr so much easier. Framework is usually a wash unless one team drops it, so give the 2nr as if you assume you're going to lose the framework debate (Hint: even if statements).

No Plan Affs and Framework: Anybody who debated me knows that I went for framework a lot against no plan affs, but I think that both sides can win this debate. For the aff, you need to play more defense to help you win. Having offense against the state and normative policy making is obviously necessary, but playing defense against dialogue or limits is just as valuable. I also think most no plan affs defend waaaay too much in terms of an interpretation of the topic. Saying "CI: Direction of the topic" just invites the neg to tee off on limits standards. Having an interpretation that is somehow grounded in your affirmative and how it relates to the topic means that you don't have to defend infinite affirmatives. I also do believe that the aff must have an interpretation so the negative can garner offense against the vision of debate the affirmative promotes, although a straight impact turn route in the 2ar can also be persuasive. For the neg, I am not going to be persuaded by your fairness standards generally. However, I am much more persuaded by using internal links like limits and dialogue to explain how the education you could have accessed in the debate was ruined by the affirmative. Use defense!! Make arguments like topical version of the aff and state redeemable. Allowing the aff to get away with hammering home that the state is irredemable is going to make the 2nr nearly impossible.

Have fun and e-mail me with any questions at chogan5@nd.edu! 

Sharon Hopkins

Occupation: High School U.S History Teacher
Past Affiliations: Director of Debate at University Prep HS in Detroit, MI & Assistant Debate Coach, University of Iowa

I am in my 8th year of coaching. I have had two teams clear at national tournaments including New Trier, Iowa Valley, University of Michigan, Glenbrooks, Scranton, Blake, & Lexington. Winner of the Berkeley Tournament in 2014 & the NAUDL Tournament in 2014 & 16. I have also had two teams qualify to the TOC and one Semi-Finalist.

Updated 4/21/18

The Topic
I am familiar with many of the arguments on this topic.

The Basics
A wise judge once said "Win what you are good at". Pretty much Anything goes as long as you understand what you are saying with the exception of "racism good". Debate is about critical thinking and often times teams rely solely on the cards and not the merits/effects of the policy and their understanding of them. Argumentation outweighs evidence. I prefer that you explain arguments thoroughly through your own understandings rather than reading a bunch of cards. If an argument is explained well, it will be given just as much weight as a card. I believe in persuasian over tech. With that being said, I rarely call for cards after the round. I prefer for debaters to debate it out, and not to construct my own story after the round.

In your rebuttals, you must do a good job of framing the debate. I don't like to have to nitpick my flow to decide what's important & should be voted on. You need to tell me which side I should vote for and why its your side

Paperless
No prep time for flashing but ABSOLUTELY be quick about it.

Speed
Slow down on the tags. If you spread through them and I can't flow them, this can be detrimental to your speaks and the overall round.

Topicality

I will vote for it but it is not my favorite debate especially if the aff is clearly topical. If you run T, you need to really explain the standards, not just re-read them.

CP's

CP's must solve the harms of the affirmative or I won't vote on it. If you run a PIC, the net benefit must be explained well and extended throughout the debate.

DA's
Have a good link story and impact it throughout the round.
Politics DA's- I find it difficult to evaluate these debates especially when the link is flimsy & the impact scenario is far-fetched & very much removed from reality.

Theory
Most of these debates are a wash except for Perf Con.

Kritiks

I really like to listen to a good K debate where the Kritik is explained in laymen's terms. In addition, the links need to be specific or you need to explain how the aff's methodology, reps, etc links to the K. If you take this route, your burden becomes more difficult but is still winnable.

Critical Affs
Aff-I'm your judge.
Neg-Have an inclusive framework and respond to case directly.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye... A Word About Performance "A project is a temporary endeavor with a defined beginning and end (usually time-constrained, and often constrained by funding or deliverables),undertaken to meet unique goals and objectives, typically to bring about beneficial change or added value."Based on this definition every 1AC is a project. In addition, not all performance teams are the same. Some critique debate itself. Others critique the resolution, some critique the government, while others have a plan text or advocacy statement that is a policy implementation, the performance is just the method in which debaters make their arguments more inclusive or put simply, makes it more interesting for a 16 year old to incorporate what they like into what they love. The best teams find a way to make their performance a discussion of the topic. I have seen some of the best critical thinking happen in these rounds where young people really found there voices. I do think that this argument should be accepted just as any other, and over time it will be, just as the Kritik was a taboo in the beginning, but is now commonplace. Teams need to be prepared for this type of argument just as they would any other, and not just read framework. They must actually interact with the effects of the advocacy.

*This does not mean just because you run a critical affirmative or performance that I will automatically vote for you. If you drop util arguments and such, I will vote accordingly.

If you have any questions, please ask before the round. Ultimately, be nice to each other, learn, and have fun. Everything else is secondary.

Short Version of Everything Below: Everything you say and extend should have a warrant. Line- by-line should include a comparison of the evidence (warrants, authors, descriptive v proscriptive, quality) in addition to the fact that the card answers what your opponent said. Impact each argument. Give me a reason to care that you just spent 15 seconds extending that card. I would prefer a policy round, but I will vote on any argument as long as it is explained sufficiently and impacted. Organization and clash on T, Frwk, and Theory is important if you want me to vote on it. I'm a stickler for prep time. I will ask you to take your hands off the computer when no prep time is running just in to limit the appearance of taking prep.  

Disads: I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). I think it is difficult for the aff to win no risk of the DA happening (if the negative answers all the aff args).  When I debated, I was a 2N and I went for a CP and P-Tix in most rounds.

                Intrinsicness- I really hate this argument. Very little neg theory on this is required. That being said, I have voted aff multiple times on intrinsicness.

Counter-plans: The only rules are that the CP should be competitive and have a net benefit. The net benefit can be an entire disad or a solvency deficit. I am not bias against any CP.

Framework: Absent any discussion of framework by the debaters, I default to a consequentialist and policy-making framework. Given framework, I will vote under any framework you provide me. I will evaluate framework prior to any other off-case arguments that it might affect (everything but topicality and theory) so if either team’s framework excludes the other, you have to win it to be able to weigh your impacts.

Kritiks: The framework stuff above is important to how I evaluate the K. In general, the world of the alternative needs to look different than the Status Quo. The aff needs to have some ground (the world post-alt) to attack. I am swayed by realism so neg will need to do a little more work on this to prove their alt will solve the link. Structure is the same on Ks as they are on any other flow. I do not like the trend of going in whatever order is most convenient for the neg block by giving me signposting of titles of arguments (on the perm, now onto the alt, on the link debate.) Remember that Line-by-Line follows the 2AC order.

Topicality: I dislike having to vote on T because it is usually sloppy. If you make it clear (possibly provide a neg block overview and then actually go line-by-line on the 2AC args), I actually like voting on T.  If the 2NR is going to go for it, do so for the entire 5 minutes of the 2NR. I think potential abuse is just as bad as in-round abuse.   I default to competing interpretations as a better way of evaluating a T debate. Affs will have to do a little more work if they want to win reasonability arguments, but I usually default to the aff on T if I think the neg standards are poorly articulated. Impact your offense.

Theory: Clash is important. Impacts of each subpoint should be compared to the opponent’s impacts. Theory is cumulative. I do not evaluate each subpoint as an independent voter. For both T and theory, there is a structure (the same as any other argument). It follows whoever spoke second.

Speaker Points Rubric

24-25: Reserved for inappropriate conduct

26: Major tactical errors (dropping key args, poor clash or warranting, organization, argument relations/ strat conflicts)

27: Minor tactical errors

28: Problems with technique (embedded clash, comparative analysis, resolving micro-debates)

Low 29s: Skillfull technique

High 29s: Nearly perfect speech (May have minor time allocation problems resulting in slightly undercovering 1-2 args but still maintained ability to resolve micro-debates/ put in larger context of the round.)

30: I literally cannot think of anything that could have been done better

Getting my PhD at Wayne State University in communication studies. Competed at Wayne State, qualified to the NDT twice. Assistant coach for West Bloomfield High School’s public forum and IE team.

Include me on emails chains please: DouglasAHusic@gmail.com

I flow on paper, please give me pen time. Start slower and settle into top speed instead of missing parts early on. I care about clarity more than who reads a few more cards. CX is a speech, I flow it in every debate format. I rarely follow along with docs.

Non-important old man yelling at cloud moment: The 1ac is an opportunity for free speaker points and sets the tone for the debate, a lot of people sound like they don't practice reading it.

----

Whoever controls the framing of how to evaluate offense in a debate generally wins my ballot. This is universally true for all argument styles and debate formats. I am very flow dependent. Specifics listed below, but absolute defense is a hard sell absent drops, strategic concessions, or the argument was poorly constructed to begin with.

Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity first and foremost driven by student research. As a debater research was my favorite part of the activity so I certainly appreciate quality evidence production on unique and different arguments. Communication surrounding the importance of evidence is most relevant to how I evaluate it at the end of the debate. A great card that is undersold and not explained and applied may get my appreciation when you bring it to my attention in the post-round, but absent you directing me to the significance of that evidence or why I need to read it won't be important to my ballot. If it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t register for my decision, and, if the warrant is on my flow and uncontested, it won’t matter if the evidence supporting it is weak. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the lengths many of my peers turn to the docs to verify claims that in my mind are just not being debated. If your arguing on the line by line in no way questions the other team's characterization of evidence, I will never go on a fact finding mission.

I expect debater's to make relevant issues on evidence known in the debate.

Debater's should answer arguments.

You don't get to walk-back win conditions you establish that are conceded.

Thoughts on framework:

Full transparency I went for this argument for the majority of my career as a debater as a one-off position, and can be compelled that there should be some limit on the topic for the purpose of predictable negative ground. So take that for what you will.

However, I am also highly sympathetic given my personal pedagogical and research interests as a scholar of alternative interpretations of the resolution for the purposes of interdisciplinary/undisciplined debates. Teams that have a well thought out counter interpretation and vision for what their model of debate looks like are often in a strategically good place for my ballot. In my mind a counter interpretation provides a useful avenue for resolving both sides offense and is often a place where I wish the negative invested more time in the block and 2nr.

That being said, I have been persuaded by affirmative teams who impact turn framework without a counter interpretation. Iterations of this argument which have been persuasive to me in the past include critiques of predictability as a means to actualize clash, critiques of fiats epistemic centrality to clash/fairness/education, arguments which emphasize styles of play over notions of fairness for the game, as well as impact turning the rhetorical performance of framework.

A frequent line in decisions I vote aff on framework, "I think the negative is winning a link on limits explosion, but has underdeveloped the internal link between limits to clash/fairness/epistemic skills as an impact, and furthermore that impact's relationship to the way the aff has framed insert X DA or X impact from the 2ac overview on case is never once articulated". I'm a big believer in if you want to say T/framework is engagement you should actually engage the language and impacts the aff has presented, I will not fill in these connections for you because you say "praxis or debate is key to activism".

Teams over-emphasize the TVA without fully developing the argument. A core dilemma for the negative in round's I judge is the TVA's interaction with affirmative themes, performances, and theories remain superficial and surface level at best. Even when a great piece of evidence is read by the negative, it is an error in execution for the negative to rely on the judge to resolve these connections. My threshold for the TVA being "sufficient" is often higher then my peers. Given the value of the TVA as a way to resolve affirmative offense it is a spot where I think the negative must dig deep(ala Jeff Probst from Survivor) to put themselves ahead in a debate. There are many ways the negative can do this effectively, but all require a more thorough incorporation of the TVA from the onset of your strategy. It's bad form and a missed opportunity when the negative refuses to give an example/or doesn't know of a TVA in C-X of the 1nc. I'm a believer that there is a benefit in the negative block introducing other TVAs in the negative block, The 2nc should tie TVA's to performances, impact arguments, and theories of the 1ac. Saying you could have talked about X thing as a performance instead often falls flat. Do research pre-round or pre-tournament into the artefacts of the 1ac, be creative, you can incorporate them I believe in you.

I am also not a particularly good judge for negative impact explanations which rely on the assumption that the values of research/clash/fairness/iteration are inherent/exclusive benefits of a limited model. The negative often debates in front of me operating from the assumption the aff will win none of their offense or has abandoned these values in their entirety, this is both a bad move and often just a blatant mischaracterization of aff debating. An example with iterative testing. A premise which is hard to dislodge me from: all research is iterative, full-stop. Even when the aff has no counter interpretation, their research practices and argumentative styles are iterative because they build upon previously written research and arguments. This means arguments like iterative testing require more specificity in their explanation. The framing of "Only the negative model allows room for teams to refine arguments to third and fourth level" often rings hollow because it is more descriptive of the strategic incentives to develop arguments over the course of a season (which likely exist in any research activity), and not describe the actual benefit of the style of iteration of your model. A more persuasive iteration impact to me focuses on the question of quality and utility of each models style of iteration, tending more to questions like: is there an insurgent/epistemic benefit to maximizing iteration of state based politics vs negative critique? Instead of saying "the aff always goes for the perm in K v K debates," delve into questions of how affirmative models might distort the capaciousness of K v K debate? Or shutdown debates that are meaningful in the literature through standards and practices of debate's offense/defense paradigm? Are there moments where the aff contradicts their model or counter interp performatively? What is the significance of these contradictions? Are there potentially negative effects of the aff model for subjectivity? All of this is really my way of pleading with you burn the blocks of your predecessor, make some new arguments, read a book, do something.

Creativity and negative argument development on framework has plateaued.

You all sound the same.

I will be extremely frustrated if you opt to go for framework over any argument that is clearly well-developed and clashes with the aff that they blow off. There are many rounds where the 2nr decision to go for framework shocks me given 1ar coverage. Don't include A+ material if you are not prepared to go for it.

K’s vs Policy teams:

I’m a fan. I like when there is a lot of interaction with the case. I'm an ok judge for specific philosophical criticisms of the plan. I'm a substantially worse judge for "you defend [use] the state." The alternative tends to be the focus of my decision (is it competitive, what does it do to resolve the links, etc). I'm a pragmatist at heart, I believe in real-world solutions to problems and I'm often persuaded that we ought to make the world a better place. How your alternative deals with affirmative attacks of this genre matters a lot to me. I've voted for more pessimistic or alt-less Ks, but, again, mostly due to technical errors by the affirmative. I find myself caring less about alternative solvency when the negative team has spent time proving to me that the aff doesn’t solve their impacts either.

Aff teams are most successful when they have a clear approach to the theme of the negatives K from the 1ac. Either be the impact turn alt doesn’t solve team --- or be the link turn plus perm team --- wishy washiness just gets the aff into more trouble then its worth often allowing the negative a lot of narrative control on what the aff is or isn’t about.

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

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. You're better served making arguments which elevate the importance of the impacts you've described and undercutting the ability of the aff to resolve their own. I'm totally open to disproving the affirmative's model of predictions - I just think you have to do the work to have my skepticism outweigh their narrative. I don't think its a particularly hard sell for me when the work is done. But I rarely see teams engage the case enough to decrease risk.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go

DAs:

Links control the direction of the DA in my mind absent some explanation to the counter in the debate

You should invest neg block time into the link story (unless it's impact turned). A compelling link argument is very powerful, and can cover holes in your evidence. "Impact turns the case" is a bit overrated, because it normally lacks uniqueness. Not making the arg is a mistake, but banking on it can also be a mistake.

I miss straight impact turning and link turning strategies from aff teams.

Theory:

theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Performative contradictions matter less to me in the 1nc especially if they’re like a reps K (stuff like the Econ DA and Cap is more suspect). Performative contradictions carried through as a position in the block grinds my gears and should be talked about more. Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to.

New affs bad as a policy argument is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals:

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

Points - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style.

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

Ethics challenges brought up pertaining to fabrication or out of context evidence submitted into a round end the debate for me. If it is determined that the ev is fabricated or meaningfully out of context then the team who introduced the evidence receives a loss and the low end of my point scale.

1. Conflicts [as of 10/04/2020]

• No Univ of Chicago Lab
• No Iowa City

2. Short Version

• tech over truth
• strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
• prioritize your impacts
• have fun!

3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes

• Please slow down 5-10%. Emphasize your warrants. Without a microphone stem, your quality fluctuates. Keep in mind that I still flow on paper.
• Please get explicit visual or audio confirmation from everyone in the debate before beginning your speech. I may use a thumbs up to indicate I am ready.
• If my camera is off, unless I explicitly have told you otherwise, assume I'm not at the computer.
• If the current speaker has significant tech problems, I'll try to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument and timestamp.

4. Some Detail

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.

Nearing a decade ago, during would would have been the h.s. space topic. I started at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated NDT/CEDA Middle East/North Africa while judging a few debate rounds across the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.

Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.

I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.

I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.

I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.

I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

Director of Debate at The University of Michigan

General Judging Paradigm- I think debate is an educational game. Someone once told me
that there are three types of judges: big truth, middle truth, and little truth judges. I would
definitely fall into the latter category. I don’t think a two hour debate round is a search for
the truth, but rather a time period for debaters to persuade judges with the help of
evidence and analytical arguments. I have many personal biases and preferences, but I try
to compartmentalize them and allow the debate to be decided by the debaters. I abhor
judge intervention, but do realize it becomes inevitable when debaters fail to adequately
resolve the debate. I am a very technical and flow-oriented judge. I will not evaluate
arguments that were in the 2AR and 2AC, but not the 1AR. This is also true for
arguments that were in the 2NR and 1NC, but not in the negative block.

Counterplans/Theory- I would consider myself liberal on theory, especially regarding
plan-inclusive counterplans. Usually, the negative block will make ten arguments
theoretically defending their counterplan and the 1AR will only answer eight of them- the
2NR will extend the two arguments that were dropped, etc. and that’s usually good
enough for me. I have often voted on conditionality because the Aff. was technically
superior. If you’re Aff. and going for theory, make sure to answer each and every
negative argument. I am troubled by the recent emergence of theory and procedural
debates focusing on offense and defense. I don’t necessarily think the negative has to win
an offensive reason why their counterplan is theoretically legitimate- they just have to
win that their counterplan is legitimate. For the Aff., I believe that permutations must
include all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. I think the do the counterplan
permutation is silly and don’t think it’s justified because the negative is conditional, etc. I
do realize this permutation wins rounds because it’s short and Neg. teams sometimes fail
to answer it. On the issue of presumption, a counterplan must provide a reason to reject
the Aff. Finally, I think it’s illegitimate when the Aff. refuses to commit to their agent for
the explicit purpose of ducking counterplans, especially when they read solvency
evidence that advocates a particular agent. This strategy relies on defending the theory of
textual competition, which I think is a bad way of determining whether counterplans
compete.

Topicality- When I debated, I commonly ran Affirmatives that were on the fringe of what
was considered topical. This was probably the reason I was not a great topicality judge
for the negative my first few years of judging college debate. Beginning this year, I have
noticed myself voting negative on topicality with greater frequency. In the abstract, I
would prefer a more limited topic as opposed to one where hundreds of cases could be
considered topical. That being said, I think topicality often seems like a strategy of
desperation for the negative, so if it’s not, make sure the violation is well developed in
the negative block. I resolve topicality debates in a very technical manner. Often it
seems like the best Affirmative answers are not made until the 2AR, which is probably
too late for me to consider them.

Kritiks- If I got to choose my ideal debate to judge, it would probably involve a politics
or other disadvantage and a case or counterplan debate. But, I do realize that debaters get
to run whatever arguments they want and strategy plays a large role in argument
selection. I have probably voted for a kritik about a half of dozen times this year. I never
ran kritiks when I debated and I do not read any philosophy in my free time. Kritik
rhetoric often involves long words, so please reduce your rate of speed slightly so I can
understand what you are saying. Kritiks as net-benefits to counterplans or alternatives
that have little or no solvency deficit are especially difficult for Affirmatives to handle.
Evidence Reading- I read a lot of evidence, unless I think the debate was so clear that it’s
not necessary. I won’t look at the un-underlined parts of cards- only what was read into
the round. I am pretty liberal about evidence and arguments in the 1AR. If a one card
argument in the 1NC gets extended and ten more pieces of evidence are read by the
negative block, the 1AR obviously gets to read cards. I think the quality of evidence is
important and feel that evidence that can only be found on the web is usually not credible
because it is not permanent nor subject to peer review. I wish there would be more time
spent in debates on the competing quality of evidence.

Cheap Shots/Voting Issues- These are usually bad arguments, but receive attention
because they are commonly dropped. For me to vote on these arguments, they must be
clearly articulated and have a competent warrant behind them. Just because the phrase
voting issue was made in the 1AR, not answered by the 2NR, and extended by the 2AR
doesn’t make it so. There has to be an articulated link/reason it’s a voting issue for it to
be considered.

Pet Peeves- Inefficiency, being asked to flow overviews on separate pieces of paper, 2NRs that go for too much, etc.

Seasonal voting record:

General:
I'm a big advocate of comparative impact analysis and what I mean by that is explaining your impacts not just in relation to the affirmatives but reasons for why your arguments turn their impacts or come first or any other consideration you think gives me a reason to vote for you. At the end of the day the surest way to get my ballot is to do a better job explaining why I should vote for you compared to the reasons the other team is giving me. The team that does the better job of framing the debate usually wins.

Topicality:
Not my favorite argument, but am open to hearing the debate. I'm open to reasonability or competing interpretations. I don't have an image of what is and what is not topical and than bring some bias from that in, I will only evaluate from a tech perspective on this debate, which means if an aff is horrible for the topic and explodes limits but you argue that in an ineffective manner than you will lose. If you deserve to win the debate I will vote for you, no matter my feelings on topicality.

Theory:
Theory is fine, I'll vote for anything from Condo to Process CP theory if you do a good job explaining it. Make sure you are doing comparative analysis as well as impact explanation.

Kritiks:
I think that most K teams do the bare minimum with the argument and would not get my ballot because they rely on generic links and don't give specific applications. You should always make sure to explain the thesis of your K as well as your link arguments in detail.

CP's
A good specific CP to the aff is always a great debate. Just make sure to explain the difference between the CP and the Aff if it is a confusing one (e.g. you don't need to explain the consultation process in great detail if you read a consult CP, we all get it, it's consult).
DA's
These are fine. Politics, plan based DA's, whatever. The internal link and impact parts of the debate are the most important to me, do this well and you will be rewarded. 

Former GBS debater. My views on the activity have changed significantly over the past few years that I've been only marginally involved in the activity. I see debate as a fun way to learn how to communicate, test theories, think strategically, etc. - it's a game and a competition, sure, but the real value from the activity comes from what you learn and who you meet.

1. Speak clearly.

-I will reward you for being clear, I will deduct points if you aren't. Being comprehensible is part of being "good" at debate, which is a game about effective communication.

2. Topicality will be a hard sell.

-I don't know anything about this topic, thus I don't know what affs should reasonably be read under this topic. That being said, if you provide a compelling reason why the aff is untopical, I am more than willing to vote on that.

3. Tech over truth.

-A dropped argument is a true argument regardless of how bad it is.

4. A good analytic is worth more than a mediocre card.

-I will vote for a smart analytic.

5. Save your 5 sentence nonsense K tags for Stack Exchange.

-Make your tags something that I can actually flow. I can guarantee you that Baudrillard says nothing that substantive, nor do 95% of the high-theory K's you intend to read.

6. Do NOT be hostile.

7. Read whatever you want.

-The only caveat to this is that I'm not well-versed in high theory Ks, so reading them with me as the judge is a gamble unless you can explain them as simply as you can.

-And although I tend not to like no-plan affs, the USFG under Trump isn't really fit to do much so I understand why you wouldn't want to use them as an actor. In other words, defend something stable on the aff so that the neg can actually clash with what you're saying.

8. I will not rep out. I will not do work for you.

-I don't know who you are, I don't care how good you think you are, and I don't care how well you've done in the past: if you lose the round you will lose the round. Following this train of logic, I don't care how good the arguments you make are. If you don't explain to me how they interact with other arguments and how they help you win the round then I'm not sure how to evaluate them.

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

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

How to get high speaker points and win my ballot:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

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

I use he/him pronouns.

Last updated: 1/31/2024

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

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

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

Top level things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I decide debates:

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

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

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

Other misc things:

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

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

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

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

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

I do not follow along with speech docs during debates.

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

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

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

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

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

Some specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Challenge Addendum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey y’all!

Westlake '14
Michigan State '18

Email: briana.lewis327@gmail.com
Overview.

I am open to judging many different styles of debate but that does not mean I am willing to listen to foolishness. If you are reading an argument that is silly, please don’t.

Full disclosure: I am not in a place where I can hear arguments as to why death would be good. These won’t work for me emotionally or academically. Generally, arguments that talk about death/suicide make me uncomfortable at this time. But that doesn’t preclude me from evaluating impacts like war, nukes, or famine etc.

Specifics

I’m a person who prefers promptness on the part of the debaters and will work to eliminate down time during the debates.

In my personal academic work I study literature at the intersection of race, gender, and economic systems. Thus, I am most comfortable on those terms but I can read and pick up things quickly. This is my first tournament on this topic. Please be mindful of that. I do not know the acronyms. I am not familiar with topic short hand.

If you are advocating for policy options or critical approaches to the topic, you better be able to defend why.

i have debated with a plan and not. Both are fine.

With me it’s always better to fully describe your arguments rather than to quickly rush past something. I’ll let you know if you’ve been talking about something too long.

I prefer to hear what you say rather than marvel at how “fast” you think you are. I can follow debates at any speed however clarity is key.

I’ll give you commentary at the end of the round like standard and you can always email me with questions later.

For Policy Debate:

I started my debate career probably long before your parents met, much less before you were born. I was a Prosecuting Attorney under Janet Reno and still practice occasionally when I'm not teaching or at debate tournaments. I prefer and my expertise is in policy round argumentation but I can be convinced to vote for critical argumentation when done correctly. Barring tournament rules, Flash time is not prep. Email speech docs. Points are between 28-30, barring bizzarro argumentation, presentation or decorum (This does not include personal narratives or performance arguments with a purpose - they are fine). If you speak (debate) worse than the other debaters in a Round, you will get lower points. Quick and clear is OK. Unclear is not. I will let you know at least once - then it's up to you. I will read evidence in a close debate when I think it is at issue because cards exceedingly often don't prove what they are being offered to prove. You have to point it out unless I think the claim is outlandish.

For LD:

See the above. I was a policy debater. So LD theory which deviates from policy may be lost on me. You've been warned. Critiks and CPs are ok. So are theory args against them. Standard frameworks which stifle all critical debate won't fly. Tell me why your framework should be applied in this debate.

Leandra Lopez

Background:
Debated at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart (4 years), University of Miami (3 years) and University of Mary Washington (1 year)

Debate thoughts:
The affirmative should read and defend a topical plan that is an example of the current resolution. Advantages should stem from the theoretical passage of that plan. Certainly, it is the burden of the negative to make persuasive arguments for why this is true.

Topicality and conditionality are reasons to reject the team. Other theory arguments are typically reasons to reject the argument.

Critiques should link to the plan, as opposed to the advantages. Alternatives typically have serious competition problems and solvency deficits. The more the negative does to deal with these issues, the better.

If the 2NR goes for a CP or a critique, I assume the status quo is not an option unless the 2NR specifies otherwise.

Evidence quality over quantity.

Flow.

Arguments I do not want to hear:
-Death is good.
-Communism is good.

Please be respectful – of your opponents, your partner, the judge, the classroom.

If you have questions, feel free to ask. For questions or the email chain - leandrallopez@gmail.com

Debate Experience:

2011-2014: Policy Debater at Notre Dame High School

2014-2015: Policy Debater at the University of Michigan

2015-2018: Executive Director of Detroit Urban Debate Education (which included judging and coaching for Detroit Urban Debate League schools in Policy)

Overview:

I currently work at the University of Chicago Crime and Education Lab — an urban social science research organization — evaluating youth-based violence prevention and academic programs. I also studied criminology intensively as a Sociology student on a Law, Justice, and Social Change sub-track at the University of Michigan. This experience often involved going into local correctional facilities firsthand to discuss incarceration, state violence, and policing with individuals who were incarcerated. Based on what I learned there and my current work at the Crime Lab, you can assume I have a baseline understanding of the major policy issues and social theory in the criminal justice field. Still, while I have probably judged over a hundred debate rounds, I am not currently active in the debate community. Do not assume I am caught up on all topic-specific arguments. Please be clear.

Please use Speech Drop instead of emailing me speeches.

A note on virtual Debate:

Virtual debate, as is the case for all remote activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, is inherently biased towards certain people. Access to and knowledge of technology is a privilege. Unfortunately, even for those who have the technology, having a safe space to join Zoom rounds is also a privilege. I hope to recognize technological disparities and the collective trauma caused by the pandemic in my judging by being reasonable, empathetic, and flexible. If there is anything that I can do to make the virtual round more accessible to you please do not hesitate to let me know.

Generally, I will incorporate these norms during virtual debates:

- If possible, I would appreciate it if you had your video on, but I know this is not possible for everyone. My RFD and speaker point assignment will not change based on your video being off.

- Unless otherwise mandated by the tournament, I will incorporate 10 minutes of "tech time" for troubleshooting issues. Please do not abuse this time. It is NOT the same as prep time.

- Please try and show up to your round as early as possible. In the virtual world, it is harder to ensure everyone is accounted for and that the 1AC starts on time, so this is one way to help.

- If there is a tech issue that occurs during your speech for longer than 3-5 seconds, I will interrupt and try to troubleshoot with you in the moment. This time will not be taken out of your speech.

- Everyone should be on mute at all times except for the people currently speaking.

Philosophy:

I try as much as possible to evaluate based on the arguments in the round. While I obviously hold implicit biases for or against certain arguments, I try as hard as possible to not let that impact my decisions. I have experience debating, coaching, and judging critical- and policy-oriented rounds. I wouldn't call myself swayed toward one side or the other.

That being said a couple of notes:

- Bad arguments are bad. If your argument is illogical — for example, reading a disadvantage without a link in the 1NC or your evidence not making the warrants needed to uphold your argument — then I will likely not want to vote for it. It will not be hard for the other team to convince me otherwise. While I do not want to vote for a bad argument, that does not mean the opposing team can just ignore it.

- I am willing to vote against my own beliefs and the burden to persuade me is on both teams. However, I don't tolerate obvious hateful/rude arguments or behavior. Everyone deserves to feel safe in this activity.

- I tend to end up using a cost-benefit analysis to help me make decisions: Quantifying the risk of all impacts, seeing if the logic or warrants behind the impact uphold or minimize that risk, incorporating how much the other team's defense minimizes that risk (or thumps the impact all-together), and comparing this analysis for each impact. It is not uncommon for me to literally graph out how probable I find each impact to be (plus or minus the defense from each team) before an RFD as a decision making tool. I can't begin to tell you how many debates I have judged where one team won simply because the other team forgot to extend defense. All of this being said, I will incorporate any role of the ballot arguments accordingly, even if it means not using this decision making framework. This is simply my norm, but certainly not the overarching rule.

For novice debaters, the following acts will result in an increase of speaker points: flowing every speech, communicating with your partner, not talking over your partner, not talking into your computer, using up all of your time in cross-ex asking questions, giving the evidence you read to the other team efficiently, and keeping track of your own time (I will keep track too, but it's a good behavior to start).

Feel free to ask me questions before/after the round.

I am fairly new judge and find myself generally apathetic towards many things, as such I have very few strong opinions about most topics usually covered in these pages.

I debated for 4 years at Dexter High School and currently debate at Wayne State University

At Dexter I read exclusively traditional policy affs and at Wayne both traditional policy aff and more left affs.

I may make faces during the round that may either mean that I am not a fan of what you are doing or I am tired and cursing myself for getting out of bed that morning. Regardless don't let that deter you from "doin' you."

Short version:

Do whatever you want (there are exceptions dictated below), explain it well, tech over truth, and if both sides have similar qualities of evidence I default to spin.

Longer version:

As an important note to begin that while these opinions may influence how I perceive and think about the round, they are not the end of the discussion. I will do my best to evaluate the round as it happened based on my flow. Just do whatever it is that you want to do, your goal is to convince me that your line of argumentation is best and that as a result I should vote for you.

I tend to default to an Offense/Defense paradigm due to reasons of laziness, however I tend to think it is not a particularly useful way of thinking about things. A simplified version of what I think may be better is to consider risk. This involves a threshold where I think that sufficient defense can convince that something is just as likely not to happen as it is to happen. Slightly more bluntly, a reasonable to high risk of a non extinction event can outweigh a low to minuscule risk of extinction. This also means that with sufficient defense, a more nebulous ontological impact can outweigh even the aff's "seven extinctions."

Case -

Love big case debates - perhaps my favorite strategy while debating is the super specific case turn or the generic but classic impact turn - these debates show off your research, indepth topic/aff knowledge, and are super clash heavy. Pulling this off successfully is to me very impressive. For the aff - I expect y'all to understand the strategy of your aff - I am sure that you put together the 1ac the way you did for a reason, now use it throughout the rest of the debate. My single pet peeve on this front is when 2As just read a large block of text to extend their entire 1ac rather than taking the opportunity to point out strategic points like concessions or flow interactions/tricks - unless you are making good strategic arguments or nuances this overview extension is probably just on my flow as "extend 1ac." Other than that I assume that y'all will just be doing whatever it is you normally do so just do it well.

T v. USFG Plan Action -

I have not really judged many rounds where an attempt was made to turn T into a viable strategic option. In the instance that some attempt was made, it has been too surface level. Given that I haven't seen many of these debate really play out, I don't know exactly what I find compelling - I think that the impact portion of the T debate should be handled much like a disad. You have internal links to an impact based on an interpretation of a word/s of the resolution. This is basically always Fairness or Education in some form. K's of T are fine is handled along the lines of my other thoughts on Kritiks. In this instance though a way I am probably more persuaded by an explanation of how the Kritik of their interpretation affects their Fairness and Education claims.

Also here are one of the above exceptions to the "Do whatever you want" rule - NEVER attempt to make T a RVI (you smirk, you laugh, but enough have tried it in front of me that I feel the need to mention this), the aff has the burden to prove that they are topical is the neg brings it up - I am leaning toward the not even requiring negs to answer it - you will lose speaks, end of discussion.

T v. Not USFG Plan Action -

Similar story as above but I tend to err aff as most neg teams seem to be too whiny or simply lack sufficient defense to aff offense - I find that the most compelling args have to do with policy simulation (not roleplay) good and am potentially willing to buy a big fairness push if it moves beyond the usual tagline "but it is unpredictable and makes it impossible to be neg," this will also require that you answer any access arguments the aff may have. Agonism based Framework arguments are also becoming something that I tend to agree with, but I am still trying to organize my thoughts about this.

In the instance that the aff chooses to K the negs interp, I simply ask that you impact it in a way that makes sense for a procedural question of "whether this debate ought to have occurred." (Yes obvious, but again teams have read them and never explained why it actually answers the negs interp).

Ks -

I have begun to enjoy these debates more now that I am out of high school - I still am not a perfect judge for these debates given that I am not super well read in the various literature - I do know some of it, but it would be better if you assume that I don't get it and then explain arguments rather than blast through with buzz words and other jargon. I tend to think that the neg is well suited by using specific parts of the aff speeches and evidence to help their link/impact story. Framework is very important for both sides, I am lazy, so with out it I find that I default to "well extinction is super bad and stuff." I also can be fairly easily convinced that the K doesn't need to prove that it solves all of the real world issues of X but that it is a better understanding of X and proves that the aff doesn't access said good stuff thus the aff should lose.

DAs -

Super awesome - I think the Link and Internal Link are the most important and often under-utilized part of the debate (I have certainly been guilty of this myself). Not much else to say, I think.

CPs -

Also pretty great - I tend to think that most CPs are fine, this however depends on the topic/aff. CPs like Word PICs and the "Do the aff minus 1 person/penny" are also usually stupid/probably illegitimate. Specific literature goes a long way toward proving CP legitimacy in my mind, at least in terms of Consult and Conditions CPs. In terms of other sorts of questionably legitimate CPs I don't really have many thoughts but in general the further away from aff/topic specific literature the more accepting of aff theory/perm legitimacy I become.

In terms of competition I don't have a ton of thoughts assuming for all other intents and purposes that the CP is legitimate. I think that it is burden of the neg to prove a meaningful opportunity cost to voting aff, which means y'all definitely have to win something more than just a nebulous "solves enough of the aff and I guess makes a sad child slight less sad."

Theory -

I think one or two conditional options are acceptable, any more and I am more receptive to theory arguments. This is magnified if they contradict. Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument or a justification for some other potentially objectionable argument. However conditionality is always a reason to reject the team, the "reject the arg not the team" is nonsensical to me.

Misc -

I really don't want to be at all responsible for timing anything - time yourselves, be honest, I will be upset if have to find a timer or use my phone's timer (it kind of sucks)

Ethics stuff - less serious, stealing prep, first time it is a warning then it comes out of your prep time (which the other team gets to time) and hurts your speaks - more serious, clipping and the like, I will not tape nor call you out on it. If the other team thinks you clipping they can challenge you on it, I will stop the round and ask for a recording and speech doc to determine the validity of the challenge. If I think that you are clipping (consistent, lines - not just you didn't say a word like "a") you will lose the round and recieve zero speaker points, and vis-versa if I think that you are not clipping.

Offensive actions or language or any other type of harassment will also not be policed by myself but the other team may ask to stop the round to address it. It can/should be remedied (in terms of the ballot) with an apology (also assuming it was not intentional/severity) - if the language continues then you may face consequences depending on severity of the action/language.

Be nice (or at least professional/courteous toward your partner and opponents), be smart, and have fun.

La Salle College HS:
Policy Debater 2004-2007
Head Coach of Policy Debate, 2012-2016
Head Coach of Speech and Debate, 2016-2023.

As of September 2023, I am no longer actively involved in coaching, but will still judge from time to time.

I have judged debate (mostly policy, but also LD/PF) since 2008. I no longer judge with regularity and while I am fine with speed, etc. I am no longer a judge who does any topic research.

General Debate Thoughts

Policy--------------X------------------------------K
Tech-----------------------------X----------------Truth
Read no cards------------------X-----------------Read all cards
Condo good----X--------------------------Condo bad
States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing------------X-----------------Politics DA not a thing
Always VTL-X--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL
UQ matters most--------------------------X------Link matters most
Fairness is a thing----X---------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact
Try or die-------------------------------X----------No risk
Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------I’ll just read the docs
Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground
Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption
Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev
"Insert this re-highlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

• You should do what you do best and do it well – I think I am a good judge in that I will allow the arguments to develop themselves, and take the responsibility of the judge being a educator seriously.
• I will not vote on any argument that makes me uncomfortable as an educator. You should ask yourself, if my teachers/administrators were observing, would I make this same argument?
• Speed is fine, but clarity is important. Most debaters could slow down, get more arguments out, and increase judges comprehension.
• Tech>truth; however, when you have tech and truth on your side, it’s hard to lose.

Updated 9-26-2013

Kevin McCaffrey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Value proof higher than rejoinder:

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

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

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

Incomprehensible value systems:

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

Email me:

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

Debated all 4 years in highschool mans did some debate at MSU I prefer policy options but if you decide to run a k just explain to me how the alt can solve and how the k is better than the aff I vote on topicality especially if it was dropped I’m really a laid back judge as long as everyone is having fun I think the round was successful

Liberty University '04-'08
Policy Debate Coach @ Theodore Roosevelt High School `14-`18

contact me via email at cpmccool at gmail dot com

Hello debaters, coaches, or other judges interested in my judge philosophy. I feel that the debate round is a unique environment where almost any argument can be utilized so long as it is justifiable. I say "almost any" because some arguments are highly suspect like "racism good" or "torture good". What I mean by "justifiable" is that the argument made, to me, becomes more persuasive when coupled with good evidence. What follows are my preferences on theory, Topicality, CPs, Kritiks/Performance, and Style.

Theory
I do not consider my mind to be tabula-rasa (i.e., blank slate). To me, the most persuasive theory arguments contain a claim, some support, and an impact. Just saying "voting issue" does not make it so - I need to be convinced that voting for your interpretation is justifiable, which means that I can cogently explain to the opposing team why they were deficient and should lose the round.

Topicality
See my comments on Theory. I like it when Neg can show that the Aff's interpretation is bad for debate. Like many other judges, I am annoyed by messy T debates. The side that clashes the most, organizes the T debate, and shows why their interpretation is better for debate will most likely win my ballot.

CPs
I am a huge fan of creative and competitive CPs. If Neg can give a couple of reasons why the CP solves better/faster than the Aff, I feel more comfortable finding that the net-benefit outweighs case. The perm is a test of competitiveness. I will not consider the perm a legitimate policy option unless there is some good evidence read to support it as such.

Kritiks/Performance
I think that Aff should have a written plan text, but does not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. Aff, if you think that USFG is bad, be ready to defend the theory onslaught by the Neg. I prefer the policy making framework, but understand the value of the K and Performance debate. The key for me is justification. Make sure you clash with opposing and show why voting for you is net-beneficial for debate.

Style
I do have some preferences regarding style that you should consider in order to obtain one or two extra speaker points from me: 1) Clarity outweighs speed - it's ok to spread your opponent, just make sure you pick the arguments you are winning and go for them in the rebuttals 2) I lean negative - I believe that Aff must thoroughly defend the plan. My standard is that it should be more probable than not that the plan is a good idea in order to vote Aff. 3) Civility and charm go further for me than pretension and hate. Being classy and focusing on the arguments and generally making everyone feel good during round are skills that are valuable and actually useful in the real world. 4) Have fun and enjoy this amazing sport! Energy can be communicated through your arguments and when it does, it makes me want to listen.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language.

General: Please respect me by not using graphic descriptions of violence or abuse in your argumentation - if you have a question about this I’m willing to talk to you before round. I will not vote for what I feel are morally repugnant arguments like “racism good,” “torture good,” or “death good.” Do not take me or my ballot hostage. Do not argue for a double loss or a double win.

Speed: I’d prefer you go slowly. Fewer cards often means more skill in argumentation.

LD and PF
I approach LD and PF rounds through the lens of policy debate. So LD or PF specific jargon, abbreviations, and tricks likely will not resonate with me. I want clear impacts and impact analysis. I do not like paraphrasing and I want clash. Lots of clash. I feel like at the end of a lot of rounds I've not be told how to weigh the two teams' impacts. So lots of clash is only good with lots of impact weighing. In LD, I generally do not know or understand your kritiks. So take the time to explain to me how your kritik interacts with your opponent’s case.

Policy Debate
I think policy debate is about whether or not the aff's plan/advocacy should happen.

Kritiks : I think that Affs should have a written advocacy statement, but they do not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. I prefer the policy making framework, but do have an appreciation for performance debate. Despite working for the NSDA, I think there are a lot of problems with debate as an activity/community. If you choose to kritik the institution of competitive debate, I appreciate arguments that are solutions-oriented.

Theory+ Topicality : I was a 2A so I have a residual aff bias when it comes to theory. For me to vote on T it must be proven that the aff’s interpretation is flawed and that abuse has happened in round. I have a hard time weighing different standards for theory and T - you need to do that work for me on the negative, if you don’t I will likely presume aff on T.

My Background
I work at the National Speech & Debate Association as the Leadership and Education Specialist. I have a theatre teaching degree, a master's in performance studies, and a master's degree in teaching English Language Learners. I am married to my former college teammate, Chase McCool, but we don't always agree on debate-things, so don't assume!

Pine Crest School Class of 2014
Northwestern University Class of 2018

I debated at Pine Crest and Northwestern. I am a student of the game and love argument innovation and the activity in general. I am thinking about debate an insane amount of time, especially during school, and hope that my dedication to the activity will be shown through my attentiveness in round. There are a few caveats if I am judging you discussed below but if you have any questions that aren’t answered there are a couple of steps you can take:

1. Look at other judging philosophies. The judges that I believe I am most similar to are: Jeremy Hammond (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Hammond%2C+Jeremy), Will Repko (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Repko%2C+Will) and Garrett Abelkop (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Abelkop%2C+Garrett). One of my favorite judges is jon sharp (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/sharp%2C+jon) though, so I’m not just influenced by MSU.

2. Ask me if you still can’t find anything. The question “what are your preferences” is annoying so be specific.

Meta-Judging Philosophy-
I believe that the purpose of the judge is to not only decide debates but to also decide what curriculum should be debated. Arguments such as timecube, dada and ashtar have little to no educational benefit. These can be adequately answered by saying “this is nonsensical and hasn’t disproven the aff” and moving on.

Absent the arguments above, there are a few things below that you should read if you are debating in front of me. I do think that tech is *very* important, but connections are as well. The point of a debate is to convince the judge to vote for you. The way that ethos are developed are by making connections with the judge. These are extremely good for speaker points as well.
At the same time, I default to tech over truth. If you win an argument/one is dropped even if it isn't the best then I will vote for you.

Clarity is more important than speed. Speed is measured in the number of arguments that the judge has on their flow, not how many words per minute you can speak.

When judging at round robins/tournaments with no prefs I will try to judge with as few predispositions as possible.
Judges usually give the 2AR too much leeway.

I lean more towards cards and believe that solid evidence and a good work ethic are two of the most important aspects in a successful debater.

A team that is caught cheating will be given zero speaker points and a loss. It is important for the other team to have a recording of the cheating team to decide the debate on this.
Paperless-
Prep time ends when the jump drive exits the computer of the debater giving the speech. I will be keeping track of prep but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t as well, keeping in mind that what I say goes. Not flowing is a terrible side effect of paperless and can be punished at my discretion.

Critical Affirmatives-
I ran them. I will listen to them. I will vote for them. I find these debates to be very interesting, but I hate when they become very personal/polemical to the point of putting everyone in the debate (including me) in an extraordinarily awkward or angry situation. If your argument is not based around identity I do think that you have an uphill battle on framework. This being said, I do enjoy affirmatives that defend topical action centered around a kritik. One example of this is the Cuban Hospitality aff.

Disadvantages-
I am a big fan of a good politics debate as well as any in depth disad debate. I find it hard, if not impossible, for the affirmative to defeat a disadvantage without a source of offense.

Impact calculus is very important when deciding any debate, and the more that you can get away from the traditional A. Magnitude, B. Probability, C. Timeframe model is better but only if you maintain the integrity of the arguments.

Counterplans-
Counterplans mitigate the risk of affirmative advantages against the disadvantage, and the 2NR should frame the debate in this way. I have found that without a solvency deficit to a counterplan the negative wins an astounding percentage of the time.
There is a debate as to what types of counterplans are acceptable in a debate, as well as what counterplans can fiat. I generally believe counterplans such as consult, conditions, recommendations, plan contingent counterplans or counterplans that compete off of certainty and immediacy are both abusive and not competitive. A counterplan should be both textually and functionally competitive, but this is up for debate and I can be persuaded otherwise. Competition is defined as both better than the plan and better than a combination of the plan and all or part of the counterplan.

Kritiks -
I believe that I am a much better judge for kritiks on the negative as opposed to the affirmative. Avoid falling into a debate about random buzzwords at all costs and engage the aff. I understand the technicalities of the kritik debate and am perfectly fine with the negative reading and going for kritiks such as Security, Lacan/Psychoanalysis, Cap (as well as most Zizek), Heidegger, Cuomo, Kappeler, Pan, Chaloupka, Spanos/Imperialism, Foucault/Biopower and Luke.
If you are not reading one of these kritiks know that I have read (a pretty decent amount of) K literature but do need clarifications if your argument is complex or different. Different kritiks that fall under this category are D&G (I do understand the argument, but am not in touch with the finer points of the debate), Hardt and Negri, Badiou, Baudrillard (I find this utterly not understandable, and, as one of my coaches said “if you think you understand it then you don’t understand Baudrillard), Zupanic, Bataille etc.

When debating either kritiks that I am familiar with or ones that I am not you should make the debate as specific as possible; I find that kritik debates often devolve into vague representations links or generic topic debates and would appreciate it if you can show how the affirmative specifically is an example of ___.
Ideologically, I do think the affirmative should get to weigh their aff, but am tech-oriented on the framework debate. Floating Pik’s are abusive. I do not understand why the negative can sever their reps from a DA but the aff can’t from their advantages.

Judge choice is an interesting argument but in a hypothetical instance that the affirmative reads 3 advantages, the negative k’s 2 and the aff says judge choice the negative should still weigh the comparative disadvantages of the 2 advantages vs. the advantage of the other 1.

Theory-
One conditional advocacy is usually not abusive. I think that ideological conditionality (1 CP and 1 K) is the best form. I can be persuaded that conditionality is bad for debate, especially if the negative reads more than 3 conditional advocacies. I feel that 3 conditional advocacies is playing with fire for the neg.

Reject the argument not the team applies to every theory argument except conditionality. Dropping subpoint 3- no neg fiat on the conditionality debate, or other similar cheap shot theory arguments are not a voting issue and I will give leniency to new answers.

Topicality-
The framework for evaluating topicality debates is an area where I lean towards competing interpretations. Affirmatives that are core of the topic often under-utilize precision combined with reasonability. I do not enjoy spec arguments.

Debate Coach - University of Michigan

Debate Coach - New Trier High School

Michigan State University '13

Brookfield Central High School '09

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

A few top level things:

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

Pet peeves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think debate is roleplaying.

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

Alex McVey - Director of Debate at Kansas State University

Yes Email chain - j.alexander.mcvey at gmail

Online things - Strong preference for Camera On during speeches and CX. I'm willing to be understanding about this if it's a tech barrier or there are other reasons for not wanting to display. But it does help me a ton to look at faces when people are speaking.

If I'm physically at a tournament and judging a debate with one online and one in-person team, I'm always going to try to be in the same room as the in-person team, if the tournament permits. Within those parameters, Zoom teams should let me know if there's anything I can do to make myself more present for them in that space. I respect what online debate has done to increase access for some teams, but I value in-person connection with debaters too much to go judge from an empty classroom or hotel room.

I flow on paper. I need pen time. Clarity is really important to me. I'll always say "clear" if I think you're not being clear, at least 1-2 times. If you don't respond accordingly, the debate probably won't end well for you.

I tend to be expressive when I judge debates. Nodding = I'm getting it, into your flow, not necessarily that it's a winner. Frowny/frustrated face = maybe not getting it, could be a better way to say it, maybe don't like what you're doing. I would take some stock in this, but not too much: I vote for plenty things that frustrate me while I'm hearing them executed, and vote down plenty of things that excite me when first executed. All about how it unfolds.

The more I judge debates, the less ev I'm reading,  the more I'm relying on 2nr vs 2ar explanation and impact calculus. If there are cards that you want me to pay attention to, you should call the card out by name in the last rebuttal, and explain some of its internal warrants. Debaters who make lots of "even if" statements, who tell me what matters and why, who condense the debate down to the most important issues, and who do in depth impact calculus seem to be winning my ballots more often than not.

Debating off the flow >>> Debating off of speech docs (ESPECIALLY IN REBUTTALS). I'd say a good 25% of my decisions involve the phrase "You should be more flow dependent and less speech doc dependent." Chances are very little that you've scripted before the debate began is useful for the 2nr/2ar.

My experience and expertise is definitely in kritik debate, but I judge across the spectrum and have been cutting cards on both K and Policy sides of the legal personhood topic. Run what you're good at. Despite my K leaning tendencies, I’m comfortable watching a good straight up debate.

Don't assume I've cut cards in your niche research area though. I often find myself lost in debates where people assume I know what some topical buzzword, agency, or acronym is.

Theoretical issues: Blippy, scatter-shot theory means little, well-developed, well-impacted theory means a lot. Again, pen time good.

I have no hard and set rules about whether affs do or don't have to have plans. Against planless/non-topical affs, I tend to think topicality arguments are generally more persuasive than framework arguments. Or rather, I think a framework argument without a topicality argument probably doesn't have a link. I'm not sure what the link is to most "policy/political action good" type framework arguments if you don't win a T argument that says the focus of the resolution has to be USFG policy. I think all of these debates are ultimately just a question of link, impact, and solvency comparison.

I tend to err on truth over tech, with a few exceptions. Dropping round-winners/game-changers like the permutation, entire theoretical issues, the floating PIC, T version of the aff/do it on the neg, etc... will be much harder (but not impossible) to overcome with embedded clash. That being said, if you DO find yourself having dropped one of these, I'm open to explanations for why you should get new arguments, why something else that was said was actually responsive, etc... It just makes your burden for work on these issues much much more difficult.

Be wary of conflating impacts, especially in K debates. For example, If their impact is antiblackness, and your impact is racism, and you debate as if those impacts are the same and you're just trying to win a better internal link, you're gonna have a bad time.

I intuitively don't agree with "No perms in a method debate" and "No Plan = No Perm" arguments. These arguments are usually enthymematic with framework; there is an unstated premise that the aff did something which skews competition to such a degree that it justifies a change in competitive framework. Just win a framework argument. That being said, I vote for things that don't make intuitive sense to me all the time.

I like debate arguments that involve metaphors, fiction, stories, and thought experiments. What I don't understand is teams on either side pretending as if a metaphor or thought experiment is literal and defending or attacking it as such.

A nested concern with that above - I don't really understand a lot of these "we meets" on Framework that obviously non-topical affs make. I/E - "We're a discursive/affective/symbolic vesting of legal rights and duties" - That... doesn't make any sense. You aren't vesting legal rights and duties, and I'm cool with it, just be honest about what the  performance of the 1ac actually does. I think Neg teams give affs too much leeway on this, and K Affs waste too much time on making these nonsensical (and ultimately defensive) arguments. If you don't have a plan, just impact turn T. You can make other defensive args about why you solve topic education and why you discuss core topic controversies while still being honest about the fact that you aren't topical and impact turn the neg's attempt to require you to be such.

RIP impact calculus. I'd love to see it make a comeback.

RIP performance debates that actually perform. My kingdom for a performance aff that makes me feel something.

Affs are a little shy about going for condo bad in front of me. I generally think Condo is OK but negatives have gotten a bit out of control with it.  I'm happy to vote for flagrant condo proliferation if the neg justifies it. I just don't think affs are making negs work hard enough on these debates.

Negs are a little shy about making fun of 1ac construction in front of me. Ex: K affirmatives that are a random smattering of cards that have little to do with one another. Ex: Policy affs where only 2 cards talk about the actual plan and the rest are just genero impact cards. I feel like negative's rarely ever press on this, and allow affirmatives to get away with ludicrous 2AC explanations that are nearly impossible to trace back to the cards and story presented in the 1ac. More 1nc analytical arguments about why the aff just doesn't make sense would be welcome from this judge.

In a similar vein, many affirmative plans have gotten so vague that they barely say anything. Negatives should talk about this more. Affs should write better plans. Your plan language should match the language of your solvency advocate if you want me to grant you solvency for what is contained in said evidence. I'm going to be trigger happy for "your plan doesn't do anything" until teams start writing better plans.

Debaters should talk more about the lack of quality the other team's evidence and the highlighting of that evidence in particular. If you've highlighted down your evidence such that it no longer includes articles (a/an/the/etc...) in front of nouns, or is in other ways grammatically incoherent due to highlighting, and get called out on it, you're likely to not get much credit for that ev with me.

Be kind to one another. We're all in this together.

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

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

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

The short version -

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

Specifics

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

Related thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affiliation- I am currently the policy debate coach at Perry High School. I debated at George Mason University from 2012-2016.

I use him/he pronouns

Please include me on the email chain: tmohney29@gmail.com

General notes- Honestly, do what you do best. I will evaluate any argument at the end of the round and will try to intervene as little as possible. I plea/beg/demand that you impact your arguments and give me warranted reasons to vote for you. Without impacting your arguments it will 1. Make me unhappy 2. Make the debate extremely difficult to judge.

Do not assume I know your argument.

I think debate should come down to who solves best and the impact.

DAs- There is nothing more I love than a good DA debate. Love a well deployed politics debate. If you read a DA make sure to explain the impact scenario(s) and why it turns the case. If you lose the uniqueness debate you will probably lose (uniqueness almost always controls direction of link). If you are Aff in front of my try to be sneaky! Things like having the 1ar straight turn the DA for the majority of the speech goes a long way for me. This will increase your speaker points.

Politics theory- really don’t like arguments like “vote no,” “fiat solves the link,” “intrinsicness”…but that doesn’t mean I wont vote on them. I find these arguments to be cheap shots but debate is a strategic game and if you are winning fiat solves the link I will probably vote for the winning argument.

Counterplans- I cool with most counterplans. Obviously, the more specific counterplan to the aff the happier I am. Counterplans that have internal net benefits are also better, I find them to be more strategic. CP + DA = perfect strat in front of me.

Kritiks- topic specific K’s are best; however, I love it when teams make a generic K specific to the aff. I am open to any kritik but you need to clearly explain the link, impact, and what the world of the alternative looks like. Both teams normally mishandle framework but I traditionally default to consequentialist policymaking paradigm…K DEBATERS DON’T MISREAD THIS. That is what I deault to when no framework is presented. I am open to hearing the framework debate (from both sides) and why each side doesn’t meet the others interp. Make sure to impact your framework arguments.

non topical affs -If you are going to read these in front of me the best thing to do is explain the importance of my ballot, and what voting for you does. Really enjoy clash of civs debates. I've read untopical aff's that dont defend a plan/resolution. totally down with this debate.

Topicality- I feel that T is a voting issue and comes before anything in the round, even theory. Make sure to explain why your interp is important and why the other teams interp is bad for debate. Teams need to spend more time on impact level of the debate.

Theory- I find them to be muddled and something that is only read so that the other team will drop it. I most likely will reject the argument and not the team. If the opponent concedes a theory argument you still need to explain the abuse, and reasons to reject the team.

Former Assistant Coach for Wayzata (2012 - 2016)
Experience: Debated for Wayzata (2009 - 2012), and on and off for University of Minnesota (2012 - 2016), Assistant Coach at University of Minnesota (2020)

ONLINE DEBATE

I understand this isn't exactly what every one was hoping for this season to look like, and I also recognize that most of us will be experiencing a new form of debate together--I am hoping that we will work together during rounds to ensure that the online video call debate experience goes smoothy. Please remember despite this being frustrating for some of you, this is an incredibly important movement to make debate more accessible to more members of the community.

On this note of online video call, I have some preferences:
1) Camera: If you are speaking, please keep your camera on. You may turn it off once your speech is over.
2) Volume: Be wary of your speaking volume. Some times mics don't pick up spreading well because of the volume changes. I struggle sometimes with flowing every single argument, so this is really really important to me.
3) Recordings: I know you all will be recording these rounds--I am uncomfortable with being recorded consistently during the round. We live in a very different world than before, and I want people to recognize that recordings will be leaked and edited. For that reason, I'd prefer not to be recorded for long periods of time. I recognize this is frustrating.

POLICY PARADIGM
1) Dropped Arguments -- They need a claim, warrant, and implication. You cannot just say they dropped and therefore it is true.

2) Impact calc, Impact calc, Impact calc. Please do it.

3) Tech > Truth - I interpret this as I will judge things as they go on the flow, not as how I think things should go. I try to intervene very little. Intervention sometimes, but only if something comes across / is problematic.

4) Flow Troubles -- I'm forthcoming about this, so please work with me! I still flow on paper, so there is nothing I love more than a structured flow. It will reflect in your speaker points. On clarity, I will say clearer three times before I give up flowing.

5) Email Chain - I always want to be on the email chain.

Some specifics:

1) Disads - case specific disads are fun-- I like them. I'm not particularly sure if I like politics at all, but I'll vote for it. I get exhausted by trump oriented conversation though...

2) Counterplans – Many are theoretically questionable, but affirmatives rarely push back on this. Substantive PICs are awesome – multi-actor object fiat is the worst. Everything else is somewhere in between. I care about what the perm looks like post fiat AND how it functions in round. Please explain it to me.

3) Framework – So I think I have changed opinions on the K since I started only judging clash rounds in recent years--and I have been surprised to learn that I tend to lean towards "a more inclusive form of debate is good". I often am pref'd by policy aff teams hoping for lenience in K debates, and I want to highlight that this isn't the wisest strategy given how many times I have voted against framework.

Despite this, I do believe that framework can be a compelling argument in front of me if read in a way that is specific and conscious about the round. Please keep this in mind.

4) Kritiks - I'm not k-illterate and tend to be able to wade through evidence pretty well, but I am not super familiar with the literature. Explain to me the specific link, impact, and alt action, and please explain it specifically. I want you to get detailed and nuanced, and explain the scope of the argument. I really want you to contextualize a specific link to the 1AC / 1NC / Topic literature.

What are more popular kritiks nowadays? Generic postmodernism is something difficult for me sometimes, but then again, I'll vote on many different things. Honestly, I'd prefer you to go to a little slower on this, which would reflect in your speaker points. I like topic-specific K’s. Neolib, imperialism, etc. are all very viable strategies in front of me, but they need to be applied specifically. I would also highly recommend extending case defense to bolster your K – the most common aff argument I vote on against K’s is “case outweighs”.

Off-beat note: Many years into debate, I still like small, soft policy, K-friendly topical affs which defend a small-ish impact, and critique disads / net benefits. I find this kind of debate refreshing. An aesthetic I can stan for.

5) Theory – conditionality is almost certainly good, unless it is way excessive, like 5 counterplans. I do however think that if the neg makes performative contradictions – for example, reads a security K and then a terrorism impact on a disad – it can be justification for the aff to sever their reps/judge choice. I do not default to judge kick unless told to do so.

Finally, I hate wipeout, I think the argument is gross and irresponsible, and I'd appreciate if you don't read it in front of me.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM

I will evaluate the debate using skills from policy -- technical debate will be had!

he/him

Coach at Michigan State University 2019-

Coach at Wayne State University 2010-2019

Debater at Wayne State University 2006-2009

Debater at Brother Rice HS 2000-2004

BruceNajor@gmail.com

--

Below is a compilation of thoughts. Some are argument related, some are decision-making related. I update it periodically to keep it fresh, but nothing important has changed since you last read this.

-General-

- I used to judge 80+ debates a year, and now I probably judge less than 20. As with anything, skills atrophy, and I find that I'm a bit slower in terms of argument processing, both in real time and in decision time. It would behoove you to narrow the debate and explain the winning arguments as early as the negative block, treat the 1AR like a rebuttal, not a 3AC, and make connections on the line x line, instead of emailing me a plethora of cards and expecting me to sort it out.

- I flow. I don't follow the speech doc while you're talking. If you are unclear I won't be able to get what you say down and I won't vote on it.

- Slightly more truth > tech than the median judge. Once indicts are made your rejoinder burden grows depending on the strength/weakness of the original argument. Bad arguments can lose to bad arguments. Your argument got what it deserves.

- I value my decision time, and I'd hope you do too. Judges normally get around 30 minutes assuming everything in the round ran promptly. This is not an unreasonable amount of time, but ask yourself if the minute(s) it takes to get that marked copy before CX, or the "econ decline doesn't cause war" card before starting prep > subtracting those minutes from decision time. Please be prompt in making and sending a post-round doc.

- I carry the try-or-die flag higher than anyone else in the judge pool. I find I get sat on this argument more than any other. This probably won't bother you on a panel, but may be a tad more frustrating in a prelim debate. Ensuring that the world you're advocating for has a chance at sustainability is important. This isn't applicable to how I think about impacts generally (see below), rather, I think of it as a win condition of the game. If voting for you means there's a 100% chance of everyone dying, but voting for the other team means there's a 1% chance of everyone staying alive you lose, regardless of solving an impact. I'm open to teams who find themselves in a try-or-die trap arguing for rejecting this as a win condition, but debated out equally, or not debated out at all, well, you can't say you weren't warned.

- A bit inconsistent with the above, but once the conditions for try-or-die are not met, I find that I put greater emphasis on the link than many of my colleagues. When I get sat for non try-or-die reasons, it is often because I thought the link was small despite the impact being large.

- I don't flow "stream of consciousness" well. I encounter this a lot in 2NRs where the 1N typed up a thing for the 2NR to blitz through. I don't have an issue with speedy delivery communicated in a way that allows for the listener to digest the content, but if you're just speed reading through a long chunk of text I'm probably missing 50+% of it.

- We don't "debate out" accusations of unethical behavior/practices. If you want to stop the debate and have me adjudicate whether a debater/team was unethical, the debate ends. We cannot restart the debate from the alleged unethical practice, and the winner of the debate cannot be decided on "who did the better debating." I think a fundamental standard for "unethical" must be obfuscation for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage. This doesn't mean the team in question had to know they were gaining a competitive advantage (i.e. they didn't have to have cut the card), but that the way the evidence was presented gained the team a competitive advantage they wouldn't otherwise have had if the evidence was presented properly.

-Critical / Critique-

- I generally understand impact turns to topicality as "counter-standards" that support a counter-interpretation, so I struggle as a judge to get to an aff ballot when the "critical aff" (broad interpretation) fails to provide a counter-interpretation to the resolution. I equally struggle when that counter-interp is self-serving and not grounded in defining resolutional terms (i.e. "affs can affirm or negate the resolution").

- Most critical debate is too fast for me. If these arguments are your thing, you will benefit from slowing down over-explaining.

- I struggle to understand critiques of "fiat." I find that most of them rely on an interpretation that is divorced from what I understand "fiat" to mean. Absent a tech disaster from one team, I have consistently been persuaded that the aff gets to weigh the benefits of implementation versus the impacts of the K.

- A critique argument still needs to engage the case. Trying to simply outweigh the case or framework it away has empirically been unlikely to persuade me to vote neg.

- Critiques of "impact magnitude" are generally unpersuasive to me. "Critical affs" are much more successful in front of me when they focus on challenging the link.

-Evidence-

- My decision will probably reflect evidence quality / evidence specificity more than the median judge.

- I value good evidence with coherent highlighting. Nonsense highlighting makes me want to read for flaws in your evidence and have it reflect in my decision making even if not brought up in round.

- I don't have an issue with "insert re-highlighting" as long as its accompanied by an actual argument, and the insert has merit. If your "inserting" is actually just mis-readings on your end, I won't care if it's "dropped". Likewise, if you're inserting stuff but haven't introduced context for an actual argument, the other teams burden of rejoinder is low to nil.

-Theory / Competition-

- More neg than the median judge on conditionality.

- 50/50 on judge-kick but presumption is 2NR = one-world. This means if neither team addresses the judge-kick contingency, I will not do it and vote aff if the neg fails to prove a NB and/or competition, even if I think the NB links to and outweighs the case.

- Slightly more neg than the median judge on neg fiat (states, international, multi-actor). I can't see myself ever rejecting the team for non-conditionality theory arguments, even if dropped in every speech.

- "Perm do CP" means the plan and the CP can be the same thing. "Perm do both" means doing the plan and CP at the same time resolves all the NB, or enough of the NB that the solvency deficit outweighs. If you are making a different perm than either of these, you need to say more in the 2AC than "do both" or "do CP"

- I'm not going to vote on disclosure args (not disclosing the 1AC is a voter, you disclosed to us wrong, you're not on the wiki, you only gave us a paper copy, you only read this in X spot, etc.). Disclosure is a privilege, not a right, and I'm here to judge a debate, not be the disclosure police. That said, poor aff disclosure can be persuasively used to justify leniency for the neg on theory args, like conditionality or judge kick.

-Speaker Points-

- I don't really have a model. I suppose my scale goes from 28-30, but realistically my range is probably 28.5-29.5. That doesn't mean if you get a 28.5 you're the worst debater I've seen, it means you did an adequate job and I expected debaters I judged at this tournament to fall in that range. #BringBackTies

Oakland University - PhD Applied Mathematics (2017)

U of M - Dearborn - BSE Computer Engineering & Engineering Mathematics (2011)

I debated for Groves High School for two years, U of M - Dearborn for one year, and I debated for U of M - Ann Arbor for one year. I have been coaching at Groves High School since August 2007, where I am currently Co-Director of Debate.

Please include me on the email chain: ryannierman@gmail.com

Please also add the email grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

Top Level: Do whatever you want. My job is to evaluate the debate, not tell you what to read.

Speed: Speed is not a problem, but PLEASE remain clear.

Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. There needs to be specific explanations of your standards and why they are better than the aff's or vice versa. Why does one standard give a better internal link to education or fairness than another, etc?

CPs: I am willing to listen to any type of CP and multiple counterplans in the same round. I also try to remain objective in terms of whether I think a certain cp is abusive or not - the legitimacy of a counterplan is up for debate and thus can vary from one round to the next.

Disads: Sure. There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. The overviews should focus in on why your impacts outweigh and turn case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line.

Kritiks: Sure. I enjoy a good kritik debate. Make sure that there is a clear link to the aff. This may include reading new link scenarios in the block. There should also be a clear explanation of the impact with specific impact analysis. Spend some time on the alternative debate. What is the alt? Does it solve the aff? What does the world of the alternative look like? And finally, who does the alternative? What is my role as the judge? The neg should also isolate a clear f/w - why does methodology, ontology, reps, discourse, etc. come first?

Theory: I don't lean any particular way on the theory debate. For me, a theory debate must be more than just reading and re-reading one's blocks. There needs to be impacted reasons as to why I should vote one way or another. If there are dropped independent voters on a theory debate, I will definitely look there first. Finally, there should be an articulated reason why I should reject the team on theory, otherwise I default to just rejecting the argument.

Performance: Sure. I prefer if the performative affirmation or action is germane to the topic, but that is up for debate. I am certainly willing to listen to your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Paperless Debate: I do not take prep time for emailing your documents, but please do not steal prep. I also try to be understanding when tech issues occur, but will honor any tech time rules established and enforced by the tournament. I will have my camera on during the round. If my camera is off, please assume that I am not there. Please don't start without me.

Other general comments:

Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

I do not feel comfortable voting on issues that happen outside the round.

You should read rehighlightings.

Don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is.

Cross-x is a speech - it should have a clear strategy and involve meaningful questions and clarifications.

Have fun!

Email: shannonnierman@gmail.com

I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School for four years, debated for 3 years at MSU, and currently coach at Groves.

Topicality: I’m not opposed to voting on T, but rereading T shells is insufficient. There needs to be substantial work on the interpretations debate from both teams, in addition to the standards and voters debate, i.e. education and fairness. As long as the aff is reasonably topical and it is proven so, T is probably not a voter. Also, if you are going for T in the 2NR, go for only T, and do so for all 5 minutes.

Counterplans: Any type of counterplan is fine; however, if it is abusive, do not leave it for me to decide this, make these arguments.

Disads: Any type of DA is fine. A generic link in the 1NC is okay, but I think that throughout the block the evidence should be link specific. When extending the DA in the block, an overview is a must. The first few words I should here on the DA flow is “DA outweighs and turns case for X and Y reasons.”

Kritiks: I will vote on the K, but I often find that in the K rounds people undercover the alternative debate. When getting to this part of the K, explain what the world of the alternative would look like, who does the alternative, if the aff can function in this world, etc. I am well versed in psychoanalytic literature i.e. Zizek and Lacan and I do know the basis of a plethora of other Ks. This being said, I should learn about the argumentation in the round through your explanation and extrapolation of the authors ideas; not use what I know about philosophy and philosophers or what like to read in my free time. Read specific links in the block and refrain from silly links of omission.

Theory: I am not opposed to voting on theory, but it would make my life a lot easier if it didn’t come down to this. This is not because I dislike the theory debate rather I just believe that it is hard to have an actual educational and clear theory debate from each side of the debate. Now, this said, if a theory argument is dropped, i.e. conditionality bad, by all means, go for it!

Performance: An interesting and unique type of debate that should still relate to the resolution. As long as there is substantive and legitimate argumentation through your rapping or dancing and whatever else you can come up with, I am willing to vote on it. Even if you are rapping, I would prefer to have a plan text to start.

*As technology is vital in our life, many of us have switched toward paperless debate. I do not use prep for flashing, because I have also debated both off of paper and paperlessly in debate and I understand that technology can sometimes be your opponent in the round, rather than the other team. I am being a nice and fair judge in doing this, so please do not abuse this by stealing prep, because I will most likely notice and take away that stolen prep.

FAQs: Speed – I’m okay with speed as long as you are clear!
Tag teaming - I’m okay with it as long as it’s not excessive.

Things not to do in rounds I’m judging: go for RVIs, go for everything in the 2NR, and be mean. Believe it or not, there is a distinction between being confident and having ethos vs. being rude and obnoxious when you don’t have the right to be.

Please put me on the email chain: eriodd@d219.org.

Experience:

I'm currently an assistant debate coach for Niles North High School. I was the Head Debate Coach at Niles West High School for twelve years and an assistant debate coach at West for one year. I also work at the University of Michigan summer debate camps. I competed in policy debate at the high school level for six years at New Trier Township High School.

Education:

Master of Education in English-Language Learning & Special Education National Louis University
Master of Arts in School Leadership Concordia University-Chicago
Master of Arts in Education Wake Forest University
Juris Doctor Illinois Institute of Technology-Chicago Kent College of Law
Bachelor of Arts University of California, Santa Barbara

Debate arguments:

I will vote on any type of debate argument so long as the team extends it throughout the entire round and explains why it is a voter. Thus, I will pull the trigger on theory, agent specification, and other arguments many judges are unwilling to vote on. Even though I am considered a “politics/counter plan” debater, I will vote on kritiks, but I am told I evaluate kritik debates in a “politics/counter plan” manner (I guess this is not exactly true anymore...and I tend to judge clash debates). I try not to intervene in rounds, and all I ask is that debaters respect each other throughout the competition.

Identity v. Identity:
I enjoy judging these debates. It is important to remember that, often times, you are asking the judge to decide on subject matter he/she/they personally have not experienced (like sexism and racism for me as a white male). A successful ballot often times represents the team who has used these identity points (whether their own or others) in relationship to the resolution and the debate space. I also think if you run an exclusion DA, then you probably should not leave the room / Zoom before the other team finishes questions / feedback has concluded as that probably undermines this DA significantly (especially if you debate that team again in the future).

FW v. Identity:
I also enjoy judging these debates. I will vote for a planless Aff as well as a properly executed FW argument. Usually, the team that accesses the internal link to the impacts (discrimination, education, fairness, ground, limits, etc.) I am told to evaluate at the end of the round through an interpretation / role of the ballot / role of the judge, wins my ballot.

FW v. High Theory:
I don't mind judging these debates. The team reading high theory should do a good job at explaining the theories / thesis behind the scholars you are utilizing and applying it to a specific stasis point / resolutional praxis. In terms of how I weigh the round, the same applies from above, internal links to the terminal impacts I'm told are important in the round.

Policy v. Policy:
I debated in the late 90s / early 2000s. I think highly technical policy v. policy debate rounds with good sign posting, discussions on CP competition (when relevant), strategic turns, etc. are great. Tech > truth for me here. I like lots of evidence but please read full tags and a decent amount of the cards. Not a big fan of "yes X" as a tag. Permutations should probably have texts besides Do Both and Do CP perms. I like theory debates but quality over quantity and please think about how all of your theory / debate as a game arguments apply across all flows. Exploit the other team's errors. "We get what we get" and "we get what we did" are two separate things on the condo debate in my opinion.

Random comments:

The tournament and those judging you are not at your leisure. Please do your best to start the round promptly at the posted time on the pairing and when I'm ready to go (sometimes I do run a few minutes late to a round, not going to lie). Please do your best to: use prep ethically, attach speech documents quickly, ask to use bathroom at appropriate times (e.g. ideally not right before your or your partner's speech), and contribute to moving the debate along and help keep time. I will give grace to younger debaters on this issue, but varsity debaters should know how to do this effectively. This is an element of how I award speaker points. I'm a huge fan of efficient policy debate rounds. Thanks!

In my opinion, you cannot waive CX and bank it for prep time. Otherwise, the whole concept of cross examination in policy debate is undermined. I will not allow this unless the tournament rules explicitly tell me to do so.

If you use a poem, song, etc. in the 1AC, you should definitely talk about it after the 1AC. Especially against framework. Otherwise, what is the point? Your performative method should make sense as a praxis throughout the debate.

Final thoughts:

Do not post round me. I will lower your speaker points if you or one of your coaches acts disrespectful towards me or the opponents after the round. I have no problem answering any questions about the debate but it will be done in a respectful manner to all stakeholders in the room. If you have any issues with this, please don't pref me. I have seen, heard and experienced way too much disrespectful behavior by a few individuals in the debate community recently where, unfortunately, I feel compelled to include this in my paradigm.

Daniel Oleynik

Experience: I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School (2011-2015), debated for 1.5 years at MSU, and currently a graduate student at UCF studying physics.

Admittedly, it's been a while since I've participated in the debate community (Tabroom has me last judge in 2017) so I'm a bit rusty. However, everything under this introduction should still be accurate. As long as you explain your arguments and debate well, there should be no problem.

COVID-era Disclaimer: With everything being online, I feel its's pertinent to mention I am hard-of-hearing, and wear hearing aids, and that's how I'll hear you (They act as headphones, so all sound goes through them). I will be fine, and I've both debated and judged at the national level, but do with this information what you'd like.

Pre-round

• I’m a fan of all arguments and there’s nothing I won’t vote on. On that note, I’m a large fan on Ks and non-traditional arguments, though I don’t mind a good T debate every now and then.

• I see too many teams doing tagline extensions of cards and think that means they extended the warrants as well, if you want to make a good argument, don’t just extend the card, but make some warranted analysis as well.

• Use Cross-Ex well, but there’s a brightline between a sassy C/X and a rude one.

• Analytics are pretty under-used as arguments, a good analytic can beat evidence a good amount of time

• I don’t take prep for flashing

• Tag-teaming is fine, just don’t let it get abusive or excessive.

• Having debated for Groves, both JL and Ryan influenced me in the opinion of tech vs. truth. I usually prefer tech debates, and will vote on that, but I can be persuaded truth debates are better (though that takes techiness as well…) And if an argument is dropped or conceded, that argument gains full weight unless the team can give me a valid reason why not

• I’m a very clear judge, in the idea that, when speeches will be going, I’ll be making facial expressions and looks. If you see me making a confused look, either move on or provide more explanation for me to get it. If you see me making a pleased face, keep going.

Clipping Cards

Clipping cards is cheating, and any recorded act of it happening will be met with an L and reduced speaker points.

Bad Arguments

I’m not a fan of bad arguments, but at the same time, if a team loses it on because they failed to flow it, and doesn’t answer it throughout the whole speech, that’s on them more than me. To answer bad arguments, just say something along the lines of “this is silly” and move on.

Bad arguments include, but are not limited to: Time Cube CP/K, FIAT solves the link, Plan is bottom of the docket, any of the specification arguments that aren’t ASPEC.

Regarding the top, there are some arguments I will not vote on regardless of concessions or not: Racism/Sexism/Discrimination Good, Torture Good, and RVIs.

Being AFF

Make sure both the 2AC and the 1AR do effective line by line and don’t concede a negative argument.

Case debates are pretty nice, debating the effects of the plan are what the case debate should be about, if the debate becomes more about the impacts and less about the plan, something’s gone wrong.

I have a high threshold for allowing dropped arguments past the 1AR and doing work for the affirmative in pulling across impacts from the 2AC to the 2AR. If you can give me a reason why I should, I’ll look at it, otherwise, make sure 1AR does everything they need to.

Framework

As a former K debater, I’m not a fan of framework debates and I won’t be happy, but I’ll evaluate them the same as any other argument. As long as you win the flow, I see no reason you don’t win the debate.

Fairness and Educations are good, but they’re not specific reasons to vote one side or the other. You’ve got to impact both of them, and give me reasons why your fairness/education is better than the other teams, whether it be decision making, portable skills, ect.

Kritiks

Having read kritiks for most, if not all, of my varsity debate career I’m pretty familiar with most of the literature out there. In terms of authors.
COVID-Updates:

The only small update, is with time, I haven't interacted with these arguments as much. I love DnG and Butler still, but I don't know the "debate" version of them. In that regard, just move all down a rank. Really Familiar is now Familiar, Familiar is now Familiar-ish, ect.
________________

Really Familiar (these are arguments that I can not only follow jargon wise, but I’ll understand a lot of the arguments really well)

DnG, Zizek, Fanon, Lacan, Saldahna, Butler (grievability ethics)

Familiar (these are arguments I’m familiar with, but I’m not exactly perfect on, may need a little more explanation)

Wilderson, Agamben, Foucault, Puar, Heidegger, Butler (feminism)

Familiar-ish (these are arguments that I’m only slightly knowledgeable in, good amount of explanation will be needed)

Baudrillard, Negri, Nietzsche, Wendy Brown, Derrida, Antonio, Camus

Who? (these are arguments where I’ve heard of the person, or have a slight idea of their arguments, otherwise, a lot of explanation needed.)

Mignolo, Deloria, Hardt, (others I haven’t heard of…)

Quick side note: If you have an author, and you’re thinking I’ve never heard of ‘em, at least ask me before the round, I may have forgotten somebody.

Now that that’s out of the way, general idea of kritiks.

These are my favorite arguments and I really enjoy both debating and listening to them.

Notes for Aff

Read a perm

Watch out for arguments like Root Cause, Floating PIKs, Serial Policy Failure and Error Replication arguments, dropping these usually means game over for the aff.

The easiest, and weakest part of the Kritik is the alternative, make sure you try to take it out.

Notes for Neg

Use your link arguments well, they’re usually able to be independent reasons to vote neg.

No matter if I know the argument or the author, you should still explain what the Kritik does, explanation only helps you.

Specific links to the aff make it easier to win the Kritik, but are not necessary to win the Kritik.

Disads

I’m ok with them, don’t love them, don’t hate them.

On DAs, there’s usually three types of debaters I see.

1. They spend too much time on Link/Uniqueness/Internal Link and not enough time on impact analysis

2. They spend too much time explaining the impact and don’t bother doing any link/uniqueness work.

3. They explain all the parts of the Disad equally, with warranted analysis.

Be the third debater.

While I’m not a fan of politics, I like Case Specific DAs, really use these to your advantage and turn the case with them.

Don’t forget to do impact overviews: Mag, Probability, Timeframe, and why DA turns case.

CPs

Counterplans are fine, like with the DA, I’ll evaluate them. I don’t love them, don’t hate them.

Out of all counterplans, I think Process CPs are probably the best, while Agent CPs are my least favorite, but I’m always ready to hear theory arguments debating why I should/shouldn’t listen to either one.

If the counterplan, not including advantage, that relies on a possibility of resulting in the Aff instead of a 100% risk, I’ll evaluate with caution, and this will usually be my last-choice argument. Make sure there’s at least one argument that makes the case that the CP will result in the Aff.

I’ll listen to all theory arguments equally, but conditionality is usually is the most persuasive, especially if the Neg has more than 3 conditional advocacies.

I’m fine with PICs, but make sure you’re ready for theory arguments if they come up.

Topicality

Ironically enough, even as a K debater, I enjoy debating T. Not enough people know how to do it effectively, so a good topicality debate is pretty fun to watch.

If it’s conceded, I’ll default to reasonability and topicality is not a voter, make sure not to concede these.

If topicality is going to get developed, both sides should give examples of bad/absurd affs that one can read on the other’s interpretation.

SPECIFIC TO NON-PLAN AFFS - If debating topicality, or on that note framework, the negative should make sure to make a topical version of the plan. Affirmative should give at least one reason why the topical version doesn’t solve.

Non-Traditional Affs

I’m a fan of watching non-traditional arguments, especially with debate flooded with policy aff after policy aff.

Same with the Kritik, make sure to explain how your plan functions and any jargon that might be involved.

If I, as the judge, can’t understand how the plan solves the impacts or how the solvency mechanism operates because of a lack of bad explanation, I will default Neg to presumption. However, I have a high threshold for what constitutes a “bad explantion”

Aff - Read a role of the ballot, if the neg concedes it, you know have a much better chance of winning this debate.

Speaker Points

Humor is good, the more you can brighten up a judge’s mood, the better.

A lot of it will rely on good ethos moments and how you do on the flow. If you can keep up and not drop/concede key arguments, it’ll go better for you.

Don’t be offensive/rude, this shouldn’t have to be said…

I know that speaks matter, so if you want to know, ask me after the round individually and I’ll happily tell you what you got. It’s not that big of a deal to me.

Seem knowledgeable about the literature base that you’re reading and about the aff.

Specific things to up speaks
Related to humor: make me laugh

Bad puns, bad jokes, making fun of someone you think I know, all will probably make me laugh.

If you do something risky and it works, I’ll reward you.

Tabroom.com is mostly my fault. Therefore I'm out of the active coaching game, but occasionally will stick myself on a pref sheet as a free strike so I can judge in an emergency.

My history in the activity includes competing in parliamentary debate and extemp, coaching and judging a lot of extemp, PF, LD and some other IEs, policy and congress along the way. I've coached both champs and people who are lucky to win rounds, and respect both. I coached at Milton Academy, Newton South HS and Lexington HS in that order.

All: Racist, ableist, sexist, trans- or homophobic, or other directly exclusionary language and conduct is an auto-loss. Debate the debates, not the debater. I will apply my own standards/judgment, it's the only way I can enforce it.

Policy & LD: I'm not active but do regularly watch debates. I'm OK with your speed but not topic specific jargon. Be slower for tags and author names. If you're losing me I'll say clear a couple times, but eventually will give up flowing and you won't like what happens next. I won't lean on the docs to catch up and have zero shame in saying "I didn't get it so I didn't vote for it." If I don't understand it until the 2N/2AR I consider it new in the 2.

LD: I did a lot of LD in the late 90s until the mid 2000s, then mostly stopped, then started again at Lex and coached them for about eight years. So I'm comfy with both older-school framework debates and the LARP/policy arguments my kids mostly ran.

My threshold on theory tends to be high; dumb theory debates are part of why I stopped coaching LD. I wrote an article that people still card about how theory should be relegated to actual norm creation instead of tactical wins -- though if you card me as an attempt to flatter instead of actually understanding the point, I will probably be cross.

I also dislike debates about out of round conduct or issues. I can't judge based on anything that I did not see, such as disclosure theory, pre-round shenanigans, or "he said last debate that he'd do X and he didn't." I also will take a dim view towards post-rounding that crosses from questions into a 3AR/3NR and will adjust points to reflect that.

Don't tell me that the tab room won't let me do that. I can always do that.

K: I am sympathetic to K debate and its aims, and will frequently vote for it if it makes sense in the round, but Ks get no more gimme wins from me than any other argument. If it doesn't link or I don't get the impact or the alt sounds like we're supposed to stop all the world's troubles by singing campfire songs you'll probably lose.

I take a dim view on the type of K or identity debates that demand disclosure of identity from anyone in the room. I'm part of the LGBTQ spectrum, and when I was competing, I could not disclose that without risk to myself. I therefore flinch reflexively if you seem to demand to know anyone's place on various identity spectrums as the price of winning a debate. A place in debate should not be at the cost of their privacy.

That said, if you put your own identity in the round you therefore risk your identity being debated. Don't try to run a K and then call no tag-backs if someone tries to answer your stuff with your stuff.

Policy: I have less background in your activity than I do in LD. So I know the general outlines fine, as the events have converged, but I'm definitely going to need you to slow down just a titch especially if you're running the type of policy args that haven't crossed as much into LD, like T debates or specific theory/condo stuff. I'm very much not a fan of the politics debate and will have a very low threshold on no-link args, since I tend to believe politics almost never links anyway.

Also see the K section under LD.

PF: I mostly enjoy PF rounds and coached it as my only debate event for about 4 years at Newton South. I don't sneer at it like a lot of coaches from the LD/Policyverse might. However, there are a few things I really dislike that proliferate in PF.

1) Evidence shenanigans between speeches. Have your evidence ready for your opponent to read/review immediately. Your partner can create a doc while you speak, for crying out loud. If you fumble around with it and can't get your act together, you'll see your speaks dropping.

2) Evidence shenanigans during speeches. Look, PF speeches are short. I get it. But ultimately the decisions as to whether you're abusing evidence are mine to make and I will make them. Don't fabricate, make up, or infer things your evidence doesn't say because I will read and check anything that sounds suspicious to me, or your opponents call out. This includes PF Math™: taking numbers out of your ev and combining them in ways the author did not. I read a lot of news so the likelihood I know when you're making it up is rather high.

3) Good God most crossfires, especially the free-for-all at the end, make me want to stab my ears out. Here's where I import prejudices from LD and policy more than anything: cross is about setting up arguments and confirming things, not trying to corner and AHA! your opponents or sneaking in a third contention. Set up arguments, don't make them. If you try to extend something out of cross, that's not going to go well for you. If you are an obnoxious talking-show nitwit, that's REALLY not going to go well for you.

4) If you're playing the game of "Look How Circuit I Can Be Mr Policy/LD Judge!" and your opponent has zero idea of what's going on, I'm not impressed. Debate is engagement, and giving your opponent no chance to engage by design is pretty much an auto-loss in my book. That does not mean you should shy away from creative arguments. It means you must explain them so that everyone in the room can be expected to understand and engage with them as long as they're trying to.

Background: I am a former Glenbrook North and Michigan debater and was twice in the finals of the National Debate Tournament. I am currently a third-year law student at Georgetown and will be serving as a law clerk next year in Chicago.

Paradigm:

At a high level, I generally view myself as prioritizing technical concessions over truth. That being said, any technical concession requires every aspect of the Toulmin model be present in the first place: a claim, an impact, and a warrant. These aspects need not all be fully developed, but they must be present in some minimal capacity for an argument to be "dropped."

I also believe that affirmatives need to be topical and that basic fairness principles and the benefits of rejoinder should exclude non-topical affirmatives. Despite this strong predisposition, my first order concern is the benefits of rejoinder so I am willing to vote for critical affirmatives if the critical team is technically superior. Put simply: the tie goes to the team advocating topical and incremental changes to public policy.

By the same token, if you must advocate a critical argument on the negative, I am vastly more persuaded by critical arguments that engage substantively with the affirmative through arguments that resemble impact defense. Arguments about structural features of the system are no doubt intellectually interesting and salient in today's society but that does not mean they are good debate arguments.

Given the online format, please slow down and make sure to keep your video camera on. My experiences with Zoom so far have demonstrated that both of those are essential to effective communication.

Please note that I have no experience with this debate topic outside of what a normal reader of the New York Times would know. As a result, please explain more than you ordinarily would and take no background knowledge for granted.

Lastly, I have a reputation for selectively enjoying process-based arguments instead of substantive engagement. While I am more predisposed to enjoy arguments regarding presidential signing statements or consultation with NATO, I am comparatively less predisposed than I used to be.

Please do not hesitate to email me with any questions or to ask prior to the debate. Good luck. And, as we said at GBN: Go. Fight. Win.

me:
I debated at Michigan on the military presence topic. I was a 2A on a Baudrillard aff. On the neg I did a lot (policy & K things). In the 2016-2017 school year I coached Traverse City Central. I haven’t been regularly involved in judging/coaching since then.

general:
There's not much I won't vote on. Any well-explained and well-constructed argument is one that I would vote on. If you can explain things and give good impact calculus, I will want to vote for you and give you good speaker points!

"non-traditional" affs:
The trend of copying & pasting affs from college wikis is a terrible form of education and debate. If you can't explain the thesis of your aff, what a ballot means, etc., I won't really want to vote for you. I have no problem voting for an aff that doesn't have a plan if you debate it well.

framework:
I judge a lot of framework vs. no-plan aff debates (these are the majority of my aff debates in college). Similar to what I've written above, I think some teams that read high theory arguments in high school are a bit confused and have a difficult time explaining their aff. Framework is an appealing argument to me when it is explained contextually (when you talk about the aff). In the same vein, teams that default to framework when they don't hear a plan in the 1AC usually get out-contextualized by the affirmative when they refuse to engage the 1AC.

speaker points:
I reward people who are smart and pleasant. It's advantageous for debaters to be human-like in debates (have fun, joke around, etc.). Makes the debate more enjoyable for everyone and hopefully takes some stress away.

theory:

I lean neg when there is not clear in-round abuse, but once again, attempt to be impartial.

etc.:
Don't be mean. Debate should be a fun/educational space for everyone. That being said, if you're reading an argument or use discourse that is super offensive to someone/some group, you'll get low speaks and I most likely will not vote for you.


If you have questions you can email me at rennpasq@gmail.com

Currently, I am a full-time employee in the Madison, WI area. I debated at Glenbrook South High School for four years and am currently tangentially connected with them. I am somewhat familiar with the topic, but you have to be clear because I may not be sure about the context.

Debate is a fun activity, but also a competitive one, so have fun, but also have good sportsmanship. Needless to say, be nice to your opponents and get to know them if you can because you might see them later in the year and if you know your opponents, then it makes the debate more interesting, more fun, and more competitive. Arguments have three parts to them: claim, warrant, and impact. In order to win an argument, it needs to be sufficiently extended, you need to answer their answers, and make sure you have evidence or it is backed up with logic.

I debated as both speaker positons in high school, so I normally do not have any bias and understand the difficulties of all speaker positions.

In general, I am ok with all arguments as long as it is clearly explained.

T - I used to go for this a lot in high school, but there is a high burden for the negative.

K - I am not the biggest fan of the argument, but you need to be very clear about the argument since I am probably not very familiar with the neg lit base. I struggle with judging this argument the most, but that does not mean I won't vote for it. If you have questions about specific K's, then pull me aside and ask.

CP - I am ok with all types of counterplans and think they can be effective, but that does not mean the aff can convince me otherwise on theory (especially after debating GBN). Make sure you have sufficient solvency of the aff and a clear net benefit.

DA - I like 1NR's that are 5 mins of the DA and 2NR's that are DA and case. Both sides need to put in work where necessary on the flow to win their argument and impact calculus is important.

Impact turns - they are fun and a good source of offense for both the Aff and Neg.

Theory - I don't really lean one way or the other here, but there needs to be in round abuse.

K Affs - They need to be close to the topic... I am not afraid to vote for them. I think framework is an important argument.

Lastly, make sure to have fun and be optimistic.

If you have any questions, email me nimilpatel25@gmail.com.

UPDATED FOR THE THE GLENBROOKS 2023

uclabdb8@gmail.com

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***brief***
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. pen time on overviews matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue

**background**
identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. i now spend my time developing programming for Chicago's urban debate league. you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.

**disads/cps/case**
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- chicago
- udl
- coaching debate!

**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

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

Northwestern University (2014-2018)

Columbia Law School (2018-2021)

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

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

Procedures

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

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

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

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

Be confident and assertive, not rude and insulting.

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

Tech Over Truth

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

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

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

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

You will be rewarded for keeping my flow organized.

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

Kritikal Arguments

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

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

What is the alt? Is there an alt?

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

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

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

Counterplans

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

Aff teams should make sure that their permutations are coherent.

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

Some of this was covered in the CPs section.

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

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

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

Does T come before theory? Probably.

Topicality

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

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

Well-researched T debates are interesting to watch.

Disadvantages

Good. The more specific, the better.

Most politics theory arguments are bad.

Debate Background: I debated for four years at Petoskey High School, and I am currently a sophomore at University of Michigan; I debated at U of M my freshman year. I am more used to policy arguments, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on critical stuff, that just means you will have to explain it more depth.

Philosophy: I will vote on pretty much any argument, but you need to tell me what the role of the ballot is. I need to know how I should frame the debate in order to vote properly. If no one tells me what the role of the ballot is I will default to the team that I think debated the best. So tab.

Specific Arguments:

1) Theory- I generally think theory debates are boring, and either side should only go for theory when absolutely necessary. If it is argued well and has warrants I will vote on it, but I'm not a huge fan.

2) Kritiks- Kritiks are fine arguments, but make sure I understand it, and you understand it. At some point you will need to give me a coherent explanation of the K, and the alt. K affs are fine as well, but I will probably be inclined to vote neg on T if it is brought up and argued well. Other psuedo-kritikal arguments should just be explained well then I don't care if you run it. P.S. you have to win framework if it is brought up in order to win the K.

3) Counterplans- Counterplans are great. Have a net benefit, and win the perm debate and you will probably win the round. Delay, consult and other PICs of the like can be annoying, but like I said, just win the perm debate :)

4) Topicality- Don't go for topicality unless they completely drop it OR the plan REALLY isn't topical.

5) Disadvantages- Great. Do it. I will vote on it.

6) Case- Good clash on case makes me happy. A negative can't win on just case defense though for the most part. In that situation I usually would give some risk of solvency or some risk of the impacts, so have offense on case or a DA, CP or Alt on a K as well as case defense.

In round Conduct: Be respectful. Nothing irritates me more than when people are rude to their opponents, or yell at each other in cross-ex. This is a debate round not a middle school cafeteria.

Prep/speech Time: I will keep you speech and prep time, and my time counts, not yours. Also don't steal prep. That's not a cool thing to do. I don't take prep for flashing or emailing, but if I notice you steal prep time you will lose speaks.

CX: If you make an argument in CX you have to bring it up in a constructive or rebuttal speech in order for it to be weighed in the round. Good CX questions and answers = good speaks.

Speed: Speed is necessary in the way that policy debate has evolved, but make sure you are clear. If you aren't clear I won't yell at you, but I might not hear your argument to flow it, and if I don't flow the argument then it doesn't exist. It helps if you start a little slower than your top speed at the beginning of your first speech that way I can get used to your style. Another note: double breathing annoys me so much, try not to do it please and if you do don't be obnoxious about it.

Other: I'm generally tech over truth, BUT truth outweighs when both sides are similar technically. Also, if either side says something extremely inappropriate along the lines of racist, homophobic, transphobic, ablest etc. speech, then I will give that team VERY VERY low speaks. Be respectful and not a bigot, thanks. If you have any questions, just ask.       

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

Uber-Cliffnotes:

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

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

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

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

-Go for theory and T more.

-Don’t be shifty or mean.

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

Paradigm, Short(er) Edition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Stuff:

Quick LD cheat sheet for Apple Valley:

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

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

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

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

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

What do I need to know?

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

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

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

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

Top Level Stuff:

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

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

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

DA/Advantage Debate

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

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

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

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

CPs

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

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

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

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

"THE K"

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

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

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

"K Affs"/"New Debate"/FW

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

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

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

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

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

Other random things:

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

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

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

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

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

Glenbrook North- he/him

If you are visibly sick, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

spipkin at gmail. Please set up the chain at least five minutes before start time. I don't check my email very often when I'm not at tournaments.

1. Flow and respond to what the other team says in order.

2. You almost certainly are going too fast for how clear you are.

3. Kritiks on the neg: Probably a bad idea in front of me.

4. K affs: You definitely want to strike me.

5. No inserting anything into the debate besides like charts or graphics (things that can't be read aloud). You don't need to re-read the plan and counterplan text, and you can say perm specific planks, but if you are reading a more complicated perm than that, you should read the text. The litmus test is "insert the perm text."

6. I generally flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say you fiat deficit spending in CX, you don't get to say PTIV on T taxes. If you say normal means is probably deficit spending but it could be taxes, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are taxes for a DA or CP. Fiat is limited to the text of what you have in the plan. Implementation specification beyond the text requires evidence and can be contested by the neg.

8. Highlighting should form a coherent sentence. If it's word salad, I'm not going to waste my time trying to parse the meaning.

9. I like counterplans that are germane to the topic. Most of the process counterplans I've seen this year are not that They either can't solve the net benefit or they're not competitive or both.

Assistant Debate Coach - Niles North

Former Niles West and MSU debater
Late elims of multiple National Circuit tournaments + TOC - Senior Year

Paradigm Update re: Kritiks - 11/28/16

I feel it necessary to be a bit more specific with regards to kritik debates.  I have absolutely no issues with kritiks in general - I think they're an absolute necessity for a comprehensive analysis of any policy/topic.  However, I do take issue with how kritiks are deployed these days.  In a lot of debates I see a striking lack of specific link analysis, along with an absence of turns case arguments based on those links.  You should ask yourself this question before any speech which includes extending a kritik: Could I give this speech against any aff, or is my speech/links/overview specific to the aff at hand (and its particular impacts and advantages)?  I'm not sure what happened over the past 2 or 3 years, but people need to get back into tailoring their kriticisms to the specific aff being debated.  Ask yourself this as well: why not be more specific?  Specificity is the best way to take your kritik debating to the next level.

^ You won't be penalized in any way for not doing this - just a thought. ^

Paradigm Proper

I'm very open-minded when it comes to debate, by which I mean that I will listen to any argument and evaluate it as long as it is explained and impacted throughout the round. Do not take this statement as an indication that I don't know anything about debate - I just don't see the value in specifying how I perceive each component of each type of argument. 

That being said, I do have some specific argumentative preferences and thoughts on the current direction of policy debate. I truly believe in the importance of stasis in debate rounds, and while I would never mandate that any team has to read a straight-up USFG policy aff with a plan text I do believe in the importance of being somewhat connected to the topic. When I say connected to the topic I don't mean, to provide a broad and somewhat extreme example, "we said the word 'China' or 'engagement' during our 1AC" but rather a concerted and concise effort at increasing relevant education for the topic with whatever distinct mechanism you choose. Once you decide to go down that road (i.e. advocacy statement etc.) I think the discussion should then revolve around whether or not the mechanism of the aff sheds new light on the typical USFG approach and its impact on the government and whether or not the education that the aff brings to the table is relevant and can be negated based on this relevance. I find the approach of acting as if we can just completely sidestep the government and its bad practices very problematic - the government is here to stay and it unquestionably plays a large role in shaping society and oppression, and thus you can feel free to not advocate a policy action through the USFG but you'd better justify that approach. 

*This is not to say that you should feel uncomfortable reading these kinds of arguments in front of me*

On the Framework side of the debate: I don't understand the disdain that now exists for Framework as an argument.  The only explanation I have is that people are just bad at running Framework.  If run correctly, I think Framework debate creates some of the most fruitful and beneficial debates possible for this activity.  Framework is properly argued as a critique of Methodology, not some sort of abstract Topicality argument.  Any Framework extension should devote a large amount of time to a Topical version of the Aff, and your impacts and turns case analysis should be based around the aff's deviation from said topical version of the aff.  

Niles West '14

UIUC '18

I coach for Niles West debate and have for the past 6 years. I have coached and judged in every level from novice to elimination rounds in varsity divisions. I have also coached and judged on local, regional, and national circuits.

Yes, I would like to be sent speech docs but I will not be flowing off of them --- elipre@d219.org

I debated for three years for Niles West and one year at Michigan State University on the legalization topic. My experience in debate is 50/50 policy and K.

I would like to emphasize that I am totally down for the K as much as I am totally down for a policy debate.

First and foremost: I do not allow my preconceived notions about certain types of arguments affect my decision-making. I view debate as an activity that develops critical thinking and advocacy skills, so do that in whatever way you think is best suited for your situation (granted that it is respectful and not offensive).

Certain arguments:

FYI: dropped arguments are not true arguments --- whoever makes the argument has the burden of proof.

T – love a good T debate. compare interpretations and evidence adequately. the impact level is the most important to me in T debates, and you should be comparing standards/impacts. don't forget the internal link debate. fairness is an impact in and of itself.

DAs – are essential to a good debate I think. impact calc and overviews are important. think we can all agree on that.

Ks and Framework – I love the K, I went for it a lot in high school. they are good for debate *if they answer the affirmative*. Please engage the affirmative. This entails making specific link arguments as well as thorough turns case analysis. I am probably familiar with your literature, however, I will not weigh your buzzwords more than logical aff arguments against your K. If you want my ballot, you need to first and foremost TALK ABOUT THE AFF. Read specific links to the aff’s representations and impacts, not just to the topic in general.

The link debate is crucial – and the aff should recognize if the neg is not doing an adequately specific job explaining their link story. Additionally, you need to make turns case arguments. I will not be compelled by a mere floating pik in the 2NR – that’s cheating. Give me analysis about why the aff reifies its own impacts. Absent this, I usually default to weighing the 1AC heavily against the K.

Relating to framework, I have a high threshold for interpretations that limit out critiques entirely. I would rather see debaters interact with the substance of the criticism than talk shallowly about fairness and predictability (especially if it is a common argument). A lot of the times, framework debates are lazy.

Planless affs: Totally down for them, especially on the criminal justice system reform topic. Perhaps they could be read on the neg, but that does not mean that they should not be read on the aff. This is good news if you are negative going for framework because switch side debate probably solves a lot of aff offense if there is a topical version of the aff. This is also good news for the aff because I can just as likely be persuaded that the reading of your aff in the debate space creates something unique (i.e., whatever you are solving for). A policy action, whether or not it's done by the federal government, should be a priority for the aff to defend. Please just do something that gives the negative a role in the debate. SLOW DOWN on taglines if they are paragraphs.

***

Meta things:

1. Clarity (important for online debate) - I've changed my stance on this since online debate became a thing. Still definitely say words. Sending analytics in speech doc and/or slowing down on analytics 1) helps me which is, in turn, good for you and 2) (at worst) facilitates clash because your opponents can also hear and know what you are saying, which is also good for everyone educationally!

Ideally I would not have to work too hard to hear what you are saying. I am bad at multitasking, so if I’m working too hard I’ll probably miss an argument or two. Please enunciate tag lines especially. If I can’t decipher your answer to an argument, I will consider it dropped.

2. Be respectful – yes, debate is a competitive activity, but it is also an academic thought exercise. I encourage assertiveness and confidence in round, but if you are rude, I will reduce your speaker points. Rudeness includes excessively cutting your opponent off or talking over them in cross-ex, excessively interrupting your partner's speech to prompt them, being unnecessarily snarky towards your opponents, etc. Please just be nice :)

3. Logic - a lot of times, debaters get wrapped up in the technicality of their debates. While tech is important, it shouldn’t come at the expense of doing things like explaining your arguments, pointing out logical flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and telling me how I should evaluate a particular flow in the context of the whole debate. I tend to reward teams that provide consistent, clear, and smart meta-level framing issues – it makes my job 100 times easier, and it minimizes the extent to which I have to intervene to decide the debate. I will not do work for you on an argument even if I am familiar with it – I judge off of my flow exclusively.

4. DO NOT assume that I am following along on the speech doc as you are giving a speech, because I am probably not.

5. Trolly arguments will probably get you low speaks and some eyerolls. Debate is an educational activity. By my standards, "trolly" includes timecube, xenos paradox, turing tests, etc. Y'all are smart people. I think you catch my drift here.

Robbie Quinn, coach at Montgomery Bell Academy, mucho judging on this topic, which is the one with ASPEC, Consult NATO, and the Death K.

I have no prejudices toward any argument type. I do have prejudices to people who don't have fun. You have to have fun. I'm a librarian, so at the very least you can have fun making fun of that.

I determine which way to evaluate any argument based on who most convinces me of the superiority of a certain way to evaluate it.

I like humor, stories, and creative uses of historical examples. Cross-ex is very important to me and I watch it closely. I think it sways my thinking on key issues. What judge won't admit to actively monitoring who seems to be winning? Cross-ex, to me, is a powerful barometer of that.

Things I've been telling debaters lately that make me feel like I am incredibly awesome but are really just things that everybody knows that I rephrased into something snappy and I'm taking credit for:

1. Don't unnecessarily cut people off in CX. The best CX questions are the ones they can't answer well even if they had all 3 minutes to speak.

2. Be a guardian of good debate. Yes, debate's a changing network of ideas and people, and winning a debate on bad arguments isn't a crime punishable by death. But I reward debaters who seek to win on good arguments. I love good debates. I don't like making "easy" decisions to vote on bad arguments, even though I often do.

3. The most sensible kritik alternatives to me are the ones that defend the idea of a critical-political resistance to the assumptions of the plan and how that idea works in real-world situations. Even if an alternative isn't as cleanly recognizable or linear as the passage and enforcement of a piece of legislation, that doesn't mean that it can't be something concrete. I watch so many bad kritik debates that are bad because both sides never give the alternative any sensible role in the debate. I will reward debaters that give up on gimmicky and irrelevant defenses and attacks of kritik alternatives.

Reasons why my judging might mimic the real world:

1. I might be consciously and unconsciously swayed against your arguments if you're a mean person. Humans are good judges of sincerity.

2. I appreciate style. Rhetorical style and the style of your presence. There's a big difference between going-through-the-motions and having presence in a debate.

3. I like endorsing and praising passionate debaters. Lots of people who articulate that "this debate and the discourse in it matter" don't really energize their discourse to make me feel that. On the other hand, lots of people who don't think that "this debate round matters" often sway my thinking because they speak with urgency. I love listening to debates. If you want to speak, I want to hear you.

Me and cards: I'm very particular about which cards I call for after the debate. If there's been evidence comparison/indicts by one side but not the other, that's usually reason for me not to ask for either side's evidence on that question since one team did not engage the evidence clash.

This is my twenty sixth year as an active member of the policy debate community. After debating in both high school and college I immediately jumped into coaching high school policy debate. I have been an argument coach, full time debate instructor, program director, and argument coach again for Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart in Miami, FL for the past seventeen years.

I become more convinced every year that the switch side nature of policy debate represents one of the most valuable tools to inoculate young people against dogmatism. I also believe the skills developed in policy debate – formulating positions using in depth research that privileges consensus, expertise, and data and the testing of those positions via multiple iterations—enhance students’ ability to think critically.

I am particularly fond of policy debate as the competitive aspect incentivizes students to keep abreast of current events and use that information to formulate opinions regarding how various levels of government should respond to societal needs.

Equipping students with the skills to meaningfully engage political institutions has been incredibly valuable for me. Many of my debate students have been Latina/Latinx. Witnessing them develop an expert ability to navigate institutions, that were by design obfuscated to ensure their exclusion, continues to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and I am constantly grateful for that privilege.

I am deeply concerned by the ongoing trend toward clash avoidance. This practice makes debate seem more trivial each year and continues to denigrate our efforts in the eyes of the academics we depend on for funding and support.

Affirmatives continue to lean into vague plan writing and vague explanations of what they will defend. This makes for late breaking and poorly developed debates. I understand why students engage in these practices (the competitive incentive I lauded above) I wish instructors and coaches understood how much more meaningful their contributions would be if they empowered students to embrace clash over gimmicks.

I will be less persuaded by your delivery if you choose to engage in clash avoidance. Actions such as deleting analytics, refusal to specify plans, cps, and K alts, allowing your wiki to atrophy, and proliferating stale competition style and Intrinsicness arguments will result in my awarding fewer speaker points.

Remember your friends’ hot takes and even your young coaches/lab leaders’ hot takes are just that – they are likely not the debates most of your critics want to adjudicate.

If you are not flowing during the debate, it will be difficult to persuade me that you were the most skilled debater in the room.

Be “on deck.” By that I mean be warmed up and ready for your turn at bat. Have your table tote set up, the email thread ready, you pens/paper/timer out, your laptop charged, go to the restroom before the round, fill up your water bottle, etc. I don’t say all this to sound like a mean teacher – in fact I think it would be incredibly ableist to really harp on these things or refuse to let students use the facilities mid-round – but being ready helps the round proceed on time and keeps you in the zone which helps your ability to project a confident winning persona. It also demonstrates a consideration for me, your opponents, your coaches and teammates and the tournament staffs’ time.

Be kind and generous to everyone.

You can likely deduce most of this from the discussion of clash avoidance and why I value debate above.

I would prefer to see a debate wherein the affirmative defends the USFG should increase security cooperation with the NATO over AI, Biotech, and/or cybersecurity.

I would like to see the negative rejoin with hypothetical disadvantages to enacting the plan as well as introducing competing proposals for resolving the harms outlined by the affirmative.

One of the more depressing impacts to enrolling in graduate school has been the constant reminder that in truth impact d is >>> than impact ev. A few years ago, I was increasingly frustrated by teams only extending a DA and impact defense vs. the case – I thought this was responsible for a trend of fewer and fewer affirmatives with intrinsic advantages. I made a big push for spending at least 50% of the time on each case flow vs the internal link of the advantage. My opinion on this point is changing. Getting good at impact defense is tremendously valuable – you are likely examining peer reviewed highly qualified publications and their debunking of well…less than qualified publications.

I find Climate to be one of the most strategic and persuasive impacts in debate (life really). That said, most mechanisms to resolve climate presented in debates are woefully inadequate.

I am not averse to any genre of argument. Every genre has highs and lows. For example, not all kritiks are generic or have cheating alternatives, not all process counterplans are unrelated to the topic, and not all politics disadvantages are missing fundamental components but sometimes they are and you should work to avoid those deficiencies.

The folks with whom I see debate similarly:

Maggie Berthiaume

Dr. Brett Bricker

Anna Dimitrijevic

David Heidt

Fran Swanson

delete

I debated in high school for a few years, and I've been judging for several years.

In General

Comparative impact calc is essential, the less generic the better. Explain it well and I will weigh it highly regardless of my personal feelings towards the argument, and debate framework as necessary, for I will use it in how I look at the round.

I prefer that the debate be decided based on what is said in round, but I will read evidence if it is disputed or necessary for my decision, and I will be more inclined to read it if a debater requests that I do in-round.

I will believe that a dropped argument is a true argument, but will weigh it less if it is not accompanied by a warranted explanation.

Specific Arguments

Topicality - I highly respect T, particularly when debated well, although I do consider reasonability a large factor. Please try to keep your T arguments particularly organized and clear though.

Theory - I lean aff slightly on theory, but if you explain it clearly and impact it I will take note.

Kritiks - I don't read a great deal of critical literature, so please explain it clearly and it always helps to emphasize how it specifically links.

CPs and DAs are fine.

Reminder: Speed is fine but clarity is important.

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

How to win my ballot

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

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

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

Preferences

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

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

The most entertaining negative strategies are case-specific.

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

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

I love DAs.

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

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

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

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

Have fun, make jokes, love debate.

MSU '19, Homewood-Flossmoor '15

Updated 11-30-16

-Be clear - I should be able to understand all of the words you're saying, even if you're spreading

-Don't clip - I will vote against you, independently of arguments made in round, if I catch you doing it

-I'm competent in all styles of debate - do what you're best at, instead of trying to adapt to me

-I really enjoy clash over the case (be it policy or K)

-Tech over truth

-Put me on the email chain -- it's my first name then last name at gmail, no spaces or anything else.

If you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them before the round.

Put me on the chain: imtaylorsanchez@gmail.com

Affiliations: Coached East Kentwood (MI) 2012-2016, Debated at Oklahoma (2016-2018), Coach for SPASH (WI) & Oklahoma

Thoughts:

I don't know exactly what you want from me here. I'm a film person. I write about it. I know some stuff about a lot of kinds of critical theory and ideology. Jazmine and I read arguments about visual relations/the symbolic economy informed by radical black and native feminisms.

I think of debates as competing worlds/models and default to a flow-centric, offense-defense paradigm. If you tell me to think of debate differently, I'll do that. When I debated, my overviews were LONG and I talked in paragraphs. I don't think folks should necessarily replicate this, lol but I'm a big picture person. I need y'all to frame the impact debate for me, frame my ballot, etc. etc. It's a cliche but "even if" statements are underutilized.

K-stuff outside of what I'm used to is fine, but examples are important for me to conceptualize theory. I usually won't read cards unless something is challenged.

Competed: University of Minnesota
Coach (Present): Emporia State University; College Prep
Coached (Past): Augsburg College; Highland Park Senior High (MN)

PUBLIC FORUM

Although my primary background is in policy, I am familiar with the procedures of public forum and spent a season of my high school career competing in the format. Below are my answers to the suggested PF philosophy questions provided by the TOC.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: Speed of Delivery: Speed is fine so long as clarify doesn't suffer.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?):Both effective line by line and big picture storytelling are important to my ballot.

Role of the Final Focus: Providing a rubric/judge instruction for my ballot

Topicality: Generally these debates are done poorly, it's important to have a comparative metric for evaluating interpretations and a robust discussion of the various impacts to the violation. I do not view topicality in a purely "jurisdictional" way - offense/defense is important.

Plans: Not needed but not automatically disallowed.

Kritiks: Sure although just like any argument, it must be explained, applied, and impacted thoroughly.

Flowing/note-taking: I will flow the entirety of the debate.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Quality and depth of argument is the primary thing I will evaluate, but style is not unimportant by any means.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes.

POLICY

"I view my role in the debate not as arbiter of truth, but critic of argument, as such I attempt to divorce myself from relative "truth" values of arguments." - Chris Loghry

I like to see debaters deploying arguments that motivate and interest them.

I don’t call for many cards. This does not mean evidence quality does not matter, or that I don’t call cards often. What it does mean is: the debaters make the arguments, not the cards. I will not view them as placeholders for warranted explanation. Not every argument requires a card to answer.

Framing matters: provide me a macro-level filter through which to view the micro-components of the debate. The debates I find myself most frustrated with are the ones in which the 2NR and the 2AR have respectively delivered me 2NC #2 and 2AC #2 and left me to sort through the pieces. Rebuttalists that present a clear story while closing the right doors will be rewarded.

The more explicit you are with me in terms of my ballot, the better. This mostly goes for presumption and judge conditionality, but also for competing Frameworks/Role of the Ballots. If debaters are not explicit, there becomes no objective standard for me to use as a reference for when and where I infer these arguments.

Have a plan for Cross-X.

Things I like to see in cross-x: Asking precise, critical questions. Giving succinct, impactful answers. Writing down all concessions for utilization in the next speech.

Things I hate to see in cross-x: Ad-homs. Open-ended softballs. Questions that blatantly indicate a lack of flowing. Refusal to answer reasonable questions. Repetition of questions to avoid giving answers. Poorly-timed invocations of false ethos. 4-person shouting matches.

If you are reading critical literature, whether on the Affirmative or Negative, please explain and utilize your method. Make the links turn the case. Have a robust explanation of the alternative. Strive for internal, philosophical consistency. Your authors have particular theories of subjectivity, violence, etc., and I want to thear them; just remember that they all can and SHOULD be ACTIVELY applied broadly to frame many portions of the technical debate.

A speech doc is not a flow substitute.

Debate matters just as much to your opponents as it does to you, even if for different reasons. Be mindful of this and respect your competitors.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Debated 4 years Marquette University HS (2001-2004)

Assistant Coach – Marquette University HS (2005-2010)

Head Coach – Marquette University HS (2011-2012)

Assistant Coach – Johns Creek HS (2012-2014)

Head Coach – Johns Creek HS (2014-Current)

Yes, put me on the chain: bencharlesschultz@gmail.com

No, I don’t want a card doc.

Its been a long time since I updated this – this weekend I was talking to a friend of mine and he mentioned that I have "made it clear I wasn’t interested in voting for the K”. Since I actually love voting for the K, I figured that I had been doing a pretty bad job of getting my truth out there. I’m not sure anyone reads these religiously, or that any paradigm could ever combat word of mouth (good or bad), but when I read through what I had it was clear I needed an update (more so than for the criticism misconception than for the fact that my old paradigm said I thought conditionality was bad – yeesh, not sure what I was thinking when I wrote THAT….)

Four top top shelf things that can effect the entire debate for you, with the most important at the top:

11) Before I’m a debate judge, I’m a teacher and a mandatory reporter. I say this because for years I’ve been more preferred as a critical judge, and I’ve gotten a lot of clash rounds, many of which include personal narratives, some of which contain personal narratives of abuse. If such a narrative is read, I’ll stop the round and bring in the tournament director and they will figure out the way forward.

22) I won’t decide the debate on anything that has happened outside of the round, no matter the quality of evidence entered into the debate space about those events. The round starts when the 1AC begins.

33) If you are going to the bathroom before your speech in the earlier speeches (constructives through 1nr, generally) just make sure the doc is sent before you go. Later speeches where there's no doc if you have prep time I can run that, or I'll take off .4 speaks and allow you to go (probably a weird thing, I know, but I just think its stealing prep even though you don't get to take flows or anything, just that ability to settle yourself and think on the positions is huge)

44) No you definitely cannot use extra cross-ex time as prep, that’s not a thing.

5

55) Finally, some fun. I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it. So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows. I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do! By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points

Top Shelf:

This is stuff that I think you probably want to know if you’re seeing me in the back

· I am liable probably more than most judges to yell “clear” during speeches – I won’t do it SUPER early in speeches because I think it takes a little while for debaters to settle into their natural speed, and a lot of times I think adrenaline makes people try and go faster and be a little less clear at the start of their speeches than they are later. So I wait a bit, but I will yell it. If it doesn’t get better I’ll yell one more time, then whatever happens is on you in terms of arguments I don’t get and speaker points you don’t get. I’m not going to stop flowing (or at least, I never have before), but I also am not yelling clear frivolously – if I can’t understand you I can’t flow you.

· I don’t flow with the doc open. Generally, I don’t open the doc until later in the round – 2nc prep is pretty generally when I start reading, and I try to only read cards that either are already at the center of the debate, or cards that I can tell based on what happens through the 2ac and the block will become the choke points of the round. The truth of the debate for me is on the flow, and what is said by the debaters, not what is said in their evidence and then not emphasized in the speeches, and I don’t want to let one team reading significantly better evidence than the other on questions that don’t arise in the debate influence the way I see the round in any way, and opening the doc open is more likely than not to predispose me towards one team than another, in addition to, if I’m reading as you go, I’m less likely to dock you points for being comically unclear than if the only way I can get down what I get down is to hear you say it.

Argumentative Stuff

Listen at the end of the day, I will vote for anything. But these are arguments that I have a built in preference against. Please do not change up your entire strategy for me. But if the crux of your strategy is either of these things know that 1 – I probably shouldn’t be at the top of your pref card, and 2 – you can absolutely win, but a tie is more likely to go to the other side. I try and keep an open mind as much as possible (heck I’ve voted for death good multiple times! Though that is an arg that may have more relevance as you approach 15 full years as a public school DoD….) but these args don’t do it for me. I’ll try and give a short explanation of why.

1. I’m not a good judge for theory, most specifically cheap shots, but also stuff seen as more “serious” like conditionality. Its been a long long time since anyone has gone for theory in front of me – the nature of the rounds that I get means there’s not usually a ton of negative positions – which is good because I’m not very sympathetic to it. I generally think that the negative offense, both from the standpoint of fairness and education, is pretty weak in all but the most egregious rounds when it comes to basic stuff like conditionality. Other counterplan theory like no solvency advocate, no international fiat, etc I’m pretty sympathetic to reject the argument not the team. In general, if you’re looking at something like conditionality where the link is linear and each instance increases the possibility of fairness/education impacts, for me you’ve got to be probably very near to, or even within, double digits for me to think the possible harm is insurmountable in round. This has come up before so I want to be really clear here – if its dropped, GO FOR IT, whether alone or (preferably) as an extension in a final rebuttal followed by substance. I for sure will vote for it in a varsity round (in novice rounds, depending on the rest of the round, I may or may not vote on it). Again – this is a bias against an argument that will probably effect the decision in very close rounds.

2. Psychoanalysis based critical literature – I like the criticism, as I mentioned above, just because I think the cards are more fun to read and more likely to make me think about things in a new way than a piece of counterplan solvency or a politics internal link card or whatever. But I have an aversion to psychoanalysis based stuff. The tech vs truth paragraph sums up my feelings on arguments that seem really stupid. Generally when I see critical literature I think there’s at least some truth to it, especially link evidence. But

3. Cheap Shots – same as above – just in general not true, and at variance with what its fun to see in a debate round. There’s nothing better than good smart back and forth with good evidence on both sides. Cheap shots (I’m thinking of truly random stuff like Ontology Spec, Timecube – stuff like that) obviously are none of those things.

4. Finally this one isn’t a hard and fast thing I’m necessarily bad for, but something I’ve noticed over the years that I think teams should know that will effect their argumentative choices in round – I tend to find I’m less good than a lot of judges for fairness as a standalone impact to T-USFG. I feel like even though its never changed that critical teams will contend that they impact turn fairness, or will at least discuss why the specific type of education they provide (or their critique of the type of education debate in the past has provided), it has become more in vogue for judges to kind of set aside that and put sort of a silo around the fairness impact of the topicality debate and look at that in a vacuum. I’ve just never been good at doing that, or understanding why that happens – I’m a pretty good judge still for framework, I think, but youre less likely to win if you go for a fairness impact only on topicality and expect that to carry the day

Specific Round Types:

K Affs vs Framework

Clash rounds are the rounds I’ve gotten by far the most in the last 5-8 years or so, and generally I like them a lot and they consistently keep me interested. For a long time during the first generation of critical affirmatives that critique debate/the resolution I was a pretty reliable vote for the affirmative. Since the negative side of the no plan debate has caught up, I’ve been much more evenly split, and in general I like hearing a good framework press on a critical aff and adjudicating those rounds. I think I like clash rounds because they have what I would consider the perfect balance between amount of evidence (and specificity of evidence) and amount of analysis of said evidence. I think a good clash round is preferable than almost any round because there’s usually good clash on the evidentiary issues and there’s still a decent amount of ev read, but from the block on its usually pure debate with minimal card dumpage. Aside from the preference discussed above for topicality based framework presses to engage the fairness claims of the affirmative more, I do think that I’m more apt than others to vote negative on presumption, or barring that, to conclude that the affirmative just gets no risk of its advantages (shoutout Juliette Salah!). One other warning for affirmatives – one of the advantages that the K affords is that the evidence is usually sufficiently general that cards which are explained one way (or meant to be used one way) earlier in the round can become exactly what the negative doesn’t need/cant have them be in the 2ar. I think in general judges, especially younger judges, are a little biased against holding the line against arguments that are clearly new or cards that are explained in a clearly different way than they were originally explained. Now that I’m old, I have no such hang ups, and so more than a lot of other judges I’ve seen I’m willing to say “this argument that is in the 2ar attached to (X) evidence is not what was in the 1ar, and so it is disallowed”. (As an aside, I think the WORST thing that has happened to, and can happen to, no plan teams is an overreliance on 1ar blocks. I would encourage any teams that have long 1ar blocks to toss them in the trash – if you need to keep some explanations of card warrants close, please do, but ditch the prewritten blocks, commit yourself to the flow, and listen to the flow of the round, and the actual words of the block. The teams that have the most issue with shifting argumentation between the 1ar and the 2ar are the teams that are so obsessed with winning the prep time battle in the final 2 rebuttals that they become over dependent on blocks and aren’t remotely responsive to the nuance of a 13 minute block that is these days more and more frequently 13 minutes of framework in some way shape or form)

K vs K

Seems like its more likely these days to see clash rounds for me, and next up would be policy rounds. I’d actually like to see more K v K rounds (though considering that every K team needs to face framework enough that they know exactly how to debate it, and its probably more likely/easier to win a clash round than a K v K round on the negative, it may be more strategic to just go for framework on the neg if you don’t defend the USFG on the aff), and I’d especially love to see more well-argued race v high theory rounds. Obviously contextualization of very general evidence that likely isn’t going to be totally on point is the name of the game in these rounds, as well as starting storytelling early for both sides – I’d venture to say the team that can start telling the simple, coherent story (using evidence that can generally be a tad prolix so the degree of difficulty for this is high) early will be the team that generally will get the ballot. The same advice about heavy block use, especially being blocked out into the 1ar, given above counts here as well.

Policy v policy Rounds

I love them. A good specific policy round is a thing of beauty. Even a non-specific counterplan/DA round with a good strong block is always great. As the season goes on its comparatively less likely, just based on the rounds I usually get, that I’ll know about specific terminology, especially deeply nuanced counterplan terminology. I honestly believe good debaters, no matter their argumentative preference or what side of the (mostly spurious) right/left divide in debate you’re on, are good CASE debaters. If you are negative and you really want to back up the speaker point Brinks truck, a 5+ minute case press is probably the easiest way to make that happen.

Individual argument preferences

I’ll give two numbers here – THE LEFT ONE about how good I think I am for an argument based on how often I actually have to adjudicate it, and THE RIGHT ONE will be how much I personally enjoy an argument. Again – I’ll vote for anything you say. But more information about a judge is good, and you may as well know exactly what I enjoy hearing before you decide where to rank me. 1 being the highest, 10 being the lowest.

T (classic) --------------------------------------- 5/4

T (USFG/Framework) ------------------------ 1/1

DA ------------------------------------------------ 3/2

CP ------------------------------------------------- 4/2

Criticism ----------------------------------------- 1/2

Policy Aff --------------------------------------- 2/2

K Aff ---------------------------------------------- 1/3

Theory ------------------------------------------- 8/9

Cheap Shots ------------------------------------ 10/10

Post Round:

I feel like I’ve gotten more requests lately to listen to redos people send me. I’m happy to do that and give commentary if folks want – considering I saw the original speech and know the context behind it, it only makes sense that I would know best whether the redo fixes the deficiencies of the original. Shoot me an email and I’m happy to help out!

Any other questions – just ask!

I debated for 4 years in high school at Whitney Young. I traveled nationally my junior and senior year. I attended the TOC both years and broke my senior year. My partner, Jeron Dastrup, and I had 7 bids senior year. I attend the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign where I'm studying Political Science and English with a minor in History.

Debate for yourselves. Don't make big changes to arguments based on my preferences.
1. I'm voting for the team that was most persuasive in the round
2. I vote on the flow, I don't want to do work for you.
3. Be respectful. If you are not respectful to your opponents, your speaker points will reflect it.


Win the round in front of me:
1. 2nr/2ar should be well organized and concise. I'd rather have you spend your prep time doing that, then giving a stand up 2nr/2ar that i will have to spend a lot of time dissolving
2. I'm not kicking the alt/cp for you
3. K overviews/ Theory blocks- don't let them become a blur

Specifics:

Topicality- My default is that a plan should be topical, however if I am told otherwise I can definitely be persuaded. I always favor topic specific untopical affs vs. random affs that can be recycled year to year. I also like examples of case lists when the round comes down to competing interpretations

Framework/ K-Aff- I like these debates. Debating the rules of the activity is very important. I ran untopical arguments a lot, and in depth discussions of these arguments will get my vote. If you read an untopical aff, framework is a legitimate strategy against you. "The negative coulda, woulda, shoulda" - aff arguments against framework do not garner sympathy with me. Each side should have offense. 

Theory- Make sure you're clear, I flow on paper. Blippy arguments that are not explained will not go far for me. Contradictions in round are bad, but must be used offensively for me to vote. Completely justified to concede one part of the contradiction to take out another argument, teams should do it more often.

CP/DA- i won't kick the cp for you unless told: I can / I should in the instance of "x". They should be based off the mandates of the plan. The more specific to the aff, the better it is.

PTX- evidence quality usually isn't too great on these debates which makes me appreciate well developed arguments and great evidence. I will vote on this DA if you go for it.

K- You need an external impact. Root cause arguments are barely ever explained well enough, and rarely encompass the entirety of the kritik. FW debates on the k- usually means you have to win DA's to the k to get leverage in this area. I really like these debates.

Chattahoochee High School 2015
University of Michigan 2019
Assistant Coach --- Wayzata High School (2015-Present)

Personal Information

I debated for four years at Chattahoochee High School on the national circuit, and three-ish years at the University of Michigan. As a debater, most of my experience involved reading policy-oriented arguments (my most frequent 2NRs included DA/Case or DA/CP strategies, T, and the Security K). As a judge, I've voted for arguments at pretty much every point on the argumentative spectrum. Judging is a privilege, and I'll work hard to make the best decision I possibly can.

Thoughts About Debate

I reward smart debaters who control the spin of the debate with quick, technical comparisons and intuitive analytics because, as a debater, I've always disliked judges that I felt were overly interventionist or reppy. I penalize debaters who tell me to "read 'X' flaming hot card" instead of comparatively explaining its warrants during their speeches. It's your job to make arguments within the debate, not mine to do so during the RFD.

With that said, I (like all judges) have some personal preferences about specific arguments that are likely to shape my decisions at the margins:

Counterplans: Obviously I prefer them to be specific, but I'm better than most judges for process CPs because most affirmative teams are bad at contesting their theoretical legitimacy or competitiveness.

DA/Case Debate: It's your job as debaters to tell me how I should weigh different components of these debates. Is winning the link more important than winning uniqueness? How does turns case analysis impact aff solvency? The team that better responds to these kinds of general framing questions within their speeches tends to be the one I end up voting for in close rounds.
Well-developed case defense is an incredibly under-utilized weapon, especially when people read bad affs that can be beaten with logical analytics.

Kritiks: The best critique debaters I've seen contextualize their links to the specificity of the aff and it's advantages and don't rely on random dropped K tricks. When I was asked "how far left is too far left" before a debate, my response was "if you can't explain your argument in a coherent fashion, you've gone too far". Take that as you will.

Theory: The most likely theoretical violation to result in me rejecting the team is conditionality. Many theory debates are difficult to adjudicate because they lack impact analysis. Explain why what your opponents have done is a reason to reject the team and explain the consequences of not doing so in a persuasive manner. I'm not likely to vote on blippy theory arguments like vague alts or multiple perms that are minimally articulated early in the debate, but these are useful as reasons to reject arguments.

Topicality: I generally default to competing interpretations. Many 2N's lack impact analysis or comparison between interpretations, which makes general aff arguments for their interpretation relatively convincing. Caselists for your interpretation and your opponent's are useful for helping me conceptualize and compare competing visions of the topic.

Planless Affirmatives: My voting record reflects a fairly even split of aff and neg ballots in framework debates, which some may find surprising given my personal inclinations towards reading plans and defending American hegemony. Maybe this just means teams are really bad at going for framework, but I hope it's more of a reflection of the fact that I care a lot more about what you say in the round than what I personally believe. Teams that win these debates in front of me tend to control the overarching framing of the round --- while technical debate is important, don't miss the forest for the trees. Impact-wise, procedural fairness has historically been more successful in front of me than skills and education-based arguments, but it requires better defense given the inherently smaller scale of the impact.

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

northwestern university '20

i h8 f/w + the usa and i luv poc

I debated for three years in high school for Portage Northern, and currently debate for Michigan State.

I am, in general, fine with any kind of argument. There are a few things I like/you should know in regards to each kind of arguments.

Topicality: I am not, and have never been, particularly a fan of T. I really think that, for the most part, things like the caselist and generic cp/da links mitigate the vast majority of abuse on the part of the affirmative, and I would much rather listen to a debate about the substance of the affirmative rather than sit and listen to different interpretations of the resolution. I will still vote on topicality, but I'm really not going to like it.

Disads: I don't really have much to say here, beyond the need to stress strong impact work on the bottom of the flow for both the negative and the affirmative.

Counterplans: I love counterplans in all forms. I think that my threshold for general counterplan theory is very high, getting me to vote on PICS bad or Process bad is going to be an uphill battle. If the net benefit to the counterplan is not a disad, but rather a non-mutually exclusive part of the cp, I need enough analysis there to vote on the perm do both. I think that those kinds of net benefits need an impact of some kind, I'm not going to vote on a plan-inclusive counterplan just because the counterplan solves slightly better. For the affirmative, when it comes to perms, I'll only vote on perm do the cp or other perms that could be considered severance if you grammatically prove why that doesn't sever the 1AC.

Kritiks: In high school, I was more kritikal than I currently am. I will still vote on kritiks and kritikal affirmatives, and I think they are a massively important part of policy debate, but know that I may not be speccifically familiar with many forms of critical literature, especcially higher theory. Feel free to clarify before the round. I'm also not a fan of novices running kritiks until a bit later in the year.

Condo: I think that my preferred limit for the neg is two conditional advocacies. That doesn't mean I'll always vote you down on condo abuse if you run three, but I think it would be very hard for me to vote down a team for running two or less conditional advocacies.

Director of Debate at Westminster 2013-2021, lawyer, college and high school debater before that -- but slow it down some if you want your arguments to make it to my flow, which is usually on paper.

It is unlikely that I can flow the tiny details of your pre-written blocks.

I definitely do not know the details of your politics DA or answers, or topicality arguments that were devloped from some obscure 1879 state court ruling - please understand that I am evaluating your argument based on what you say in the round, although I will look at cards if you give me reason to.

Don't assume, and explain well.

Quick thoughts:

1) Make your speeches flowable. I will not be able to flow (and likely will not catch) all the details if you are reading pre-written blocks at top speed with no breaks or changes in inflection. If you're going to read blocks, try to at least pretend you're not reading blocks by having breaks between arguments, emphasizing tags, slowing it down a little on analytics, etc. You are also a lot more likely to hold my attention to details and help me not miss stuff that way. I will reward your speaker points if you do a good job of this.

You would be shocked at how many "good" judges think the same thing about block-reading and the above advice, and how little some judges are flowing, or even catching, of what you think you said.

2) I disagree with approaches that make the personal identity of the debaters in the round relevant to the decision in the debate, especially for high-school-aged students, and I am also not a good judge for these debates because I often do not understand what the judge is being asked to vote for. This does not mean you can't read K arguments or arguments about race or identity, in fact there are many K arguments that I think are true and make a lot of sense, I just don't think a teacher should in the position of ratifying or rejecting the personal identity or experiences of a teenager.

3) "Death good" is a reason to reject the team, and I may auto-vote that way even if the opponent doesn't make the argument.

4) There needs to be a fair stasis point in order to have good debates. Debate is good.

5) Theory: You are really taking your chances if you rely on a sketchy CP that requires winning a lot of theory, because I do not spend a lot of time outside of debate rounds thinking about theory. I can't tell you which way I will come down on a particular theory issue because it usually depends on what is said -- and what I flow -- in that particular round. This applies to T debates and other theory debates too.

6) If it is pretty close between the CP and the aff (or even if it isn't close), you need to give some really clear comparative explanations about why I should choose one over the other -- which you should do for any judge but make sure you do it when I'm judging.

7) I really dislike high theory and post-modernism in debate.

8) Reading cards to decide the debate: For many years I tried to judge without looking at the speech documents during the speeches, but I have recently concluded that is unrealistic because there is an entire additional level of the debate that is happening between the debaters in the speech documents. I don't think it should be that way, but I understand why it is happening. However, if the claims made about a card or set of cards are uncontested by the opponent, I am likely to assume when deciding the debate that the cards say what their reader claimed they say rather than reading both sides' cards or any of the cards.

9) I am not at all deep in the files and evidence especially for most neg arguments, so I am really judging the debate based on what you say and what your cards say as you present them in the round.

9) Links and impact calculus are really, really important, especially in the last rebuttals. However, I think lengthy pre-written overviews are not as good as 2NR/2AR (and prior) explanations based on what actually happened in the particular debate.

Debate Experience:

4 years in high school (Lakeside High School, Augusta GA, mostly local/Atlanta circuit)

1 year at Emory

Coaching Experience:

3 years assistant coach at the Westminster Schools (2006-2009)

1 year assistant coach at Johns Creek High School

5 years director of debate at Mount Vernon Presbyterian School (Atlanta, GA)

As a debater, I liked to write/run critical affs (defended a plan text and fiated plan action, but often made discourse & deontology impact framing args); on the neg side, I went for Agent CPs/Disads and T most of the time.

I'm happy to listen to any argument and am also happy to use any paradigm or decision calculus you want to defend, but things you might want to know about me in a vacuum:

• I don't have any special threshold on theory arguments, and am perhaps more likely to vote on well-explained theory voters than the average judge (especially against process CPs); however, I hate listening to a shotgun blast of theory args without analysis.  Approach theory like any other flow - clash needs to be developed, a combination of offense and defense is probably necessary.
• I'm not likely to call for a card unless it's clearly extended in the 2NR/2AR; if you want me to read your evidence, you need to let me know its important.
• I think that switch-side debate provide a unique educational experience for high schoolers, both in the sense that it teaches a variety of strategic decision-making skills and increases the depth of content education on each topic; I also think that it probably ensures a fair division of arguments between both teams in a debate
• I love a well developed post-fiat K debate; if you want to talk about serial policy failure, blowback, etc., that's my jam; but to do it well, you need to develop specific analysis in the context of the Aff
• I don't believe in the judge-kick on the CP

any other specific questions, please feel free to ask.

zstrother@mountvernonschool.org

zachstrother@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POINTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will evaluate what is debated in front of me. Usually in an offense/defense paradigm.

T

is is a voter. However I will evaluate impact turns to T. I assume competing interpretations on T

cps

must compete

da

will vote on if it outweighs case. I will also evaluate linear das if it turns the aff

K/performance

I will vote on. Sometimes people don’t articulate the link well. Make sure your explaining your arguments in the context of the aff. Performance affs are a voter however I will not evaluate based on competing methodologies unless I’m asked to do so

Do your best debating. I will look at the flow and decide who wins. Impact calculus of some kind is usually important in my decision

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions. Please put BOTH of these on chains: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com and lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Virtual Debate Updates:

I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.

Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.

Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.

Evidence/Argumentation/General

I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.

I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.

I listen closely to cross-ex.

Ks

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.

I go to the University of Southern California. Went to Whitney Young High School and am working with Niles North this year. 

Disclaimer for the China topic: I didn't work at a camp and am slowly getting immersed into the topic. What this probably means for you: 

- Topicality: the arguments you've been having for the past few months about topicality and things that may seem intuitive for you are less intuitive to me. This means you should probably spend a bit more time giving examples of what affs your interpretation allows and why those are good debates to be had and what affs their interpretation allows and why those are bad debates to be had - emphasis on the latter part of those statements. 

- Try not to be acronym heavy, or at the very least take a second to explain what you're talking about before jumping into a very technical discussion. If I look confused, its probably because I am.

One thing that I try really hard at is making the debate more about the debaters and less about me. What you should take away from that:
1. I tend to care less about ideology. From a judging perspective/coaching perspective, the Policy/K/Performance (or better put, Plan/Not Plan divide) is not something I care much about. I DO care about debaters who debate well, who are smart, and who try.
2. I try to pay attention and flow as much as possible --- this includes cross-x and subsequently ground my decision in what happens in the debate as much as possible. 
3. Debate isn't what I think is true about the world, it is about what happened in a specific debate round. To me, this activity is a communicative one based on persuasion. If you lost the debate, its not because I don't believe you, it is because I thought the other team out-debated you and was more persuasive.

I think debate is full of hard work and appreciate people who demonstrate that they have put in the work by demonstrating cleverness, strategy, and a dedication to good research. Research is what I enjoy most about this activity and it is kind of awesome to see people who appreciate it too. 

Some things that I have come to realize the more and more I judge: 
--- What makes judging difficult for me is that the debate is hardly ever resolved by the end. Often times, I find the 2NR and 2AR a series of args that coincidentally line up next to one another but are not resolved and lack clash. You can help me out by impacting out how your arguments implicate the rest of the debate and provide lenses to view certain arguments. Do comparison between arguments whether that be impact calc or ev comparison. An example to demonstrate what I mean is one team will say, "PC not key, votes are determined by ideology" while the other team will say just the opposite "PC is key to vote switching and putting pressure on constituencies." The question of how to resolve this debate is really really hard without ev comparison or something along those lines.

---Related - you'll go farther in your final rebuttals by taking a realistic evaluation of what you're winning/losing and capitalizing on what you're winning on and minimizing the impact of what you're losing rather than pretending your final rebuttal was a solid 30 speech. 

Some random thoughts that are important to put in here:
1. If the neg states the squo is a logical option, I do not have a problem kicking the counterplan/alt when prompted by the 2NR. 
2. An argument is a claim and warrant with an impact -- while this seems obvious, but you'd be surprised.
3. Impact uniqueness matters and try or die can be persuasive but is often mis/overused. 
4. Zero risk is hard to win. Winning the DA is low enough probability that it should be disregarded is an easier sell.
5. Ideally, counterplans compete off of mandates of the plan. If they don't, hopefully aff teams can explain why this is important. Long story short: the more the counterplans is guided by topic literature, the better and the easier it is to sell that the it is a relevant policy discussion. 

Finally, I invite you to ask question during my decision, argue with me, etc. I am not a person who is offended by people taking issue with what I have said and will try my best to articulate to you how I thought the debate went down.

Jon Voss

Northside College Prep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Waldinger 

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School 

10+ years judging 

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I, as the judge, have the option to kick the CP for them. You may think this is a mere semantic difference. That’s fine – but I DON’T. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it post-round (3NR?).

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area.  The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree. 

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for. 

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making. 

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.

Debate History:

Juan Diego Catholic: 2011-2014 (1N/2A and 1A/2N)

Rowland Hall-St. Marks: 2014-2015 (1A/2N)

University of Michigan: 2015-2019 (1A/2N)

University of Kentucky: 2019-2020 (Assistant Coach)

Wake Forest University: Present (Assistant Coach)

*Please put me on the email chain: caitlinp96@gmail.com - NO POCKETBOXES OR WHATEVER PLEASE AND THANK YOU*

TL;DR: You do you, and I'll flow and judge accordingly. Make smart arguments, be yourself, and have fun. Ask questions if you have them post-round / time permits. I would rather you yell at me (with some degree of respect) and give me the chance to explain why you lost so that you can internalize it rather than you walk away pissed/upset without resolution. An argument = claim + warrant. You may not insert rehighlighted evidence into the record - you have to read it, debate is a communicative activity.

General thoughts: I enjoy debate immensely and I hope to foster that same enjoyment in every debate I judge. With that being said, you should debate how you like to debate and I’ll judge fairly. I will immediately drop a team and give zero speaks if you make this space hostile by making offensive remarks or arguments that make it unsafe for others in the round (to be judged at my discretion). Clipping accusations must have audio or some form of proof. Debaters do not necessarily have to stake the round on an ethics violation. I also believe that debaters need to start listening to each other's arguments more, not just flowing mindlessly - so many debates lose potential nuance and clash because debaters just talk past each other with vague references to the other team's arguments. I can't/won't vote on an argument about something that happened outside the debate. I have no way of falsifying any of this and it's not my role as a judge. This doesn't apply to new affs bad if both teams agree that the aff is new, but if it's a question of misdisclosure, I really wouldn't know what to do (stolen from DML and Goldschlag). *NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me. (stolen from Val)

General K thoughts:

- AT: Do you judge these debates/know what is happening? Yes, its basically all I judge anymore (mostly clash of civs)

- AT: Since you are familiar with our args, do we not have to do any explanation specific to the aff/neg args? No, you obviously need to explain things

- AT: Is it cool if I just read Michigan KM speeches I flowed off youtube? If you are reading typed out copies of someone else's speech, I'm going to want to vote against you and will probably be very grumpy. Debate is a chance for you to show off your skill and talent, not just copy someone's speech you once saw on youtube.

K (Negative) – enjoyable if done well. Make sure the links are specific to the case and cause an impact. Make sure that the alt does something to resolve those impacts and links as well as some aff offense OR have a framework that phases out aff offense and resolves yours. Assume I know nothing about your literature base. Try not to have longer than a 2-minute overview

K (Affirmative) / Framework – probably should have some relation to the resolution otherwise it's easy to be persuaded that by the interp that you need to talk about the resolution. Probably should take some sort of action to resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. I think FW debates are important to have because they force you to question why this space has value and/or what needs to change in said space. Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Affirmative teams should have a robust reason why their aff is necessary to resolve certain impacts and why framework is bad. Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like if I sign my ballot aff or neg and why that vision is better than the other side’s. Fairness is an impact and is easily the one I'm most persuaded by, particularly if couched in terms of it being the only impact any individual ballot can solve AND being a question of simply who's model is most debatable (think competing interps).

T is distinct from Framework in these debates in so far as I believe that:

- T is a question of form, not content -- it is fundamentally content neutral because there can be any number of justifications beyond simply just the material consequences of hypothetical enactment for any number of topical affs

- Framework is more a question of why this particular resolution is educationally important to talk about and why the USfg is the essential actor for taking action over these questions

Case – Please, please, please debate the case. I don’t care if you are a K team or a policy team, the case is so important to debate. Most affs are terribly written and you could probably make most advantages have almost zero risk if you spent 15 minutes before round going through aff evidence. Zero risk exists.

CPs – Sure. Negative teams need to prove competition and why they are net beneficial to the aff. Affirmative needs to impact out solvency deficits and/or explain why the perm avoids the net benefit. Affs also must win some form of offense to outweigh a DA (solvency deficits, theory, impact turn to an internal nb/plank of the cp) otherwise I could be persuaded that the risk of neg offense outweighs a risk a da links to the cp, the perm solvency, etc.

DAs – Also love them. Negative teams should tell me the story of the DA through the block and the 2nr. Affirmative teams need to point out logical flaws in the DA and why the aff is a better option. Zero risk exists.

Politics – probably silly, but I’ll vote on it. I could vote on intrinsicness as terminal defense if debated well.

Topicality – You need a counter-interp to win reasonabilty on the aff. I default to competing interpretations if there is no other metric for evaluation.

Theory – the neg has been getting away with murder recently and its incredibly frustrating. Brief thoughts on specific args below:

- cps with a bunch of planks to fiat out of every possible solvency deficit with no solvency advocate = super bad

- 3+ condo with a bunch of conditional planks = bad

- cps that fiat things such as: "Pence and Trump resign peacefully after [x] date to avoid the link to the politics da", "Trump deletes all social media and never says anything bad about the action of the plan ever", "Trump/executive office/other actor decides never to backlash against the plan or attempt to circumvent it" = vomit emoji

- commissions cps = still cheating, but less bad than all the things above

- delay cps = boo

- consult cps = boo (idk if these exist on the immigration topic, but w/e)

- going for theory when you read a new aff = nah fam (with some exceptions)

- 2nr cps (yes this happened recently) = boo

- going for condo when they read 2 or less without conditional planks = boo

- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps for any perm

- theory probably does not outweigh T unless impacted very early, clearly, and in-depth

Bonus – Speaker Point Outline – I’ll try to follow this very closely (TOC is probably the exception because y'all should be speaking in the 28.5+ category):

(Note: I think this scale reflects general thoughts that are described in more detail in this: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html - Thanks Regnier)

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity policy debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

I debated at New Trier for 4 years (graduated in 2014) and went to the ToC my junior and senior years. I did not debate in college and have not judged since the end of 2016, so I am quite disconnected from the norms/arguments/tendencies of current day debate. The ETHS tournament is my first on this topic, so I know absolutely nothing about it and you should not assume that I know much of anything about even the most common affs/DAs/CPs/etc.

As a debater in high school I was largely a policy-oriented 2N, though I would go for a basic critique now and again. Please feel free to ask for further clarification before the round, as I understand that this is not the most helpful judge philosophy. Thanks and have fun!

I'm currently a head coach at New Trier Township High School outside of Chicago, IL. I've been at New Trier since 2012. Prior to that I was the director of debate at Cathedral Preparatory School in Erie, PA. I debated at the University of Pittsburgh ('07) and at Cathedral Prep ('03).

Here are some defaults into the way I evaluate arguments. Obviously these are contingent upon the way that arguments are deployed in round. If you win that one of these notions should not be the standard for the debate, I will evaluate it in terms of your argumentation.

*I evaluate the round based on the flow. Technical line by line debating should be prioritized. That's not to say that I'm always a "tech over truth" judge. I'm willing to listen to reasonable extrapolations, smart debating, and bringing in some context. However, I don't think I can interpret exactly how an argument in one place should be applied to another portion of the flow/debate unless the debater does that for me. To me, that injects my understanding of how I would spin one argument to answer another and I don't want to do that.

*Offense/Defense - I'm not sure if I'm getting older or if the quality of evidence is getting worse, but I find myself less persuaded by the idea that there's "always a risk" of any argument. Just because a debater says something does not mean it is true. It is up to the other team to prove that. However, if an argument is claimed to be supported by evidence and the cards do not say what the tags claim or the evidence is terrible, I'm willing to vote on no risk to that argument. Evidence needs to have warrants that support tags/claims.

*I prefer tags that are complete sentences. The proliferation of one word tags makes with massive card text (often without underlining) reduces the academic integrity of the activity.

*Evidence should be highlighted to include warrants for claims. I am more likely to vote on a few cards that have high quality warrants and explained well than I am to vote on several cards that have been highlighted down to the point that an argument cannot be discerned in the evidence.

* Teams are getting away with some real scholarly shenanigans on evidence. I've seen cards that run 6-7 pages long and they are highlighted down to a few sentences. I think it is up to the debaters to exploit this, but I'm less and less impressed by the overall scholarship in the activity.

*Arguments require claims and warrants. A claim without warrant is unlikely to be persuasive.

* A note on plan texts: start defending things. I find that most plans are extraordinarily vague and meaningless. They are "resolutional phrase by X." There's no plan text basis for the fiat claims AFF teams are making. All of the sudden, that becomes some wild extrapolation on how the plan is implemented, what a Court decision would look like, that it is done through some random memo, etc. all in an effort to avoid offense. I've just grown a little tired of it. I'm not saying change your plan because of me, you need to do what you need to do to win the round, but the overall acceptance of plans that do not say anything of substance is trend a frown upon.

*Performance/Non-traditional Affirmative -

I can still be persuaded to vote for an AFF that doesn't defend the topic, but it's become much harder for me. I find myself being increasingly on the side of defending the resolution.

My old paradigm read as follows: I would prefer that the debate is connected to the resolution. My ultimate preference would be for the Affirmative to defend a topical plan action that attempts to resolve a problem with the status quo. I think that this provides an opportunity for students to create harms that are tied to traditional internal link chains or critical argumentation. Teams should feel free to read critical advantages, but I would prefer that they access them through a topical plan action. For example, reading an Affirmative that finds a specific example of where structural violence (based on racism, sexism, heteronormativity, classism, etc.) is being perpetuated and seeks to remedy that can easily win my ballot. Debaters could then argue that the way that we make decisions about what should or should not be done should prioritize their impacts over the negative's. This can facilitate kritiks of DA impacts, decision calculus arguments, obligations to reject certain forms of violence, etc.

Teams who choose not to defend a topical plan action should be very clear in explaining what their advocacy is. The negative should be able to isolate a stasis point in the 1AC so that clash can occur in the debate. This advocacy should be germane to the resolution.

I am not wedded traditional forms of evidence. I feel that teams can use non-traditional forms of evidence as warrants explaining why a particular action should be taken. An Affirmative that prefers to use personal narratives, music, etc. to explain a harm occurring in the status quo and then uses that evidence to justify a remedy would be more than welcome. I tend to have a problem with Affirmative's that stop short of answering the question, "what should we do?" How a team plans to access that is entirely up to them.

*Kritik debates - I like kritik debates provided they are relevant to the Affirmative. Kritiks that are divorced from the 1AC have a harder time winning my ballot. While I do not want to box in the negative's kritik options, examples of kritiks that I would feel no qualms voting for might include criticisms of international relations, economics, state action, harms representations, or power relations. I am less persuaded by criticisms that operate on the margins of the Affirmative's advocacy. I would prefer links based off of the Affirmative plan. Kritiks that I find myself voting against most often include Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.

*Theory - Generally theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. The exception is conditionality. I find myself less persuaded by conditionality bad debates if there are 2 or less advocacies in the round. That is not to say I haven't voted for the AFF in those debates. I am willing to vote on theory if it is well explained and impacted, but that does not happen often, so I end up defaulting negative. Avoid blips and theory blocks read at an incomprehensible rate.

*CP's CP's that result in the plan (consult, recommendations, etc.) bore me. I would much rather hear an agent CP, PIC, Advantage CP, etc. than a CP that competes off of "certainty" or "immediacy."

*Case - I'd like to see more of it. This goes for negative teams debating against nontraditional Affirmatives as well. You should engage the case as much as possible.

Other things
*If your strategy is extinction good or death good, genocide good, racism good, patriarchy good, etc. please do all of us as favor and strike me. These arguments strike me as being inappropriate for student environments. Imagine a world where a debater's relative recently passed away and that student is confronted with "death good" for 8 minutes of the 1AC. Imagine a family who fled slaughter in another part of the world and came to the United States, only to listen to genocide good. These are things I wouldn't allow in my classroom and I would not permit them in a debate round either. Since I can't actually prevent people from reading them, my only recourse is to use my ballot.

Rhian Williams- he/him pronouns

I debated for Wayne State and West Virginia Universities, coached a high school program, and served on the board of the Women's Debate Institute. I am a fairly middle of the road judge in that I have debated either extreme - I ran a performance affirmative about women in debate complete with narratives and a negation of the resolution. I also ran framework on other performance teams and have run traditional policy arguments for most of my debate career.

Performance/Identity/K Debates:

I'm a really good judge to have a K debate in front of. I have an understanding of the importance to kritikal debate. When I say that I'm a good judge to have a K debate in front of, I mean that I like performance, identity and alternative method debates. I've evolved on the "high theory" debates, so I'm also a decent judge to have these in front of, just know the lit you're reading.

I am heavily persuaded by education claims. Who accesses the best method of education? How do you provide the best education in the round? Who has the most accessible role of the ballot? These are the real questions.

I'm mostly persuaded by methods. This is something that a lot of high school debaters miss out on when they are debating the K against the case, or the performance aff against the policy framework. You should compare the methods of solvency for either side.

"Traditional" Debates:

In a normal policy round - DO IMPACT ANALYSIS! Go into the warrants of the evidence and explain the stuff you're pulling across. I am not compelled by tag-line extensions. Give me the story of your DA, explain the links so that there's no doubt how the DA functions. To win a topicality round, all parts of the topicality must be there to vote on it- definition, violation, standards, and voters. Only go for one thing in the 2NR.

I don't really like theory arguments made by the affirmative because I find that they're often poorly impacted and just run to be a time skew. But, these arguments may persuade me if they're all you go for in the 2AR and if you impact them well and prove real abuse. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time.

Do not pref me if you run:

• Wilderson, and you're white (or other identity politics and you are the identity you're politicing) don't coopt the struggles of the actual people going through them for the ballot.
• Arguments you can't explain or don't understand

I'm all for inclusive debate! So here are some Do's and Don'ts:

• Don't: dominate your partner during cross ex- if they are being CXed and they need help or you need to say something, ask them if you can say something before you say it.
• Don't: dominate the person you are cross-exing. What I mean to say here is be nice. Give the person you're CXing room to breath (physically). CX shouldn't feel like an interrogation- don't repeatedly ask them questions you know they have no idea how to answer. Don't badger the witness.
• Do: be nice (duh)
• Don't: PUPPET MASTER! I understand the urge to speak for your partner if there's a huge gap in skill between you and your partner, but please try to resist. If your partner is really floundering, write out what you want them to say and hand it to them instead of saying it and making them repeat it like an oath. This is better for education for the both of you.
• Do: Have fun and learn! This is a learning activity, so be courteous and allow everyone in the round an equal opportunity to learn and grow.

Background:

USN head coach 2012-present

MBA assistant coach 2000-2002

The stuff you are looking for:

email chain: bwilson at usn.org

K Aff: Defend a hypothetical project that goes beyond the 1AC.

Framework: My general assumption is that predictable limits lead to higher quality debates. Aff, how does your method/performance center on the resolutional question in a way that adds value to this year's topic education? Why does the value of your discussion/method outweigh the benefits of a predictable, topic-focused debate?

Topicality: I am agnostic when it comes to the source of your definitions. Just tell me why they are preferable for this debate. Aff reasonability defense must be coupled with an interpretation, and RTP that interpretation. I will be honest, when it's a T round against an aff that was cut at workshop and has been run all year, I have a gut-check lean to reasonability. Competing interps becomes more compelling when there is significant offense for the interpretation.

Theory: Other than condo, a theory win means I reject the argument unless you do work explaining otherwise. For condo debates, please have a clear interpretation and reasons to reject. I am more open to theory when it is about something particular to the round and is not read from pre-written blocks.

CP's: I prefer CP's that have a solvency advocate. I think a well articulated/warranted perm can beat most plan plus, process CP's.

Politics: I like it better on topics without other viable DAs, but I am fine for these debates.

DAs: I find "turns the case" analysis more compelling at the internal link level.

Cheating: If you are not reading every word you are claiming through underlining or highlighting, that is clipping. If it seems like a one time miscue I will yell something, and unless corrected, I'll disregard the evidence. If it is egregious/persistent, I will be forced to intervene with an L.

If the other team raises a dispute. I will do my best to adjudicate the claim and follow the above reasoning to render a penalty either to dismiss the evidence in question or reject the team. I think I have a fairly high threshold for rendering a decision on an ethics challenge.

RIP wiki paradigms, or how my paradigm started for years but is now showing its age:

I like it when debaters think about the probability of their scenarios and compare and connect the different scenarios in the round. If it is a policy v critical debate, the framing is important, but not in a prior question, ROB, or "only competing policy options" sense. The better team uses their arguments to access or outweigh the other side. I think there is always a means to weigh 1AC advantages against the k, to defend 1AC epistemology as a means to making those advantages more probable and specific. On the flip side, a thorough indictment of 1AC authors and assumptions will make it easier to weigh your alternative, ethics, case turn, etc. Explain the thesis of your k and tell me why it it is a reason to reject the affirmative.

Very experienced judge and coach for Saint Francis high school. I will consider pretty much any arguments that are not blatantly sexist, racist or crudely discriminatory (blatant is the key word here, much of this stuff is debatable and I will try not to punish you for my general feelings about your arguments).

It is important to me that debaters be respectful and polite to each other, this puts the spotlight on the arguments themselves and I am not a fan of extra drama.

I try hard to be fair and the following things help me do that:

- I rarely call cards. I like to focus the debate on the analysis given by the debaters (of course I will usually give more weight to analysis that is taken from qualified sources). I do not like to decide debates on random parts of a card that neither debater really focused on. I will call cards if I forget what they said, if there is a conflict about what they say and I can not remember, or if I am personally interested in the card.

- I try to judge on the flow in the sense that I evaluate the debate on the arguments presented, explained and extended into the rebuttals. I will occasionally do the work to weigh impacts or decide framing if the debaters are not doing that for me.

- I will not yell "clear", so mumble and slur at your own risk (I don't yell clear because I don't want a team to find that sweet spot where I can understand them but their opponents can not). I will also not evaluate arguments that I can not hear. I do not read speech documents during the debate rounds, sometimes I will look at them after the round (see calling cards stuff above).

Argument preferences:

I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.

I am cool with framework (I like the debaters to work this out and I am pretty neutral on this question).

I like clarity (both in speech and arguments). I am not impressed by things that are "too complex" for me to understand but I will do my best to try to make sense of it. I am confident enough to not pretend I know your position and I will not fill in the blanks for you.

I am cool with policy arguments.

I have a wide breadth of knowledge but little depth on certain positions, don't assume I know your literature.

Speaks:

I give high speaks for clarity, efficiency, a pace that I can flow, respectfulness and occasionally speaking style.

I feel like the speaker point range I give is pretty close to average (I am not a reliable source of high speaks for everyone, but I will reward excellent debate with high speaks).

Contact info

mail all speech documents to: headofthewood@gmail.com

anything else (if you want me to read the e-mail or respond): thomaswoodhead@sfhs.com

Michael Yost

michaelDOTyostATgmailDOTcom

Affiliations: Berkeley Prepatory School

Conflicts: Jenks High School

Experience: I debated in high school at Jenks, and in college at both the University of Oklahoma and the University of Central Oklahoma (NDT/CEDA). Before grad school, I was an assistant debate coach at UCO. I am now a PhD student in economics at Florida State University.

Overview: I like good debates, whatever form those may take. Do what you do best, and I will work hard to set aside my prior assumptions. I will evaluate the debate I am given—whatever its content—to the best of my ability. 

Ultimately, my strongest predisposition is towards an open and accessible debate for all. I take exclusionary language and behavior quite seriously. Please work to ensure that your behavior does not alienate or exclude anyone in the round.

Evidence: My bias is towards reading less, rather than more, evidence after debates. Unless there is significant disagreement regarding the content of particular cards, I will defer to the interpretation advanced in your speeches. Debate is foremost a communicative activity, and so I think it is important to prioritize that. That does not mean you should read bad cards, just that, ceteris paribus, I default to tech over truth. However, I often read evidence after I have made my decision so I can offer feedback for advancing one’s arguments more effectively.

Theory: I have a high threshold for voting for “obviously cheating” CPs, which includes, but is not limited to, word PICs, condition(s), delay, and consult CPs, and the like. I tend to believe that CPs should demonstrate an explicit opportunity cost to doing the plan, and these sorts of CPs often fail to do that, for various different reasons. In these cases, merely extending theory consistently and persuasively is sufficient reason to reject the CP for me.

I also have a soft spot for the argument that CPs need a solvency advocate specific to the aff.

Conditionality: is good. Flatly contradictory arguments, however, are probably not. I find it hard to justify voting for a K that links to the neg. So, if you are reading the security K, for example, you probably should not be reading war impacts on a different flow.

Framework: In these debates, teams should offer a model of debate and defend it. I find the teams—on either side—that succeed in these debates are the ones that best describe what debate is and can do. “What purpose does debate have?” is a question that both teams debating framework should answer. Is debate an activity to hone our analyses of policy? Is it a space to experiment and try new ideas? Or is it just a game? And what benefits can any of these visions for debate offer for those who disagree with your vision? Framework serves to negotiate these considerations, and to that extent, is necessary.

In general, the more specific and limited the framework argument, the better you will fare. The more general and insular your framework argument, the less likely I am to be persuaded. I do not enter the debate with the assumption that the only worthwhile discussion to be had is one that centers on government policy. However, I understand the desire to impose some sort of limit on debate, particularly in cases where the affirmative explicitly rejects topical discussion. Strategically, picking the framework interpretation that includes as many of the aff’s benefits as possible while not jettisoning the benefits of research and preparation is the option which will serve you best in front of me. 

“The K”: yes, I am fine with it. I usually hold K teams to a slightly higher standard in terms of explanation than policy teams, though. If you know your literature base, and make specific, offensive links tied to the 1AC, you are in good shape.

“Performance”: all of debate is a performance, even the parts where you are not giving a speech. As long as the form of your argument is accessible to all participants, I find little reason to reject it. If reading poetry or playing music is how you want to make arguments, I will raise little fuss. This cuts both ways, however—I am unpersuaded that speaking quickly or reading evidence is on-face exclusionary.

Prep time: I usually do not take prep time for saving and transmitting evidence, whether by USB drive or email chain, but this predisposition is subject to change during any given debate.

Background:

Walter Payton College Prep (2011-2015)

Northwestern University (2016-2020)

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

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

Basics:

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

K Affs:

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

Topicality:

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

Theory:

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

Kritiks:

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

Counterplans:

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

Disads:

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

Ethics:

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

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