apparently judgephilosophies is gone so im updating this for the stanford tournament and beyond - i debated at cal and for four years in high school, was pretty decent and all that stuff, do whatever you want as long as you do it well and please explain things

make me laugh while also being persuasive please ur speaker points will jump

if you want some background - I went almost exclusively for afropessimism and read a "performance aff" my senior year of high school, and then started off college by going for FW and deterrence good against most K affs, followed by a jump to "high theory" (i.e. Negarestani, Deleuze) - the point is I've definitely debated both sides of "clash debates", so I'm game for hearing them and I actually really enjoy FW v K aff/hard-right aff v K debates

please don't be intimidated if i don't smile/emote much - i just have a really blank expression sometimes - if i smile or nod though you probably did a good thing

TLDR because reading 8 lines of text can be daunting:

- do whatever you want, being funny is an optional plus, make (good) arguments

my email is ddave17@berkeley.edu

you can add me to the email chain if you want, doesn't really matter to me

I am Lexie Fredrickson, and I am the assistant debate coach for Crossings Christian School. I debated for Crossings in high school for my junior and senior year and when I graduated I debated at UCO for a year. This is my fourth year coaching at Crossings. As a debater I ran all types of arguments, including Kritiks, Counter Plans, Topical Affs, Judo affs, Topicality, etc. and I am open to hearing all types of arguments. I am tabula rasa meaning if you define the rules of the round and your opponent doesn't challenge it your definitions will frame the round. I will listen to and vote on Ks but I place a higher burden of proof on alt solvency than most other judges I have seen. I am fine with speed, open cx, and I don't care if you keep time on your phone. If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask them before the round.

Hey. My name is Jordan. I competed in policy at Union High School in Tulsa, OK. I also competed in parliamentary style debate in college at Morehouse College in Atlanta. In high school, I read a lot of small impact policy affs, a few kritikal affs, and mostly t/k/case strats. I've judged a good number of rounds throughout undergrad and this current 18-19 debate season. I'd say that my paradigm is probably policymaker. I'm open to hearing well impacted topicality arguments and kritiks on the neg, in addition to DA's, CP's, and theory arguments. I also don't mind kritikal affs, as long as they make a good argument for why they are germane to the topic, but I do have some reservations about affs that incorporate personal narratives in their strategy. I think that debates should be educational, and I think that debaters have the right to discuss what the rules of the debate should be. I'm good with speed, as long as you clearly enunciate your tags.

In addition to all of this, I think that debaters should be respectful to one another, and I'm always open to discuss my decision and the round, if time permits.

I'm Black.

My pronouns are he/him/his.

Cross-x.com has hidden gems.

Email: jordanothniel@gmail.com

Austin Johnson

Trinity Valley School

Head Coach/Program Director

Debating experience

Debate coach for four years. Took kids to TOC and NSDA Nats.

Role of the Judge

I’m willing to evaluate any and all roles-of-the-judge you put forward. It’s the judge’s job to weigh the round under the criteria you give. That is, the judge is a referee who makes decisions about a game whose rules are determined by its players over the course of each round.

Email Chain

If you're going to spread, I want to be on it. I'll give my e-mail at the time of the round.

CX

I do not flow CX.

Logistics

Track your own prep. I’m okay with flex prep. Flashing is not prep.

Speed

Speak as quickly as you are comfortable. However, if you’re going to spread, please be sure to include me on the e-mail chain.

Theory

The primary thing, in my opinion, that leads to worse debate is spending a lot of time explaining your opponent's model leads to worse debate. I've tried to be gentle about this. It is apparently time to be clear: I do not want to hear a theory argument. I hate them.

I’ll weigh theory if I must. But I would prefer to vote on literally anything else. If something genuinely abusive (not even in the direction of the topic, undisclosed, etc.) happens in the round, then you should call it out. Otherwise, don’t waste time on. If the only reason you’re winning a debate is because you’re manipulating the rules of debate, you’re not winning a debate.

Additionally, don't run Theory just to suck up time. The only thing worse than winning a round because you're just manipulating the rules is winning a round because you're wasting time talking about manipulating the rules and then not manipulating the rules, because that means I had to listen to your crappy theory non-argument which you then did nothing with!

Plans

I’m cool with plans. Just remember that reading a plan in LD means taking on a heavier burden of proof than defending the resolution as-written.

DA/CP

If I’m letting Aff run plans, I should probably let Neg run DAs and CPs. So I do.

Performance Ks

Performance is cool. I buy in-round solvency and pre-fiat alts.

Kritiks

The K is the reason I’m a debate coach. I’m a Ph.D. in English lit who got his degree after 2000, which means I had to be conversant in a loooooot of critical literature. I like materialist or semiotic approaches; psychoanalysis Ks are very slippery and I don’t generally enjoy them.

K Affs

K Affs are fine, but you need to be prepared for a protracted debate about framing that you can actually win.

A bit of background:
I debated policy 3ish years at the University of Oklahoma and 4 years at Edmond Santa Fe High School. I've judged policy/LD/PF debate since then.

Yes put me on the email chain:
parkerstephennelson@gmail.com

Most of what is below is tailored towards policy debate:

I believe that debate is a game that fosters a multitude of positive things: critical thinking, problem solving, logical decision-making, communication skills, and exposure to an abundance of topics that no other activity provides. Because of this, I try to give back to this community and support it in every way I can. There is no wrong way to debate, and bringing your own flavor/style is encouraged. I have an extensive amount of experience with critical arguments but I can get down to a good policy debate too. The best judges I had were the ones willing to listen to positions from every possible angle, and that's what I strive to emulate.
Thus, I try to outline my general preferences in technical terms:
-- Each argument must have a claim, warrant, and be properly impacted out. The other team dropping the argument doesn't mean putting a 30 second blurb at the end of the 2NR/2AR, expecting my unequivocal vote.
-- Coherence is a must, and your evidence should say what you claim it says. Don't under-highlight to put out incoherent arguments. Evidence quality wins more debates.
-- I'm a big advocate for framing arguments, which make my evaluation of the round easier.
-- My argument preference in my past debates/decisions won't grant you any type of benefit in the next round.
-- Understand and adequately explain how your argument interacts with the specific nuances of the opposing teams. So many debaters get bogged down in jargon instead of properly explaining how these concepts should shape my decision.
-- There is a significant difference in being strategic and being squirrely; the latter is incredibly annoying.

The Specifics:
Framework/Topicality:
You NEED evidence/definitions for what portion of the resolution is being debated.
Ideally, the affirmative defends a position that is controversial, with plenty of literature granting ground on both sides and predictable elements to it. I probably have a reputation as a fairness/limits voter, but that's because it's the debate I hear the most. I also enjoy "clash" debates, but the biggest issue I run into is one side not engaging with how the other side portrays the debate, and instead hyper-focuses on turning every offensive standard without providing the over-arching context.
Topical versions of the Aff aren't required to solve all the world's problems. The 1AC is 9 minutes for Christ's sake.
Impact framing on the Topicality flow is just as important as anywhere else.

Kritiks:
***You need a link to the Plan itself--or at least to the representations of the Aff. One of the biggest reasons I vote Aff in Policy Aff vs K debates is that either:
a) Not enough work was put into establishing a specific link to the Aff or
b) work is put into establishing a link to the status quo, which the negative assumes automatically links to the Affirmative. That isn't the case.***
Using direct quotations from the Affirmative evidence in your link claims will get you leaps further than you think.
Permutation defense is just as important as link offense -- voting on links of omission aren't super compelling.
Expect me to allow the affirmative to weigh the advantages of the Aff unless there is an overwhelmingly explicit reason not to, aka violent representations of the plan, flawed epistemologies, etc.
No separate sheet of paper for overviews.
No underviews; please god.
Note: "Perm do the alt" is not a perm.
While I'm here, overview debates are exhausting. Spilling a prewritten 5 minute word-salad about your K, and expecting it to answer literally everything on the line-by-line is a meme and is bad debating. Debate the line-by-line.
You need an alternative. A coherent alternative. I keep using the coherence word, because discussions need to be had on how the alternative interacts with both the status quo, and advantages of the affirmative plan. It also must solve your links.

I'm most familiar with: Nietzsche, Capitalism, Heidegger, Reps, Fem IR, Anthro, Security, Anti-Blackness, SetCol and various flavors of such. I'm not your Deleuze/Baudrillard aficionado.


K Affs:
You do not have to have a plan, but you need to answer the question of advocacy. Why am I voting for whatever it is you're doing? Why is it good? If I'm left in the dark, typically it's due to teams thinking that obscurity is advantageous. It isn't.
I am persuaded by good presumption arguments made by the negative. Engaging with these is paramount to success with critical affirmatives. Ignoring them is a great recipe to lose.
Your advocacy--at minimum--needs to have a critical element that is tangential to the resolution, and a mechanism for achieving/overcoming/resolving this element.


CPs:
Counterplans? Yes.
Advantage Counterplans? Yes.
Plan Inclusive Counterplans? Ehhh, but acceptable, given proper justification/solvency advocates.
In all cases, the negative needs to win a few things:
1) The counterplan is competitive (textual and functional to be safe)
2) There is a uniquely accessed net benefit
3) Complete solvency of the affirmative harms WITH a solvency advocate (unless you weigh other things against the remaining portions of the Aff).
I will vote for permutations -- use your net benefits as offense.

DAs:
Love them. I absolutely adore specific link stories, or better yet case-specific disadvantages, but I will still take all of your generic links.
I find Affs hole-punching their way through weak link-chains to be the easiest way to dismantle a DA. Point out logical leaps in internal links.
Read the cards, especially the un-underlined portions. Point out cards having no warrant in your speeches.
I believe 0% risk is possible, but it's not always probable, so don't rely on only uniqueness take-outs or link defense.
Specificity of Uniqueness > stacks of cards that all have two sentences highlighted. The under-highlighting is proliferant and teams getting away with it is insane to me.
Please. Do. Impact. Calculus.

Theory:
I am a believer in theory interpretation debate and it's a hill I'll die on. It's also, coincidentally enough, a great way to defend/persuade your judge by having a basis for evaluation.
I probably lean more towards condo/multiple-worlds good, assuming the negative isn't trying to run away from the debate/spread people out of the round.
Going for the theory in the 2NR/2AR is a bold move, and I will vote on it, assuming you impact the debate well and answer back defense overwhelmingly, preferably with some in round-abuses tied to a violation of some sort by the opposing team.
This does not mean running incoherent, superfluous theory arguments and expecting a W.

MISC:
Clipping: I request a copy of all speech docs due to how egregiously offensive I find this to be. You will not pass GO. You will lose the round. You will receive 0 speaks.
I *will* vote against you without the other team claiming you are clipping.
I *will* give you minimum possible speaks if you have the un-underlined/highlighted portions of your evidence at a 1 point font. STOP.
Have a copy of your evidence for your opponent. This can be physical or digital.
Do not be rude to each other in Cross-Ex. Be engaging, but not overly aggressive.
I have no issues with speed -- I do have issues with people who think they're fast, but aren't clear. I only flow what I hear, and if I have to yell clear more than twice, I'd suggest slowing down and checking if my pen has stopped moving.
Please respect preferred pronouns. Mine are he/him.

Right off the bat -

Keep your own time, prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer, open CX, a little prompting is alright (too much and you'll lose speaker points).

I debated at Heritage for 4 years, so I'm no stranger to critical theory. But I prefer more real world tangible arguments and strong structure. The deeper into critical literature (aka the weirder) you go, the more I'm going to want additional explanation. I've also been out of actual participation of debate for a number of years, so sticking to normal conventions is probably your best strategy.

That being said, I'll listen to anything provided you argue it well. Just do your job as a debater and you'll be fine.

Good luck!

Bozho, Rachel ndezhnekas. Bodewadmi ndaw, Shishibeni ndbendagwes. Gkendasgemgek emikchewiyan. Hi, my name is Rachel, I am Citizen band Potawatomi and I work at the CPN department of education.

Pronouns: Ask, if you're curious. Otherwise call me judge or Rachel or Watson. Ask for others' pronouns in-round or default to they/them. I personally default to they/them until I'm told otherwise.

I've been coaching and competing in LD and policy since 2008. I started in middle school. In college, I debated at Central Oklahoma from 2015-16, and if you're thinking about that program or Wake Forest, ask me about why I left. I got my master's from Penn, and I coach at Holy Ghost Prep.

If you have an email chain add me: r.erinwatson@gmail.com  (Catholic League tournaments don't usually have chains but DON'T add me if you do. It's against the rules.) 

Email me about other stuff too, if you feel unsafe in round, if you want to know more about my paradigm, ask about arguments, get a better understanding of the RFD, etc. Also feel free to contact me at my day job if you would like to talk about going to college, debating in college, or translating your speech and debate experience into a college application essay!

Respect your partner and your opponents. Respect every judge, too, even if you've decided you don't need that ballot to win the panel.

NFCL top level edit- In LD I do absolutely love trad debate so please don't go full circuit thinking that's how you'll get my ballot. All the big picture points below still apply! 

Brief guide to getting my ballot (if you have 1 minute before round read the bolded on this list):

1. Be kind. Show empathy. Everyone in round is human, we are not debate robots, and it’s alright to bring your personality with you into the room. And this is #1 for a reason, kindness and recognizing our mutual humanity is the most important part of being a member of the debate community.

2. Read arguments and debate in a style that you enjoy. I like judging good rounds, and your round is almost always better if you like your argument and know it well. I have voted for poetry, and I have voted for politics DA.

3. Have a claim, warrant, and impact for every argument. I know 1ARs are hard, but you can be fast and efficient without being blippy. Don't be blippy!

4. Clash. Engagement with the other side's arguments and ideas is the one thing that makes this not a speech event. Not all arguments clash automatically! You must produce it in round.

5. Weigh all the impacts. Compare the impacts on the different sheets of paper and tell me why even if the other team’s argument is 100% true, I should still vote for you. Do this even if you and your opponent have completely different styles (i.e. trad v progressive LD, kritikal or policy based args, etc.). Don’t make me weigh things for you, chances are you won’t like the result. I am like most judges and I vastly prefer rounds where debaters tell me how to evaluate and how to write my RFD.

6. Focus on offense and framing (meaning how I should weigh or evaluate the round, or the debate's BIG question). In my head, there’s almost always a chance that the plan/alt/CP will solve. Terminal defense might be useful, and you probably can win that in front of me, but I’m much more comfortable voting for offense than defense or muddy techy stuff somewhere deep in the line-by-line.

All the below was written with policy in mind, but it applies to progressive LD as well.

Affs:

Run what you know and what you're prepped for. I will vote for almost anything.

Topicality and Theory:

I’m plenty happy to vote on topicality and theory arguments if debaters are willing to go all in and can defend that one model of debate or of the topic provides more education/learning opportunities. However, if the negative provides an overly exclusionary interpretation on Framework, they are going to have to work a lot harder to convince me that an exclusionary based model of debate is good.

AC UNDERVIEWS/THEORY (LD): Saying you get to have an RVI is not the same thing as having one... If you want one you have to tell me what the threshold is for making something an RVI and why that means I should vote on it, don't just say you get to have one. Sorry policy kids but you don't get an RVI, esp not on T.

Counterplans/Kritiks:

I generally prefer negative strategies that don’t contain a performative contradiction, like reading counterplans that link to a K of the aff. Other than that, please try to make it clear in round the ways in which your Kritik or counterplan function differently from the affirmative. Counterplans need competition and a net benefit, and k debaters should be prepared for impact framing arguments, especially in a round with a policy team. From the aff, be prepared to explain how a perm functions to achieve the net benefit/not link to the Kritik.

My K experience has mostly been with identity arguments; I know critical race theory- including afropess and set col best. I read and keep up with indigenous scholarship because I am Potawatomi (Citizen band). Yes, I am legally a citizen of this sovereign nation. Yes, I hate authenticity testing. This means I'm probably more willing to listen to speaking for others/commodification/etc. claims about why non-indigenous folks reading set col is bad than other judges might be. That Evans 15 card is probably also true of indigenous lit, sure, but Evans was very specifically speaking about afropessimism and white afropessimists.

Baudrillard, Foucault, Delueze, high theory abstract stuff, aren't my strong suit so develop good, clear, consistent explanations about your K/alt so my ballot can be clean.

I’m happy to answer debater's questions on specific issues/arguments prior to the round. I will also respond to emails after the fact if you have questions about my decisions. I try really hard to write long, detailed ballots, because I believe that even with a lengthy RFD after the round having a record is good for debaters and coaches! And also, no judge is perfect. But if you think I'm wrong, DON'T do the postrounding thing with me. Email me when you are back in school if you're still mad on Monday.