Updated Feb 13, 2023

Experience

I debated in high school at Katy Taylor from 2011-2015 and in college I debated for UC Berkeley from 2015-2016.

I coached College Preparatory and BAUDL from 2016-2018 and with the NYUDL from 2019-2020.

I read a lot of Baudrillard back in the day and decently versed in most kritikal literature. I have also coached policy teams and love a good policy round.

Topicality / Theory / Affirmatives that do not fiat government action

Debate is an educational activity where participants engage each other to expand their knowledge on a topic and develop their argumentative skills. So I would rather see debates about the topic than a debate about debate unless it is absolutely neccessary.

Here's a little guide:

1. Don't go for conditionality theory just because the other team undercovered it.
2. Don't go for framework just because that's the only argument you prepared to read against an aff disclosed months ago.
3. Don't go for T just because the affirmative read a bad counter-interpretation.

Feel free to ask for clarification before the round via email or in person

Email
alattar.zaki@gmail.com

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA | mbietz AT hw.com

I am diagnosed (and am on medication) with severe ADD. This means my ability to listen carefully and pick up everything you say will wane during the round. I would strongly suggest you have vocal variety and slow down, especially for what you want to make sure I get.

Jonah Feldman, friend and former coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments

I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument.

I am primarily interested in voting on high-quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low-quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...

How should this affect the way I debate?

1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending many different answers to an advantage or off-case argument, pick your spots and lock in.

2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained the important components and implications of winning that argument.

His full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6366

More stuff:

I never thought I'd have to say this, but you have to read aloud what you want me to consider in the round. Paraphrasing doesn't count as "evidence."

The affirmative probably should be topical.

I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

I consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over the long-term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic, so it is NEGS failing to engage the Affirmative Case.

Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.

Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.

Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they need to catch up on actual issues.

Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, your opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means their risk of solvency is very low. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think it is ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.

- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will likely not end up well for you.

- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.

Some considerations for you:

- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.

- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.

Updated for CPS 2018: This update is to mostly reflect how I've been judging rounds lately.

Background:
I debated for four years for Loyola high. I broke at multiple tournaments and had a 4-3 record at the TOC.

I am more familiar with policy arguments, philosophy, and theory, and am less familiar with kritiques. However, I am not really a fan of how most philosophy and theory debates are done today, and thus my familiarity does not always correspond to what arguments I vote on.

Specifically, I think that moral philosophy positions that involves tricks are doing a disservice to the literature. Further, theory debates are often frivolous, although what I may consider frivolous may be different than what others consider frivolous. Some examples of what I consider frivolous theory are the following: font-size theory, must spec status in speech theory, some spec shells, etc. My litmus test for frivolous theory might be the following: does the theory shell isolate an issue of fairness that has actual educational implications on the debate round?

Kritiques usually have good explanations attached to them, so I've voted on them in the past and will probably continue to vote on them in the future.

Overview:
I evaluate the round via an offense/defense paradigm. Thus, I will vote for the debater who provides comparatively more offense back to the framework that has been won in the round, lest there are other issues (theory or kritiques) that precede this evaluation. Beyond this, I will try to evaluate the round in the most objective way possible. However, as all judges do, I have certain basic preferences that it would help to conform to.

First, when there is a clash on an issue or position, I tend to default to the more thorough and comprehensive explanation that makes sense to me. While technical drops are important, I don't think they automatically preclude good analysis. Strong weighing matters more to me than a dropped blippy argument on the flow.

Granted, this threshold only exists when there is clash on a position (and maybe sometimes across positions). If a position is totally conceded, or mostly conceded except for a couple of weaker arguments, my threshold for explanation and extensions becomes much lower (if totally conceded, it approaches zero).

Second, I flow CX, both because of theoretical implications of answers, and because I think your position is only as well warranted as your CX answers indicate. If I don't think there's a warrant after a particularly devastating CX on a position, you're going to have an uphill battle to convince me of the argument. (This is true only if the other debater brings up the flaws they pointed out in CX during a speech. CX by itself is not a rebuttal and thus cannot be the sole basis for my decision).

Third, I heavily favor debater's original analysis and arguments in later rebuttals (2NR and 2AR) as opposed to cards. While cards are good at setting up a position in constructive speeches, I heavily prefer debate styles that can go beyond cards with good explanations.

Theory defaults:
I default competing interpretations. I default no-RVI's. Topicality is a voter. All other issues must be justified by the debater.

Random Notes:

I like numbered responses to arguments, and clear distinction between line-by-line analysis and overviews.

I will only vote on arguments that I have flowed. During rebuttals, I mostly flow from what you're saying, rather than from the speech doc, so adjust accordingly.

While debate is a game, it is an educational game that brings lots of enjoyment to many of our lives. Please treat other debaters and it with respect.

Affiliation

Chaminade College Prep High School '15

UC San Diego '19

Email me if you have any questions about my philosophy, affiliations, or coaching - jec150@ucsd.edu

Prep ends when the file is sent or flash drive leaves computer

My role in the debate is to listen to whatever you have to say. I will not make judgments about what you are reading because that is not my role. However, I have listed my personal leanings on certain issues in debate.

Policy

General

1. default to policymaker

2. i can flow, but slow down on tags and authors; i will clear twice before docking speaks

3. presumption goes neg, until another world is introduced

Kritik

1. open to all args

2. explain the alternative and how it solves

Theory/topicality

1. err neg on condo

2. rejecting arg usually solve abuse against most other theory (ie fifty state, int'l, object fiat)

3. judge kick is NOT assumed, until neg says it either in cx or the 2nr if the aff doesn't use cx

K Affs/Framework

1. Important caveat - even if you are good at the tech of fw, you're going to have a bad time if you don't answer the thesis of the aff or how that relates to fw

- run whatever - couple things here

- against fw args, i will be much more persuaded if your aff relates to the topic in one way or another

LD

I have a traditional policy background and so I'll evaluate things on an offense defense paradigm. my role is to listen and not limit, so run whatever. If your trying to pref, here are my preferences

1. try to debate substance and not blippy theory because it will affect your speaks
2. make sure your k makes sense. i've seen weird franken k's as of late and the alt never resolves the impact
3. traditional ld nc's are fun to listen to but need to be linked to the aff mechanism to be offense
4. i dislike when coaches post-round just to post-round because it negatively impacts the student. the student might be displeased with a decision, but your coach arguing with me won't 1. change the ballot 2. do anything else besides be unpleasant
5. these frankenK's/mashing together of random k cards/monstrosities are not good. if your alt is simply the squo, your k is 1. nonunique 2. probably doesn't solve the harms

History: I debated for CSU Long Beach for 3 years in Parlimentary debate and coached for San Marino High school for 3 years.

Tl;dr version:

email: chng.lrn@gmail.com

I am a hack for theory.

I type really slow.

I'm fine with most strategies.

Speaks: 30-29 you should be in late elims, 29-28 You should break, 28-27 I'm sorry I might be the reason you get 4-2 screwed.

Regular version:

I am generally of the belief that what debate should be is up to the debaters. I assume the position of a policymaker unless told otherwise. This means I heavily value impact weighing through timeframe probability magnitude within normative frameworks.

Coming from parliamentary debate there are a few shortcomings that I make a genuine effort to compensate for. The most obvious is the use of carded evidence. My process is first I look at what I wrote down, then I compare how arguments interact, and then compare if the evidence says what I wrote down. If there is a discrepancy between what I wrote down and what the cards say I will default to what I wrote down. The exception to this rule is on theory. In high school ld is way too fast for me to write down more than taglines. I would appreciate it if you slowed down significantly and clearly repeat any interpretation. Otherwise, I will evaluate what I write down.

Speed is typically not a problem for me however keep in mind that I default to what I write down. If your style is to sacrifice clarity for speed on cards I will probably miss some stuff. This problem has also occurred for scripted analytics where its usually too late for me to call clear. I have had the most problems with flowing long stream of conscious overviews and multiple planks in advocacies.

The types of debate I like to see tend to be theory heavy first and K heavy second. I really enjoy T debates and framework debates.

Theory: I default to competing interpretations. I think blocks that don't consider the context they are being used is unpersuasive. I think specificity is a necessary pre-requisite for offense on theory. I generally think education outweighs fairness and that rounds that are unfair don't entirely preclude the possibility of education. Some theory positions I have reservations against.

- Disclosure I believe is a good practice however the way the the position is deployed against schools that genuinely don't know about the wiki or people who are new to debate is problematic to me.

- Whole res is not a spicy argument to me but I would still vote for it.

- Rvi's on T I think need more than theoretical abuse. Unless you can show the 1nc is uniquely excessive and abusive then I don't think I'd vote here.

K: For reference I debated a lot of Lacan, Colonialism, and Cap. I'm fairly confident in my ability to understand arguments I haven't heard before. I think the aff should attempt to be in the direction of the resolution. I am open to performance debates and more non-traditional types of debate. I admit I'm fairly inexperienced in judging performance v performance rounds. Competing framing arguments need to be compared very clearly for me. If one team is saying ontology first a response that just says fiat is good is not sufficient as an answer. I default to theory coming before k framing but I am persuaded otherwise quite frequently.

Cp: The only thing I have to say about counterplans is I have a predisposition that excessive planks (2+) pics are really abusive which amounts to me giving more leeway to the perm.

Last notes:

I'd say that I am really really slow at typing. You can ask me to flow on paper especially in outrounds and if my hand is doing alright then I'd be happy to oblige. I think that taglines delivered at a pace of roughly 300 wpm is perfectly comfortable for me. On paper you can go as fast as you want I'll call clear/slow appropriately.

I think I have really expressive non-verbals.

I hold people to the text of their interpretations, role of the ballot/judge, plan/cp, permutations. I don't think condo good is a sufficient counter-interpretation on condo, I don't think perm do both/the cp/the alt are enough.

please be nice

I'll start prep if for whatever reason it is taking an absurd amount of time to start your speech.

I am a parent judge and this is my second year from judging Policy and LD.

• Please refrain from spreading, especially when you get into more complex arguments, will be harder for me to keep up with.
• Please make sure you define all obscure words and explain them clearly.
• I tend to weigh on 'countering' so please do your best to knock out all of opponent's arguments.

Being rude will make you lose speaker points, and if excessive, I will vote against you. 

I will not disclose a result.

she/they, lay-uh, not lee-uh

leah.clarkvilla@gmail.com

[Judge Info]

A) I've competed and coached high school and college policy debate since 2008.

B) I've taught new novice students and instructed K-12 teachers about Parli, PuFo, LD, and Policy

C) I am an educator and curriculum developer, so that is how I view my role as a judge and approach feedback in debate. I type my RFDs, please ask your coaches (if you have an experienced coach) to explain strategic concepts I referenced. Otherwise you can email me.

D) I am very aware of the differences in strategy and structure when comparing Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

d)) which means I can tell when evidence from one format of debate [ex: policy -> ld] is merely read in a different format of debate for strategic choices rather than educational engagement.

heads up: i can tell when you are (sp)reading policy cards at me, vs communicating persuasive and functionally strategic arguments. please read and write your speeches, don't just read blocks of evidence without doing the persuasive work of storytelling impacts.

Parts of an Argument:

Claim - your argument

Warrant - analytical reasoning or evidence

Impact - why the judge should care, why it's important

Impact Calculus:

Probability - how likely is it the impact will happen

Magnitude - how large is the harm/who will be negatively affected

Timeframe - when this impact will occur

Reversibility - can the harms be undone

prewritten analytics should be included in the doc. we are online. transparency, clarity, and communication is integral in debate. if you are unclear and i miss an argument, then i missed your argument because you were unclear

for policy and/or ld:

1) AFFs should present solutions, pass a Plan, or try to solve something

2) K AFFs that do not present a plan text must: 1. Be resolutional - 1ac should generally mention or talk about the topic even if you're not defending it, 2. Prove the 1AC/AFF is a prereq to policy, why does the AFF come before policy, why does policy fail without the aff? 3. Provide sufficient defense to TVAs - if NEG proves the AFF (or solvency for AFF's harms) can happen with a plan text, I am very persuaded by TVAs. K teams must have a strong defense to this.

3) Link to the squo/"Truth Claims" as an impact is not enough. These are generic and I am less persuaded by generic truth claims arguments without sufficient impacts

4) Critique of the resolution > Critique of the squo

5) NEG K alts do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF, but must prove a disadvantage or explain why a rejection of the AFF is better than the alt, or the squo solves.

6) Debate is a [policy or LD] game, if it is a survival strategy I need more warrants and impacts other than "the aff/alt is a survival strategy" with no explanation of how you are winning in-round impacts

7) Framing is FUNctional, the team that gives me the best guide on how/why I should vote for X typically wins the round. What's the ROB, ROJ, the purpose of this round, impact calc, how should I evaluate the debate?

8) Edu is important. Persuasive communication is part of edu. when the debate is messy or close I tend to evaluate the round in terms of 1. who did the better debating, 2. who best explained arguments and impacts and made me more clearly understand the debate, 3. who understood their evidence/case the most.

9) Dropped arguments are not always necessarily true - I will vote on dropped arguments if it was impacted out and explained why it's a voter, but not if the only warrant is "they conceded _____it so it's a voter"

10) I flow arguments, not authors. It will be helpful to clarify which authors are important by summarizing/impacting their arguments instead of name dropping them without context or explanation.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and the Informative final at NIETOC. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

UCLA '21

Email: cruzchristian.007@gmail.com

Background: 4 years in Policy, PD, and LD.

Current profession: Program Manager in Public Education.

General Preferences:

• Open to all styles: tricks, theory, K’s, policy. Prioritize well-warranted, weighted, and intriguing arguments.
• Avoid enforcing dress code-based arguments; it's an instant loss.
• I appreciate judge guidance, clarity, and clear round framing.
• Tech over truth. Vote based on clear round progression.
• Spreading is okay. Respect is paramount.
• Speak ratings: Humor, unique arguments, and clarity boost scores. Offensive behavior will lower them.
• Provide trigger/content warnings.
• I won't usually comb through evidence unless prompted.

Preferences by Style:

1. K's/performance/planless aff's, T, policy: I'm your judge.
2. Normative phil/framework, tricks, fringe theory: Slow down and consolidate arguments for clarity.
3. Traditional/LD debate styles: Perhaps consider another judge.

In Essence: Your round clarity is key. Give me structure, weigh impacts, and simplify your arguments for me. Be passionate, well-researched, and strategic. Presenting arguments I need to labor over less is advantageous. Avoid jargon without explanation. Make your round memorable, not mundane.

Specific Preferences:

1. Policy/LARP:

• Foundation rooted in defending plan aff's, DA's; familiar with west coast debates and policy strategies.
• Keen on thorough weighing and warrant comparison.
• Advocate for defending policy aff's against k's or philosophy. Justify your stance coherently and develop strong link-turn strategies.
• Have a predilection for specific politics scenarios, from Congress bills to international relations.
• 2 conditional CP's are the limit; answer potential theory arguments.

2. Philosophy:

• Acquainted with Kantian Ethics, Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, Butler, and Social Contract Theories.
• Phil vs. K interactions intrigue me, but specific warranting is key.
• Skeptical about author indicts but can be swayed with strong arguments.
• Default to epistemic confidence; open to epistemic modesty if justified.

3. Tricks:

• Open to trick arguments if well-warranted and impactful.
• Emphasize creative approaches and clear ballot stories.
• Advocates for inventive strategies, seeking fresh perspectives.

4. Theory:

• Experience ranges from solvency advocate theory to body politics.
• Ensure arguments aren't overtly violent or excessively frivolous.
• Default preferences: competing interpretations, drop the debater, no RVI's. However, open to changes if justified.
• Emphasize impact turns aren't RVIs, recommending thorough engagement with the flow rather than outright dismissals.

Counterplans:

I appreciate a well-thought-out counterplan. I'm very familiar with process, agent, and advantage counterplans. If you're running a PIC (plan-inclusive counterplan), be ready to defend its theoretical legitimacy. Solvency advocates are crucial. The more specific your counterplan is to the aff, the better.

I generally believe that the aff should get some form of permutation to test the competition of the counterplan. If you’re going for a perm, have a clear explanation of what the perm does and why it resolves the net benefit. I'm not automatically against conditionality, but excessive or abusive condo might be problematic.

Disads:

Clear link stories are a must. Generic links can be okay, but specific link evidence will always be more persuasive. Make sure to weigh impacts and do comparison throughout the debate. It's crucial to have a clear internal link story, and I appreciate teams that take the time to break it down and explain. Impact calculus should happen early and often, not just in the 2NR/2AR.

Miscellaneous:

Cross-ex: I view cross-ex as binding and an essential part of the debate. It's not just a time to clarify positions but also an opportunity to set traps, build your own case, or break down your opponent's arguments. Be strategic.

Style/Speed: Speed is okay, but clarity is paramount. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you. Be especially clear when reading tags, authors, and theory arguments.

Prep time: I'm pretty traditional when it comes to prep time. Once you've called for a card or piece of evidence, the clock should stop, but frequent or long evidence exchanges can be disruptive. Be efficient.

Notes on Decorum: I believe in respect in the round. You can be passionate, assertive, even aggressive in making your points, but there's a line. Personal attacks, discrimination, or any form of harassment has no place in debate.

Final Thoughts:

Debate is an educational activity and a game. Play hard, have fun, and learn something along the way. I'm here to adjudicate rounds to the best of my ability, and I want all debaters to feel like they had a fair shot when they debated in front of me. Always feel free to ask questions before or after the round to clarify my thoughts or decision. Good luck!

Last updated: 5/13/2016

Middle School TOC notes: I'm normally a policy judge, which means I'm not super familiar with LD norms. I'll vote on whatever you tell me to. Speed is fine, but be clear.

I debated for four years at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy in Austin, TX. I currently coach Polytechnic in Pasadena, CA.

Summary

I am fine with just about anything as long as I can both understand the argument and its implications. I will attempt to assess the debate as objectively as possible based on the flow (though I certainly have some biases, which I've listed below). Speed is fine, but give me time to switch between flows and have clear transitions. To steal from Scott Harris, I will work "as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates."

General Stuff

-Flash time isn't prep unless it's excessive

-Open CX is fine

-Please don't get super rude in CX

-Include me in email chains (isaacqcui@gmail.com), but I will not read cards until after the debate. I will try to avoid reading cards unless the evidence is contested or I have no other way to evaluate the debate.

-I trust both teams to keep track of prep and speech times, but am willing to time stuff if I am asked to

-Mark your cards yourself. This is super important to me because I think the highlighting/warrants in evidence matter a lot if I need to turn to the evidence.

-Be clear--I want to be able to understand the warrants in cards as well as the taglines. I will usually look at you funny if I have difficulty flowing, so be aware of that.

-Don't steal prep

-Aff teams should disclose the 1AC plan text+advantages and the neg should disclose past 2NRs before the round. You should also keep an actively updated wiki

Topicality

I evaluate T debates much like I'd assess a CP+DA strategy; interps are competing options to solve for various DAs. This also means whoever can control the impact calculus--something often forgotten in T debates--will probably win my ballot. Case lists matter a lot to me, but I'm also persuaded that most case lists are too absurd (i.e., that functional limits check); rather than attempting to find the most absurd cases possible, I think it's more worth it to talk about what types of literature bases or types of affs that their interp allows/why that's bad.

I think "reasonability" is largely a buzzword that isn't explained enough. Is reasonability a question of the aff or their interp? Is it about how I evaluate offense? Depending on who you ask, they'll probably give you different answers. As a result, whatever preference for reasonability vs. competing interpretations I have is largely meaningless.  

Framework (versus a K aff)

I debate framework on both sides often, so I'm fairly middle of the road when assessing these debates. T-versions of the aff are very useful, but I mostly think of them as reasons for why the negative's framework can access the literature or education that the 1AC provides. Theoretical framework arguments that solely rely on things like the limits DA and fairness impacts will probably lose to a good aff team. For the most part, I think framework is most strategic as a countermethodology which relies on things like dialogue, institutional engagement, etc., to address the impacts of the 1AC. Make sure framework interacts with the aff (and vice versa--aff teams should leverage case as a DA to framework whenever possible).

After judging a few of these debates, I've found that the internal link matters. Usually framework 2NCs/2NRs are too impact heavy but not enough on the internal link level; I've found myself voting aff against framework multiple times because I didn't think the 2NR explained enough why there was such a limits explosion that their impacts were true, even if I thought their impacts outweighed.

Framework (on the aff versus a K)

My default is to allow the aff to weigh their advantages and for the neg to get an alt. I can be persuaded of an alternative framework that, for example, stresses representations over policies, but it will require a lot of time commitment on the neg. I don't see myself, however, voting on "neg doesn't get the K" because it's too unpredictable or whatever.

Nontraditional Affs

I will evaluate things largely as I do with traditional affs. That being said, having clear explanations as to the advocacy, the role of the judge, and the role of the ballot will go far. I am fine with just about whatever you wish to do as long as you can justify it, though I don't think I will give a double win/double loss.

K

I'm fine with most Ks but please don't presume I know what you're talking about. If your A-strat is to read some esoteric post-modern French philosophy, be ready to explain the K in everyday layperson's language rather than in terms of "lines of flight" or "arboreality" or whatever.

I think the way the K usually wins in front of me, against a traditional policy aff, is to use the links to implicate the aff's solvency or to turn the aff's advantages. Though this may sound obvious, specificity matters a lot.

I think spin is especially important in K vs policy debates--should I view the alt as hippie nonsense or as a necessary reconceptualization of politics? Is the aff a method for green capitalism to control the superstructure of education, or is it a method of taking responsibility for and confronting the worst excesses of capitalism? For me, whoever can best control the answer to these questions will be able to frame much of the rest of the debate, which is especially important if the 2AR hopes to go for a permutation. (If the aff strat is simply impact turning, this matters less.)

Against K affs, make the alt interact with the aff. I tend to be skeptical of most root cause claims--that's not to say you shouldn't make them, but that you need to have more game against the aff than simply root cause. The most convincing strategy, in my opinion, is to explain why the alt's method is better able to solve the aff's impacts than the aff's method. When tackling the perm against a K aff, I need more than simply "this is a method debate, they don't get a perm."

CP

They're great. Please stress or slow down on parts of the CP text that are important since I want to have an idea of what it is in the 1NC. CPs that can result in the entirety of the aff are probably illegit, both on a theory level and a competition level. I think positional competition (http://site.theforensicsfiles.com/NJSD.2-1.Final.pdf) makes a lot of sense. Agent CPs that utilize an alternative actor than the USFG are also questionably legitimate. Multiplank CPs can also become questionable if each plank is conditional. I have other theory preferences below.

I will not kick the CP for you unless the 2NR explicitly tells me to. 

DA

Also fine with them. Affs should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is vital. Turns case arguments are devastating, especially if you can make them earlier up the internal link chain.

Case

Please debate the case. The aff should constantly leverage it and the neg should hedge back against it. Even against nontraditional affs, weakening their solvency is super useful for the neg.

Theory

I will evaluate theory like any other argument--if you impact it out, I have no qualms about putting the ballot at stake on theory. I think multiple conditional worlds (especially 3 or more) probably aren't great for debate. I won't, however, vote on a one-liner in the middle of the 2NR saying that "severance perms are a voting issue"--I need clear warrants for rejecting the team. Please give pen time when reading theory and try to stray from simply reading blocks at each other. A good theory debate can be one of the most enjoyable debates to watch, and I will definitely reward you if you execute well.

Speaker Points

This is a rough scale of how I give speaks:

29.5 - deserve to be one of the top speakers, very few issues in speeches

29 - minor issues in speeches, probably is in the top 10-15 speakers

28.5 - should break, but some issues

28.3 - average, probably deserve to go 3-3

28 - some fairly sizeable issues

27.5 - dropped something really important

25 or lower - something problematic happened

Arguments I Don't Like

I will still try to evaluate these objectively, but I will probably drop your speaks for reading them:

-Obvious time skews--everything in the 1NC should be a viable 2NR option (includes things like 1 card "gateway issue" Ks or silly T violations)

-Ashtar, TimeCube/etc.

-Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc. good

Random Notes

These are some self-observed trends from my judging that I thought could be useful -- after all, there's always a difference between how a judge considers their own judge philosophy and how they actually judge.

-After the 2AR, I start deciding by rereading both the 2NR and 2AR, then by either following the framing arguments that the debaters put forth, or -- in the absence of that kind of work -- I look for easy arguments to decide. Once I've decided a couple of arguments, I find ways to apply that to other aspects of the debate.

-This means that I often decide close debates on one small but key issue -- for example, in one round I judged, the negative goes for a CP and elections DA, spending maybe 30 seconds on solvency extending a single argument. The 2AR similarly blows off the solvency argument, claiming that 1AC evidence answered it. This was one of the first arguments that I assessed since it seemed fairly straight-forward to read the evidence as per both teams' direction. I ended up deciding the debate on, essentially, this one argument -- that the aff doesn't solve -- even though it was a small aspect of both of the final speeches because it was a simple argument to decide with widespread implications for the rest of the debate.

-I often feel qualms about voting on very techy arguments, but I usually end up deciding on the tech. An example: the 2NC and 2NR, going for T, make an argument that the aff doesn't meet their own interp based on a reading of the 2AC interp ev that isn't part of the aff's explanation of their interp; this is not directly answered in the 1AR or 2AR. The aff is ahead on every standard and they thoroughly explain their own interp and why they meet it. What they don't do, however, is push back on the neg's characterization of the 2AC interp ev. I end up voting neg because I don't think the aff meets their interp; even if they meet their own explanation of the interp, I felt that that explanation was less accurate to the ev, given the neg's analysis, and that the more "correct" explanation of what the 2AC ev described would exclude the 1AC.

-The closer the rounds are, the more I read cards. Ideally, I like to vote on the flow, because I feel like the more time I spend reading evidence or thinking about the decision, the more likely I am to intervene. But if I can’t determine a round purely on the tech, I’m more likely to try to find the “truth” of the debate by reading all of the evidence. If you’re a team that routinely gets by by out-teching people rather than reading good evidence, you should highlight concessions and tell me how to evaluate things to avoid having me investigate into evidence itself.

 -Extending every part of an argument matters. For example, even if the link to the politics DA is dropped in the 1AR, a 2NR that doesn't extend the link has not made a complete argument. That being said, I'd be sympathetic to the 2NR saying "don't make me reinvent the wheel, the 1AR has conceded the link, [insert 10 second explanation of the link]." But I do think it's important that you actually formally extend the argument in some capacity.

If you have any questions, feel free to send me an email at isaacqcui@gmail.com

I have been out of debate for a couple years, so if there are normative trends that have developed there is a good chance I do not know them. At the end of the day the debate round is a narrative, and I prioritize narrative coherence. I did NPTE style debate for 5 years, 2 at Irvine Valley College and 3 at Cal State Long Beach. As a judge I default to the Framework or Role of the Ballot, and I try my best to let the debaters run what is best for them. In When it comes to Impact framing I default to Magnitude over probability unless I am given reasons why Probability should be preferred. The most important thing for me to see in a debate is a good collapse from the debaters in the final rebuttal as this will give me a clear view of what arguments you think are important enough to be given deep evaluation in the round. Below I give more specific feelings about types of arguments.

Likes: Topical Affirmatives, claims with data and warrants, clear alternatives, in depth topicality

Dislikes: politics, blippy arguments, gratuitous speed.

General beliefs:

1. Being condo probably hurts the neg more than if helps

2. Textual competition is not a thing

3. Parli is aff biased

4. Education and Fairness are arbitrary

5. Performance is cool

6. Framework makes the game work

I'm currently a policy debater for CSUF. I have 3 years of policy debate experience. I’ve done both traditional and critical debate. Do whatever you want, just make sure you have a clear explanation of what your argument is with a warrant. Emphasize on things you want me to underline or pay specific attention to.

Basics:
Extend arguments. If you bring it up in the 1A/N but it never gets mentioned anywhere else but your 2AR/NR, it's dropped. 

Debate however you want but I don't like unnecessary meanness.

I don't count flashing as prep - don't abuse this.

T/FW
I'm more inclined to vote for FW over T, but if you decide to go for T, make it clear how the AFF is abusive, how it's unfair, and don't run generic T arguments that make you sound whiny. I like a more pragmatic approach to FW and I'm not particularly persuaded by *most* T arguments so be clear. If you encounter critical and performance AFFs, I like seeing engagement with the arguments rather than fixating on how they're not topical. Again, I have voted on T before but going for T in the 2NR isn't your best option in front of me. 


Kritiks 
I'm probably the most well-versed in this area so I tend to lean towards K's more. If you're running a K, know what you're running instead of using it as a filler argument. Have specific links so that there is clash.

Yale 2020

So yeah as you can tell it has been a while so I have no clue what has changed in debate or even what the topic is so just keep that in mind when debating in front of me. Nothing about my judging has changed aside from that. Good luck have fun.

Stanford 2017 Update
A lot of people regard me as a speaker fairy however, over the years I have become a saltier person as I get older and less tolerant of current debate practices you will all see the speaker points I award will definitely reflect this fact and therefore if you are looking for a speaker fairy I am not your guy. If you have any problems with this
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/209/784/5de.png . In all seriousness I have not judged that much this year so I am kind of rusty at flowing so please adapt if you want to win or get good speaks.

My judge philosophy is pretty simple I will vote on ANY argument so long as it is articulated well and is warranted. So long as that it is done there is no reason for me to just drop an argument I don't like.

Theory
Theory is just like any argument make sure to warrant it meaning an actual abuse story, warranting your interpretation, reasons why the standards are important, and why I vote on theory -why fairness, education, ect.. is important-

Kritikal Arugmentation
refer to the top

Evidence
I will call up evidence if I need to

Warrant Threshold

So sometimes people run really poorly warranted arguments and sometimes people also run really bad no warranted arguments please don't do these things it makes me sad if forced to I will have to do argument comparison myself if two arguments contradict but that won't do well for your speakers points. Granted different arguments require different level of warrants so all of this is rather subjective when I refer to my threshold on warrant analysis how you ought to compare these claims if if you don't do this then I will have to intervene which is bad.

Skep Triggers

People seem running this argument incorrectly -in my opinion- as some form of a hidden a priori at the risk of sounding very punny I will just let you know that one does not simply trigger skep if you want me to vote on skep the reasons why a meta-ethic provided in case will lead to skepticism if proven false -or some similar form of argumentation- need to be articulated and compared against alternative frameworks still standing in the round.

Getting the 30 -update since Harvard 2012-

Since many talented debaters can end up being screwed speaker point inflation and I have found myself judging at tournaments where cake is easily accessible I am going to sadly put an end to my previous paradigm of giving the 30 for chocolate cake or coffee instead I will simply award speakers points based off of strategic thinking and decision making if I find that your strategic choices were perfect than I can see no reason to not give you perfect speaks.

Edit Yale on speaks

I kind of have this reputation of being a speaker fairy -someone who just gives out high speaks willy nilly- but that was 2011 and before Fred a much nicer guy who seriously did not pay much mind to speaker inflation and didn't seem to adjust his speaks to prospective tournaments. Well I am afraid that I -2012 Fred- f@#%ing killed that guy here is a funny video to help you through the loss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDndS5N9tes ok that being said I am not a complete jerlI just don't give out 28-30s so please just debate well. Also I have been noticing that people tend to lie about their arguments in their last speech like as if I am not paying attention or something, this makes me want to dock your speaks now granted you might say "But 2012 Fred that seems kind of relevant and your perception of the round isn't perfect" I might say in return "If it was that blatant then you had it coming but I will let you explain yourself because well I don't like accusing people of things like that" either way I swear I am not a complete tool and generally don't give bad speaks unless the round was horrible if you ask me "Fred was I really that bad?" I will probably say "Oh hellz yeah" either way you can ask me. Now if you want specific ways to get good speaks from me I would suggest you pick good strategies and make good arguments and also I have noticed that when people make decisions easy for me and telling me specifically how to evaluate the round -and do this well obviously- I seem to give pretty good speaks just putting that out there. Also DON'T BE RUDE!!

Edit:
I have noticed that other judges have included this and to be honest I thought they were pretty good to add to this

1. As most college students I am generally pretty tired please try and keep me awake

2. In the absence of any reason to prefer either debater -including presumption or permissibility- I will be forced to intervene for the most intuitive argument but I would rather not be forced to do this though

Edit since Yale 13'

Sometimes judges like myself don't understand arguments and ideally don't vote on them however I am sympathetic to how people want to try arguments that may take a little more explaining so if I don't understand an argument I will make it clear that I am in a state confusion by flipping over my ballot -since apparently I am not good at controlling my face- to give you the opportunity to go "oh snap Fred's confused I should take time explain an argument better". In fact if you need any sort of indication of anything or feedback just ask.

EDIT FOR THE END OF ALL TIME

In order to get a 30 in front of me you must have swag END OF STORY. If you ask me what swag is then you clearly don't have swag and will never be able to understand the true meaning of swag so it would be pointless for me to explain it to you. Thus if you ask me, you will bring great shame upon your family.

edit from Harvard 13'
I am currently watching House of Cards but have only watched up to episode 3 if you begin talking about this show and mention anything past this episode that spoils it for me I will dock your speaks and then harm you physically think I am joking? Try me
edit from Emory 13'

Often times debate rounds are won or loss earlier than many debaters might think if I make it obvious that I have already made my decision please stop if you misjudged whether that actually happened I will make that also obvious also I don't worry I don't dock speaks for you failing to do this I just would like to spend less time judging is that so wrong?

MUY IMPORTANTE: I become an incredibly crappy judge -no seriously- when I am tired and you'll know I am tired because I will complain about it constantly if you want me to judge well I suggest you get me some caffiene to prevent me from being stupid -no seriously- or at least check if I have caffiene otherwise I am not going to make much sense. If you see me on the brink of falling asleep please yell at me and throw things at me do whatever it takes because I deserve it.
Speed
I can follow speed so long as you are speaking clearly -which I will let you know if you are not by yelling clear- however if I can't understand it I can't vote on it

Any specific questions can be asked before the round or you can email me at: fredditzian@gmail.com

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

The biggest thing in front of me is to weigh and do judge instruction. Most judges say this -- that's because debaters rarely do enough of it.

Am a very good judge for phil debate.

Am not a good judge for policy v policy -- to me most of the time these debates just look like wars of competing assertions and evidence and I find myself unable to sift through them effectively. Someone asked me recently, 'didn't you read policy arguments in high school?' -- yes, I did sometimes, but that was before LD became completely like policy. The majority of the debates I had usually revolved around whether util was true and not about the contention.

I went for theory on both sides a lot in high school. However, nowadays I find myself not voting for affs that go for theory. This isn't because I'm opposed to it, it's because most of the time the 2AR sounds brand new.

I don't often read ev at the end of debates. If there's something about evidence that's important, point it out to me.

I've never voted on disclosure theory.

pls read the whole thing!:)

do what you are best at, and try to maintain good spirits while doing so!

the innate purpose of education is healthy, reflexive, and fruitful for any parties involved

at the end of the day, you are educating yourself to an extent that the average human will not reach, and you also have the ability to test that knowledge competitively with your peers- that's really an amazing thing, and something that should be remembered even in the heat of competition.

i'm not including any information about my debate history, as i am not currently coaching: far less (personally) concerned about the inner-workings of debate procedurals and standards being set within the community. on the flip-side, i am much more concerned about evaluating debates purely for the sake of deciding a winner, as well as being able to provide students with ample constructive criticism that allows them to elevate competitively, as well as foster more creative educational possibilities in future rounds, whether winner or loser.

and most of all, have fun- the more you can laugh and reflect on a round with a grin, on even your worst mistakes (or biggest successes), the more you will be able to be kind to yourself and become better, not at the expense of your mental health. and remember, never have fun at the negative expense of your opponent- a brilliant troll becomes ignorant the moment they become a bully.

peace & good education,

cheers!

she/they

put me on the chain - skylrharris917@gmail.com

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

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

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument Preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Forum

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

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

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

Here are the things that matter:

I did not debate as a student.

I have judged and coached PF and LD for 8 years.

I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.

My favorite philosophy is Utilitarianism... just sayin’

I can flow. No problem with speed. I can and do vote on T and solvency. Not a big fan of kritiks but I'll listen if you provide a legit framework. See myself as a policy maker.

I have judged high school debate in LD and PF before so I am experienced, but I am still parent judge. This is my second year judging high school competitive debate.
I prefer no spreading and it is likely in your best interest to not spread because I can't vote for someone I don't understand.
I am ok with policy arguments as long as their function in the debate is clearly explained. If you read a counterplan, tell me why it negates the resolution, and if you make a permutation tell me why that means the aff wins.
Kritiks are also alright as long as they are well explained and not too complex.
I would advise against T and theory unless your opponent clearly deserves to lose. (Even so, if T and theory is really necessary I would have voted against the violator anyway so its just a waste of time). 
Crystalization in the last few speeches is very helpful.
I give speaker points on who I think did the better speaking. I won't give lower than a 26 unless you are unecessarily rude.
I will not vote for blantantly offensive debaters.

I will not disclose unless required by the tournament.

I am improving from "Lay" judge status to the "Circuit" judge status , but not there yet . Please do not spread for now and articulate your arguments very clearly for me.

Please also explain jargon. Again, I'm still learning this stuff, so instead of using LD jargon, please use simpler things that I would understand. Deliberate as you will.

Kris Kaya

kkaya23@stanford.edu

Peninsula ’16

Stanford ’20

Conflicts: Peninsula, Lynbrook, Los Altos PD, Palos Verdes KK

*** Updated for Minneapple 2020

I debated for 4 years at Peninsula HS (CA) from 2012-2016 and debated at the TOC my senior year. I coached Lynbrook from August 2016- February 2018 and have since not been involved in the activity. Given this, I probably don’t know anything about the topic and won’t be knowledgeable about common positions/arguments unless you explain them. I was never a fantastic flower and it's been a while since I've judged so I'd recommend going at around 70% speed to ensure I hear everything. I’ll vote on any argument that is warranted and impacted.

Important Things

1) I'm fine evaluating pretty much everything. I read almost exclusively policy args in high school so that's what I'l be best at evaluating. If I had to give an order it'd be Policy Args >>>> Kritiks > Theory >>> Phil/Tricks

2) I give somewhat low speaks - they're proportional to the extent to which I enjoy judging the round and the extent to which you crush your opponent.

3) I'd prefer if you recorded your speeches as you gave them in case the stream dies in the middle of the round.

4) I think I've become increasingly interventionist in that I believe there's a minimum threshold of coherence for me to accept an argument. Consequently, the less coherent an argument is, the lower the threshold for responding to it is.

5) Especially since everything is online, it will be hard to convince me that you shouldn't lose for not disclosing.

Former coach. Current debate boomer. Put me on the email chain, leokiminardo@gmail.com.

Please standardize the title of the email chain as [Tournament Name] [Round x] [Aff] v [Neg].

Zoom

1. I will say "slower" twice, and if it becomes more incoherent, I'll stop flowing.

2. I'll have my camera on during your speeches and my RFD.

Kindness

1. If a team asks you to not spread, please make the accommodation. If you don't, you can still win the debate, but I'll dunk your speaks.

2. If your arguments discuss sensitive issues, talk about it before the round. If there aren't any alternatives, please be thoughtful moving forward.

K Affs

1. I personally lean 80/20 in favor of reading a plan. I end up voting 50/50.

2. Debates should be about competing scholarship or literature, not about ones self.

3. DA/CP debate makes as many good people as it does bad people.

Speaks

1. I'm tough on speaker points.

2. I'm very expressive, so you'll know whether I vibe with what you're saying or not.

3. Technical, well organized policy debates make smooth brain feel good.

4. DA + Case or T 2NRs are always impressive and brilliant.

5. Copy/pasting cards into the body will drop your speaks .1 every time it happens.

Have fun!

Hey - I debated LD and Parli for 3 years and graduated from Northwood High School (Irvine, CA) in 2019. I qualified to LD and Parli TOC my senior year. I also debate NPDA for Cal (I’m a 3rd year right now).

Include me in the email chain: karkri23atgmail.com

tldr:

For High School Parli TOC:

I am and always have been a lay judge (You don't need to read the rest trust me).

I will evaluate the flow as objectively as possible with minimal intervention (speed is fine)

Read any theory/K/phil you want and I'll evaluate it

All things being equal, I lean FW-T over K but can be convinced otherwise

Love a good Case/DA/CP debate the most but you do you

Don't be a jerk and you will probably get speaks somewhere between 28-30

I will vote on presumption

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.

Where to Pref me:

Larp: 1

Theory:1

K: 1

Phil: 1

Tricks: 1

In case you haven't noticed, I am a GOD.

Most importantly, Have fun :)

The Long Version:

What I read in LD:

Aff - big stick, soft left

Neg - topic da+cp, politics/elections da+states cp, afropess, cap, topicality, Agamben, Baudrillard

What I read in Parli:

Aff - big stick, soft left, Orientalism, Settler Colonialism, Model Minority

Neg - topic da+cp, politics/elections da+states cp, afropess, cap, topicality, Agamben, Baudrillard, Settler Colonialism

Parli Specific Notes:

Speed is not an issue for me but if you excessively yell slow and clear to your opponents and proceed to be just as fast and unclear, I will be fairly annoyed.

Call POO’s just in case but I will protect

Weighing is not a new argument

The PMR does not get new warrants unless its answering a new MO argument. However, cross applications are cool as long as the warrant and implication was made in the MG and you are just merely weighing it on a different part of the flow.

LOR does not have to extend the MO

I think ruse of analogies with K debate or Independent Voters can be pretty problematic and/or nonsensical at times and realistically believe that you should make the internal link very clear as to how certain actions and rhetoric relate to larger events or mentalities.

General Notes (Mostly LD):

All impacts matter - the degree to which they matter is up for debate. This means I'm not fond of strategies that rely on preclusion or permissibility. (This does not mean you can make arguments as to why considering a certain type of impacts can be violent e.g. focus on materiality is settler colonial so you should not weigh the aff. However, just asserting the state is settler colonial means no aff is not compelling.)

Dropped arguments only mean the warrants for them are true - their implication can still be debated.

Bad arguments should be answered easily

LD: Extending the case in the 1AR does not mean card-by-card extensions. Leverage warrants in 1AC evidence efficiently.

Pet peeve: "that was in the overview"

LD: Clipping is cheating - if I notice it, then you will lose regardless of whether your opponent notices it.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to 1NC arguments about only needing to respond to spikes if extended in the 1AR - this does not apply to topicality preempts and/or paradigm issues. I don't think putting condo/pics/etc bad in the aff and warranting it properly counts as a "spike"

I'll clear you 3 times - after that, it's up to you to notice that I'm not flowing.

Do what you want with flex time/CX but good questions can definitely help your speaks

LD Only: Disclosure - more is better. I believe all cards should be disclosed open source (this includes the 1AR/2NR). I am happy to boost speaks for good disclosure practices - just tell me before the round. I'm more willing to vote on theory arguments related to disclosure than almost any other theory argument.

Parli: Disclosure is not a thing and I will not vote on it

Saying "independent voting issue" doesn't matter to me until there's a warrant for why.

Defaults (These can be easily changed by just asserting the converse should happen)

T/condo/disclosure: Drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs

All other theory: Drop the arg, reasonability, no RVIs

Epistemic modesty

Affs -

Do what you want- defend the topic or don’t. I probably lean slightly towards T-FW but I am willing to vote against it if the arguments are won.

Topical stuff:

Properly warrant out the internal links to your scenarios- even if you are big stick, explain to me why extinction happens because of tensions. Solvency should be specific to your aff.

If your only strat against Agent CPs and PICs is theory, you probably should have written a better aff.

Disads -

I love a good case vs da/cp debate- if you do it well you will probably get high speaks in front of me.

LD Only: I like both topic-specific and politics - I read a lot of cards after the round, even if you didn't reference them. That's not what makes my decision, but I compare it with my flow.

LD Only: Affs need cards against politics disads.

Counterplans:

I have no real disposition for or against condo. Feel free to be condo, but I’ll also evaluate condo bad theory.

I have no real disposition for or against “cheater” counterplans. Feel free to run consult, delay, sunset, etc., but I will evaluate theory against them.

Permutations are tests of competition

I will judge kick CP's as long as you tell me why I should and under what conditions I should kick it under.

T-FW:

Do what you want but make sure that if you are going for it, implicate your fairness and education impacts as either a prior issue or as turns specific to the aff's method.

I read this a lot and I love a good collapse on it.

I am more than willing to vote against it but all things being equal, I probably lean towards FW rather than against it.

Other T/Theory:

I am very comfortable voting on “frivolous theory.”

I will vote on disclosure theory in LD, and I am very sympathetic to disclosure good.

Paragraph theory is fine but if I miss it, then your opponents most likely did too and I won't vote on it.

I have no real disposition for prioritizing proven abuse or potential abuse. I will default to potential but can be persuaded otherwise otherwise.

I default to drop the team for most theory but I will buy drop the arg if it makes sense. When reading theory, give me a good reason why I should drop the team or the argument.

RVI's are fine

Burdens arguments don't need voters, but they do need sequencing claims.

I think that fairness vs education weighing is highly strategic. Nine times out of ten when you go for theory, you should tell me whether I should prioritize fairness or education, why, and what the in-round implication of the weighing is.

Kritiks:

I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, so don’t be afraid of reading your arguments in front of me. However, informative overviews and explanations are appreciated, especially if the K lit is dense.

If it’s relevant, the ks I’m most familiar with and used to running include Anti-Blackness, Orientalism, Cap, Set Col, Agamben, Baudrillard and Deleuze.

I default to evaluating the alternative as a method of resolving the k. This means I don’t particularly care what the “world of the alternative” looks like, as long as you’ve told me why your method is a sufficient strategy to resolving the harms of the k.

I evaluate the alternative like a counterplan in terms of conditionality/permutations. See the CP section.

I default to evaluating fairness and education before the k, but I will buy arguments that kritikal impacts either come before or impact turn theory impacts.

If you have questions or if there’s a question I haven’t answered, please ask me before the round!

I will vote on almost anything. I like theory. I flow CX.

Some of my preferences are still unknown to myself. If background information helps, I've defended arguments from all ends of the spectrum - 'performance', critical theory, politics DAs, etc. 

You do you. I'll do my best to evaluate your arguments. 

Please do not debate like you don't want to be debating. Persuade me. Communicate with me. Care about what you are arguing about. 

Clarity. Clarity is important. A round is immensibly more fun to judge if I can hear evidence and then listen to explanations of evidence. Greater the explanation, the better. Impact out your link arguments. Warrants. Empirics. Examples. 

Don't just do evidence comparison, do evidence take out. I strongly dislike affs with weak internal link chains and neg teams tend to grant aff's solvency without reading and poking holes in aff evidence. Explain why their own evidence takes out solvency. 

K Debate

Yes, I do judge a lot of debates where affirmatives do not read a traditional plan text. I also have 2N sympathy vs these affs. These affs need to do something. 2Ns need to restructure how I view these sorts of debates. How does aff solvency change without fiat? How is presumption implicated? How does your alternative function? What do you need to win the debate and why? Answering these questions will put you in a much better position with these affirmatives. You need to have DAs to the aff. You have to establish competition. These DAs can come in a multitudinous amount of ways. This could be a topicality argument. 

A few things irk me while judging high school k debate:

Do not make arbitrary role of the ballot claims in front of me. ROBs should not be about voting for something you did first before the other team. Just because a team does not say the words 'role of the ballot' does not mean they didn't answer it. 

"They don't get perms, this is a method debate" is not an argument. I have no idea what that means. If arguments like this are explained, warranted and impacted out, I think that would be enjoyable. I have no default to perms in this sorts of debates. 

Hello y'all!

It's everyone's favorite time, to read the philosophy of the judge so they can bs their way to winning rounds.

Background:

My background is pretty baller. I did speech for 4 years of high school and was ranked in the state. I did debate for 2 years, mid lay level LD and parli. After I graduated, I started coaching at Chaminade College Prep. To my dismay, they were mostly a policy school. I cried for weeks about this.

I've been the assist head coach there for 2 and half years and now the head coach for the past year. Surprisingly, no one has died. I've now judged rounds of all debate events in California, at almost all levels, except Varsity Policy, because I'm not too masochistic.

Here are some general things, then you can look at event specific things below:

I try my best to not put my beliefs onto the flow. I don't mind any critical arguments, just realize most of you run them wrong/weak links. Don't do that. Be clear and articulate, explain to me how it impacts the round. Don't just say "Dumb judge, I win because of (fancy jargon word)" Explain why you win. If you're going to cross apply, explain how it cross applies. "Cross apply this to all of my contentions because in reality, I have no answers, but want to seem like I didn't drop everything on the flow"

Don't run K's with no clear link. If I feel you've run this K against every aff you've hit, not matter the topic, I won't be happy. Make the link very clear. This comes off as lazy to me.

Speed: I'm alright with speed. Usually by the rebuttal level, I'm fine. I'd say in policy try to go 70% your fastest. LD you can go 80% your fastest. I have yet to have an issue with speed in PF and parli, so don't worry. You'll want to go slower with me, mostly because I tend not to give any indication if I can't understand what you're saying because I'm trying so hard to understand what you're saying.

Also, when spreading, there is this thing called enunciating. Do that. I like that.

And in spreading, I know that tends to turn into yelling, try not to do that. As a speech a coach, I feel horrible for your vocal cords that your abusing and misusing. Also, no one likes to be yelled at for an hour.

There's no reason to be rude. I will tank your speaks if you're a jerk. Be passionate by all means, but making your opponent cry, or just being a "meanie face" will not make me like you. I will still give you the win in the round, if you won the round, but you can say bye bye speaker award, because your speaks are destroyed. Moral of this story: Win, but let your arguments win, being a jerk doesn't gain you ground on your arguments and it hurts your speaks for me. Being a meanie poo (I'm avoiding curse words, for if some reason my school I work at finds this) isn't educational and won't help you in the real world.

I generally enjoy rounds where the topic and cases are engaged. I'm more of a straight policy/LD person. However, trust me when I say, I'm totally fine with any arguments you want to run, just please make it follow a clear train of logic.

I'm cool with flex prep, if everyone agrees. In the prepared debate events, especially LD and policy, if your opponent is misrepresenting evidence, and you call that out, I love that.

LD:

Yo, LD, I like that event.Since it's LD, I'm a big fan of the values debate. Otherwise just go into policy.

Policy:

If I'm judging a policy round, I'm already crying inside. Don't make those tears turn into a full out sob. Meaning, clearly explain everything, go slow on your tag lines. I won't time "flash" time towards prep, but don't go super slow.

Parli:

I love parli. As a judge, I realize that you've only had 20 minutes of prep. For this reason, unless you cite where you are getting your information, I'll probably assume you're lying.

I'm definitely fine with any critical arguments you want to run. However, I'm not a huge fan of parli in which the topic is ignored entirely. If it's a poorly written topic, call that out, but don't refuse to debate it because you think it's poorly written. If we're getting a resolution on if we need to send aid to the Sahel region, I don't want the aff to come in an talk about how we need to stop oppression in America or an entirely different case for a resolution (unless there is a very clear link to the resolution) Again, if you feel the topic is horribly skewed, explain that in round, but I don't like when the aff comes in with a new topic, It just comes off as lazy and not willing to engage the debate and topic.

Public Forum:

I've never had any issues with speed or anything in Public Forum. Basically, if you're in Public Forum, do you boo. PF you understand me and I love you for that public forum.

Also, because I'm fat, I'm receptive to receiving donuts, cheesecake and fettuccine Alfredo. It won't give you the win, but I'll give me something to cry into during the policy rounds.

CASE DEBATE- Case debates should end with two conflicting blocks of impact calculous that explain how each side is acquiring the ballot through their win conditions. I find these to be most compelling through the lenses of Time Frame, Probability and Magnitude. The teams that better access these forms of impact weighing will typically win my ballot.

THEORY - Some hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if you aren't buying the theory here's this disad."

Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just read it slowly because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really want to hear.

SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively.

CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. It could just be a difference in debate meta between when I competed and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these points if your alt is a mess).

I have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.

Collapse - Please collapse.

judged ld/pf before but haven't judged in the past couple years. try not to spread and ill flow, have fun!

Be good people.

I like frameworks and impacts back to the framework.

I'm probably too tired to keep up with top speeds. Go for conversationally brisk.

I have not been in the circuit scene for years. I'm guessing it's gone through some changes.

edited: no text

Affiliations/Judging conflicts: Harvard-Westlake, Marlborough
I debated for four years at Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles, qualifying to TOC thrice. I now coach for Marlborough.
If you have questions, email me at mdokrent@gmail.com

Short version:
I like hearing well-developed, supported, smart arguments. This can include philosophy, t or theory, Ks, plans, CPs, DAs, etc. Form doesn't matter a huge amount to me. Just steer clear of my landmines and make good arguments: your speaks and win record will show it.

Flashing/emailing is on prep time.

Traditional Policy stuff: yes
Theory: yes if there’s real abuse.
Philosophy (almost all sorts): yes
K: yes
Shenanigans: no
Performance: yes

Do I say clear? Yes.
How many times? Until you get clear or it becomes clear that you're ignoring me.

Mandatory scary stuff:

Landmines: The following things are not ok in debate. I WILL INSTANTLY DROP YOU FOR:
-Religious/theistic arguments *I don't think very many (if any) other judges hold this prohibition, so I want to emphasize that I do hold it, and I will hold you to it.*
-moral skepticism (unless the topic specifically mandates it, like the Nov-Dec 2011. I'll specifically note it at the top of my paradigm if one of these comes up.)
-presumption (if you tell me I should ignore substance to vote on presumption. I might presume if there is legitimately no offense but I will do everything in my power not to.)
-any argument that is “triggered” in a later speech. If you defend it, you must say so in your first speech
-biting the bullet on something atrocious like genocide, rape, mass murder, etc. (That is, openly acknowledging that your framework would not condemn something like this. Simply arguing that your opponent’s framework can’t condemn genocide will not be a reason to drop them.)
-an a priori (these are arguments that say that the resolution is true or false for linguistic/semantic reasons and don't link to a framework. Despite debaters' best efforts to hide them, a prioris are pretty easily visible.)
-blatantly lying in cx
In general, be honest. I won’t instantly drop you for anything not on this list, but if you pull tricks or are generally sketchy I will be pissed. My stance on this is pretty similar to Chris Theis’.



The following arguments I will not listen to, but will not drop you for the sole reason that you ran one of them (you can still win elsewhere on the flow). I will not vote on:
-any argument that is not normative, like ought implies can or ought means logical consequence.
-theory arguments against an interp in the AC are counterinterpretations/defense only


Things I dislike but will vote on if you win them by a wide margin (either they're conceded or you crush):
-Competing interps requires a counterinterpretation.
-Affirmative “ethics” choice (When the aff gets to pick the standard/value criterion – distinct from AFC as run in policy, which I am ok with)
-Meta-theory comes before “regular” theory. OK to run a “meta-theory” shell and weigh impacts, but I don’t believe that meta-theory exists differently than theory. One sentence in a theory voter will not convince me otherwise.
-Anything that would have me take an actual action other than judging. (It takes a really good reason to make me not be lazy. I might vote for the position and ignore the action anyway.)

And a bunch of theory shells fall into this category too. If you run one of these shells, I will be skeptical and probably find the most stock responses persuasive. I'll vote on it, but you'll have to do lots of work and win it by a lot:
-Must run/not run framework
-Must run/not run plan/counterplan (inc. plans bad)
-Must run/not run kritik (noticing a theme?)
-Must run/not run DAs, etc.
-Can't have both pre- and post-fiat impacts
-Can't make link/impact turns (yes, people actually run this shell)
-Negatively worded interps bad ("Must have positively worded interp" for the formalists)
-Neg must defend the converse

UPDATE CAL 2024

I haven't judged a debate in over three years. I don't really think I have any coherent thoughts on substance of debates anymore but I do think I am more ardent in the belief that it should be about whatever you want it to be as long as you're able to explain it to me.

UC Berkeley 2018

East Kentwood Highschool 2016

Put me on the chain:

michaelobuchi@gmail.com

I like:

warrants, line by line, effort and humor

I don't like:

rudeness

I will hold the line on:

speech times, evidence quality and clipping

Judging Paradigm for John Overing

I debated in NDT-CEDA policy for UC Berkeley and in Nat-Circ and Trad Lincoln-Douglas for Loyola High School. I've judged over 250 rounds and competed in just as many.

Email: johnovering@berkeley.edu

Pre-Round Paradigm-Viewing:

Win the case, win the debate. Do impact calculus.

Here's how you win in front of me:

1. Identify the issue that will win you the round

2. Collapse to that issue and win it

3. Explain why it outweighs other considerations or should be evaluated first

Mostly tab, not scared to vote on abnormal or unpopular stuff. Go for whatever you want, even if it's an unorthodox take. I'm here to evaluate what you put before me, not impose my beliefs onto your arguments.

Disclosure

I am willing to vote on disclosure theory. Should you read it? Sure, UNLESS your opponent is new to debate. I'm very opposed to disclosure theory against students new to the activity.

Speaker Points

- Debate well, do something new or interesting, or give me an easy decision in a polite way.

- Open-source disclosure will make me more generous with speaks, let me know if you do this.

- Show me your flow after the round and I'll add 0.1 to 0.3 speaks. If requested, I will give feedback on your flow.

Poor behavior will affect your speaks, though (barring extreme cases) I'll keep such issues out of my decision.

Notes:

I don't enforce prep time for flashing. Be reasonable.

I flow cross-ex and prep. I rarely flow off speech docs.

Email: oliviapanchal@gmail.com
High School Debate: Heritage Hall School (OK)
College Debate: University of Southern California (2017)

The following are just MY thoughts on policy debate. In general, you should do what you are comfortable with– this will make the debate better for both of us.

T/Theory:
–you must have a counter-interpretation
–you must have terminal impacts like you would for any DA (your standards are not your impacts, they are internal links to greater skills that are integral to debate)
–I will typically default to competing interpretations over reasonability

Disads:
–case-specific links will only help you
–strong/creative DA turns case/case turns DA arguments are most convincing to me
–impact calculus is very important, but it's more than just magnitude and probability. I am much more convinced by arguments that prove how the DA impacts interact with the case (see above point)

Counterplans:
–I will kick the cp for you if told to do so
–you must have a solvency advocate
–CP's that compete off the mandate of the plan and use the same actor are legitimate
–I am not opposed to questionably legitimate CP's, in fact, I kind of like them. However, the aff can easily beat them with a WELL-DEVELOPED AND IMPACTED theory argument

K's:
–I am not the best person to read high-theory, obscure K's in front of. I am not well versed in the literature and you'll have to do an exceptional job explaining your argument. However, that does not mean I will never vote on the K.
–The K does need a specific link to the aff and more importantly, the neg needs to talk about the aff in terms of the K. THIS IS SO IMPORTANT.

Other thoughts:
–dropped arguments are true arguments
–I don't take prep for flashing
–the last 2 rebuttals should not be a reiteration of the debate so far, but rather you should be telling me what you need to win to win this round and CLOSING DOORS. too often the final rebuttals are just two ships passing in the night, which means I have to resolve things on my own. this will not make you or me happy
–over everything... have fun, be nice, and learn stuff

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. Fight on!

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

1. You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
2. You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
3. You listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
4. You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
5. You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
6. You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
7. You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

***Pretty much stole this off Ava Vargason's judge philosophy. Credits to her. 

*I have not judged on this topic, nor do I coach. I don't know the main affirmatives, important acronyms, etc. Explain your arguments and do not assume I know anything about what you're reading.*

I will vote on any argument, but you will lose if I catch you cheating (clipping cards, fabricating evidence). I will default to my position being a policymaker, but it will not be difficult to convince me I should evaluate the round through another lens. 

Framework - you are much better off in front of me either (A) defending an example of the resolution or (B) debating there is an alternative discussion that is more productive to have. If the 1AC is 8 minutes of specific criticisms of surveillance, including a plan that the US should reduce surveillance, and you do not defend that plan, you will likely lose on framework or topicality. I tend to see this as a way to avoid debating disads and counterplans. 

Critiques - my default position is that doing things is better than not doing things. That means the explanation of the alternative is important. I'm better read on gender and race-based arguments. If you start reading white French philosophers, you should have a hefty explanation of your critique. If I don't understand your critique, I'm much more likely to vote aff on the perm or alt fails.

Theory thoughts:

-Conditionality - it's good. It's infinitely good. That doesn't mean aff teams won't win on conditionality bad, but it will be difficult. Interpretations are generally silly, especially on the negative. For example, what is the real difference between 2 and 3 conditional advocacies? If you want to read an interp, make sure you spend time thinking about why it solves your offense (on either side).

-Judge kick - I will kick counterplans for the negative unless an argument is made in the debate about this. Proving the counterplan is a bad idea does not prove the plan is a good idea.

-Perms as advocacies - that being said, I like the argument that perms are advocacies and, if strategically forwarded, will prevent me from kicking the counter plan after the round. This argument should be started in the 2AC or 1AR (perhaps on conditionality). 

-Counterplan competition - I err affirmative on the permutation for process counterplans. 

-Politics theory - a thumbs down is sufficient to answer everything except non-intrinsic. This goes for no negative fiat, too. 

Ethics challenges: I won't vote on clipping unless (A) I noticed it or (B) you have a recording. If you notice clipping in the speech, start recording on your laptop if you want to stake the round on it.  

Glenbrook North High School '16
University of Southern California '20

Tech determines truth no matter how dumb the argument. If people could drop arguments and win then they would choose to not answer the best arguments either. Explain why dropped arguments matter and frame the debate around them. But for something to be considered a dropped argument there has to be a warrant behind it. A claim without a warrant is an assertion, not an argument.

While tech determines truth (and thus you can and should read whatever you’d like), I understand certain arguments more than others. I went for disads, counterplans, and topicality way more than I went for the kritik. I have relatively little knowledge of post-modern and post-structural theory. If I don’t understand your argument I won’t vote for it.

If you can only go for the kritik - I'm probably not the right judge for you. But if you are in this position make sure your links are specific, concrete, and well-developed. Spamming a bunch of crappy links in the 2NC and hoping the 1AR drops one of them is not a winning strategy - pick a few key arguments, explain them thoroughly, and center the debate around them.

I went for framework against planless affs in high school - generally speaking, I don't believe planless affs are good for debate. That being said, if you win the line by line I’ll vote for you.

I love good specific disad or counterplan debates but I know nothing about this topic. I’ve done no research this summer and haven’t judged many debates this year. If you are explaining something complicated slow down and avoid using acronyms or abbreviations.

Other random things:

add me to the chain: jhrose555@gmail.com

I love cross x, use it effectively.

If you are funny, be funny. It will help your speaker points.

I probably lean neg on theory. All theory other than condo and maybe perf con is a reason to reject the argument not the team. Advantage counterplans and pics are probably good. I can be convinced either away about process counterplans.

Being aggressive can be good, but don’t be a jerk.

I debated for USC for four years and now am an assistant coach for Cal-Berkeley.

Add me on email chain please --- ideen.saiedian [at] gmail

Top Level

--  While I've done some research and judged on emissions, you should not assume I know all the acronyms or have spent a lot of time considering what the topic should look like. This is most relevant in T debates, where you will benefit from explaining how the literature, argument trends, and the direction of topic uniqueness affect the desirability of your interpretation.

--  Probably more than most judges, I believe presumption/terminal defense is possible. Proper ev and logical explanation should be applied to win a 100% takeout. Burden of proof is on the team introducing an argument. I'm very open to reasonable/less than extinction impacts.

--  I won't vote on arguments I don't understand.

--  Counterplans that have a solvency advocate, use the same agent as the aff, and compete based off the explicit mandate of the plan are legitimate. The further you deviate from this, the more I incrementally lean aff, but the negative can easily win by out-debating the aff. Perms are better way to eliminate unproductive counterplans than theory.

--  I won't kick an advocacy for the neg unless they explicitly make an argument that I can and should revert to the SQ.

Critiques

--  My voting record suggests I am a better judge for critiques than my arguments in college would reflect. Take that for what you will. Here are some of my thoughts in these debates:

--  I find myself voting for critiques more often because the aff mishandles "K tricks" in the 1AR (FW, V2L, Root Cause, Floating PIK). My threshold for answering these is low.

--  Critiques that apply their general theory to the specific claims made by the 1AC and implicate the aff's ability to solve are great and under-utilized.

--  Feasibility is an important, yet under-debated, factor in determining the desirability of critique alternatives.

--  Magnitude of a link is a relevant consideration. Too often, teams let the negative get away with a sweeping impact to a marginal and insignificant link. 

Critique Affirmatives (Non-T)

--  I believe it is possible and desirable for the affirmative to argue in favor of the resolution. If the negative competently extends a framework argument, they will be in a good position.

--  I am especially convinced by topicality arguments that "solve" the aff by identifying a legitimate topical mechanism that enables a discussion of the 1AC content.

--  Magnitude of a link is also important in T debates. I am a better judge for an aff that defends the resolution minus USFG and eliminates a politics link than I am for an aff that is in the opposite direction of the topic or largely unrelated.

--  K affirmatives that choose not to defend the resolution should have a strong defense of why the discussions they create are valuable or productive. I find many of these debates often force the negative to defend polemical positions (e.g. cap/anthro/anti-blackness explain everything in the world ever) in order to avoid losing to a permutation, which turns these rounds into a root cause impact debate and obviates a discussion of 1AC content or means/ends for action.

--  In framework debates, I find myself voting for K affs when negatives read internal links (fairness, ground, predictability) without impacts, so please impact things like ground, limits, etc. with how changing the contours of debate as a competitive activity will change the valuable things we get out of it. 

I would like to be on the email chain, my email is jpscoggin at gmail.com

I am the coach of Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I also own and operate Premier Debate along with Bob Overing. I coach Nevin Gera. I prefer a nuanced util debate to anything else.

Arguments

In general, I am not a fan of frivolous theory or non-topical Ks.

High speaker points are awarded for exceptional creativity and margin of victory.

I am fine with speed as long as it is comprehensible.

Procedure

If you are not comfortable disclosing to your opponent at the flip or after pairings are released it is likely in your best interest to strike me. If the tournament has a rule about when that should occur I will defer to that, if not 10 minutes after the pairing is released seems reasonable to me.

Compiling is prep. Prep ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed from your computer.

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Steele%2C%20Nick Affiliations: Harvard Westlake, Dennis Tang (West Linn HS)
Hi - My name is Nick Steele and I debated varsity LD for 4 years at Harvard Westlake. I'll try to keep this brief - my judging preferences are pretty open:
I'll evaluate the round based off of the line by line. I'll try to be impartial - For example I will vote on ideal theory/Kant vs. a race AFF if good comparison and weighing are done. I will vote on politics vs. a structural violence AFF, and I will vote on K impact turns to theory, and vice versa
That being said, I tend to lean more towards policy/k style arguments than theory and phil
Policy args: most of what I read in highschool, I'm comfortable evaluating them
Ks: I read a lot of these too, I'm familiar with all the common ones but if you're reading dense pomo or something less common please have clear overviews and tags
Non T AFFs, performance, narratives, etc: all fine and I read them, they're still debate arguments so I hold them to the same standards. Hopefully they're related to the topic. Making the reason to vote AFF clear is key
T framework: it's fine and necessary sometimes , the T version of the AFF debate is usually important so be clear there
Theory: Good strategic theory or theory to check actual abuse is good, I will vote on frivolous theory but I don't think it's very strategic and that will be reflected in speaks
I'll try to be neutral but I lean AFF on 2 or more condo, NEG on agent cp's, AFF on specific plans good, NEG on reasonable PICs but AFF on super small or random PICs. Default competing interps and drop the debater
Phil: I'm familiar with and read at some point all of the common LD frameworks. I'm most familiar with consequentialism and deontology, but feel comfortable evaluating most framework debates. Same thing applies with dense fw as dense Ks
Tricks/a prioris/ skep etc: will vote on them, don't like them. I think common sense responses answer a lot of these positions well
Speaks: will be given based off of efficiency, giving good overviews, collapsing effectively, reading quality substantive arguments, and effectively using ethos if it suits the round.
30 - one of the best speeches I've seen all year
29.5 - you should get to late out rounds
28.9 - you should probably clear
28.5 - average
Flashing: Make an email chain. If you're using a computer you should have a flash drive as back up. I won't take prep. Be fast please
I won't vote on things like racism or rape good, etc. If you personally insult someone in the room or deliberately make someone uncomfortable you'll get a 0.
Do what style you're best at and have fun! I'm excited to see different individual arguments styles and people debate best when they're confident in what they're reading.

Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a coach.  Blank slate.  I'm pure flow in all formats.  I'm fine with speed.  Fine with anything pre or post fiat in LD and policy.  Team or debater who wins the flow wins the round.  No intervention.  I will vote on topicality.  I will vote on theory.  I will vote on case.  I will vote on K's.  Depends who better sells that I should prefer their voters.

Arjun Tambe

Co-director, The Debate Intensive

Stanford '19
Palos Verdes Peninsula ‘15
Conflicts: PV Peninsula, La Canada, Dougherty Valley

Send speech docs to - arjuntambe1 AT gmail

General Beliefs / Rules

-I will not vote on arguments I did not flow or did not understand. Being unclear in the constructive will greatly increase the explanation required for the 2NR.
-My default is an offense-defense paradigm. Skepticism is defense. You will need to justify a truth-testing paradigm in order to win a skepticism argument.

-I will not vote for a Floating PIK. If your alternative says in the 1NC that it includes the plan, that's fine; but if the plan was never included in the alt in the 1NC then I will not allow the 2NR to claim, for the first time in the debate, that the alt includes the plan.
-Theory: I lean against voting on theory and topicality. I believe it should take a substantial violation of fairness and education to decide the debate on procedural grounds. Just as virtually everyone agrees that "I meet" definitively answers theory, even without offense, I think other responses that demonstrate there is no abuse can do the same. Voting for theory risks over-punishment, which seems just as bad as allowing the violation. If the offense on theory is small, the risk of over-punishment seems to outweigh the reasons to vote for theory. Most arguments for competing interps does not justify why a "risk of offense" actually justifies deciding the debate on theory.
-Argument quality matters, not just the extent to which an argument is answered. Bad arguments are less likely to be true, and dropped arguments aren’t 100% true. Similarly, framework is impact calculus – it makes certain impacts more or less important, not the only impacts that matter.
-Presumption is almost always irrelevant.
-2AR and 2NR impact calculus is not a new argument.
-2AR cards are a legitimate response to new 2NR cards.

-CX matters. Being unable to explain your arguments in CX seriously counts against both your arguments and your speaker points, and being unable to ask good questions in CX counts against your speaker points. "You can make that argument" is a cop-out, not an answer, to a good CX question.

Hard and Fast Rules

-You must disclose or give cites to me upon request. If a position is not disclosed I won't disregard it, but I am easily persuaded by disclosure theory arguments.
-You must make your speech doc during prep time.
-You must be willing to email or flash cases. If your opponent does not have a laptop you must have a viewing computer, pass pages, or lend your opponent your laptop.
-Card clipping or evidence ethics violations result in a loss-20. If you think your opponent has done either of these things, stop the round for an ethics challenge.
-You must have proper cites for your cards (including author name, publication date if available, and source at the least). I will disregard evidence that lacks proper citations.
-Please avoid adding brackets to your evidence. I would prefer if you remove them or at least restrict them to tense, punctuation, and offensive language.

Arguments I Do and Do Not Find Persuasive
-Many people oddly do not add author quals to their cards in LD, and this could be a good way to scrutinize their evidence, especially if it is published in a blog or opinion page.

Counterplans and disads

-Try or die is not always persuasive because the probability of the aff's extinction impacts are, usually, relatively low.

-I tend to think disads like elections or politics are very improbable; however, that's also true of tiny aff advantages with poor, scrapped-together evidence.

-I like well thought-out "plan flaw" arguments when the aff's plan is poorly or strangely written, and think "plan flaw" should be extended more often. However, "plan flaw" is only a complete argument if you explain why the plan isn't enactable, and why it should be.

-I enjoy process counterplans and think they should be read more often.

Topicality and Theory
-I lean neg in Topicality vs Plan-less Aff debates, but end up voting aff just as much as I vote neg. This is often because the neg lacks an external impact to topicality.
-1 conditional advocacy seems okay, but I can be persuaded otherwise. 2 seems on the fence.
-I generally think that education outweighs fairness.

Philosophy
-I do not find the strategy of reading a liberty NC and dropping the aff's claim that the plan will prevent everyone on earth from dying to be persuasive. No serious philosopher would defend such a view. Such NCs are only persuasive to me when coupled with good case defense.
-A clear explanation of what incorrect assumption your opponent's framework relies on that yours doesn't is far more effective than saying your meta-meta-epistemology "precludes" their arguments.

Critiques
-I assume kritiks/links to the aff’s representations should be part of the debate. However, I think I am easier than average to persuade that the debate should center only on the plan.

-Permutations solve links to the tune of "the aff didn't talk about X." The negative needs at least a basic explanation of a link argument to have a chance in a K debate. The less central the neg's link is to the thesis of the affirmative, the more likely it is that the case outweighs.

-Dense, obtuse evidence for a kritik needs to be interpreted and explained thoroughly enough for it to make sense as an actual argument. I often find the evidence in various postmodernist critiques to be very unpersuasive, and it often criticizes something not directly relevant to the aff.
-I often find alt solvency to be under-explained by the neg, and think "alt fails" is very often a persuasive argument. However, I also find that alt solvency is often not answered well by the aff.

-I do not find broad, sweeping "root cause" and other arguments (e.g., "the aff evidence should be distrusted because capitalism corrupts academia") to be persuasive at all, unless they are applied well to the aff.
-There is almost always value to life, so value to life does not "non-unique" extinction, though it can still be an impact.
-More critiques should be impact turned. The cap K is a good example.

Stylistic preferences
With a few exceptions, I find explanations of "how the round breaks down" to be annoying and a waste of time.
You do not need to waste a ton of time "extending" your aff card by card if there wasn't case defense.

I debated LD for 4 years at Clements High School (2012-16), qualifying to TOC my junior and senior year.

As a debater I did a bit of everything: framework, topicality/theory, policy, K’s, etc. I’m not deeply familiar with any particular body of literature, but I will likely have enough exposure to understand your argument and it’s implication for the round with clear explanations. So I’ll vote on pretty much anything that doesn’t make me doubt the activity’s value (e.g. racism good).

One caveat, for philosophically dense arguments, I value clarity very highly and don't enjoy digging through cards to make sense of your argument, especially when it comes to your advocacy (what am I voting for).

As a notice, I am no longer actively involved in debate, so be considerate. Speed should not be a problem - I am not afraid to call clear and slow - but I might not catch onto or be receptive to any new strategy antics that debaters love to pull.

I give speaker points based on a) general clarity and ethos, b) how well you understand and use your arguments (smart strategy)

Affiliations: Clements High School, Brentwood High school, Cambridge Rindge and Latin

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

I debated for Loyola High School for 4 years (policy), Wake Forest University for a semester (policy), and El Camino College for two years (parli). I now coach PF at the Harker School.

I've debated both traditional and nontraditional forms of debate. There really isn't an argument that I won't hear. I have a higher threshold for theory, and rarely vote on potential abuse. But beyond that I do not have any serious predisposition to any arguments you read. Or at least I shouldn't... Blatantly offensive arguments, like impact turning racism or etc, probably will lose you the round though. Just be smart.

Speaker point break down - I'm pretty fair about speaker points (though I don't think there will be a judge who will tell you they aren't fair about speaker points) but I'm quick to catch on to things on general impoliteness vs sass (love sass). Just be a good person and speak well etc etc. Y'all should be mature enough to know what that means.

PF -- "paraphrasing" your evidence is not evidence and will result in a loss.

I debated LD for a small school in Arizona, from 2008-2011, then went on to coach local and circuit LD from 2011-2012, before coaching privately for curcuit-level students 2012-2015 when I retired.  From 2016 on I only judge infrequent tournaments in the LA area.

I've heard and voted on every kind of argument imaginable, at any speed.  I'm tabula rasa, so the only thing I don't want you to do is be rude or offensive.  I loved running Ks and Theory when I was in my prime, but I also could do the traditional NFL-era LD style too, so any style will work in front of me, so long as you execute it well.

That said, I'm not coaching anymore, so I'm probably not going to know your authors as well, nor will I be as well-read on the topic or whatever arguments are in style at the time.  Consequently, you'll probably want to go a little slower with me, and think bigger picture.  I like it when the final speeches write my RFD for me.  Don't get upset with me when you lose after you wanted me to vote on an issue you didn't spend enough time explaining in your last speech.  Going for 3 or more voters on 3 or more sheets is a sure-fire way to know you're not spending enough time explaining those issues to me in your rebuttal.

Ask questions before the round if you need to.  I'm cool with flex prep or different lengths of prep (unless prohibited by tournament rules) so long as it's agreed upon before the 1AC.  Unless flex prep has been declared before the round, CX is the only binding discussion time; I do not listen to chatter during prep.  

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.