Experience-This will be my fifth year as the head coach at Northview High School. Before moving to Georgia, I coached for 7 years at Marquette High in Milwaukee, WI.

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is mcekanordebate@gmail.com

*As I have gained more coaching and judging experience, I find that I highly value teams who respect their opponents who might not have the same experience as them. This includes watching how you come across in CX, prep time, and your general comportment towards your opponent. In some local circuits, circuit-style policy debate is dwindling and we all have a responsibility to be respectful of the experience of everyone trying to be involved in policy debate.*

I recommend that you go to the bathroom and fill your water bottles before the debate rather than before a speech.

LD Folks please read the addendum at the end of my paradigm.

Meta-Level Strike Sheet Concerns

1. Debates are rarely won or lost on technical concessions or truth claims alone. In other words, I think the “tech vs. truth” distinction is a little silly. Technical concessions make it more complicated to win a debate, but rarely do they make wins impossible. Keeping your arguments closer to “truer” forms of an argument make it easier to overcome technical concessions because your arguments are easier to identify, and they’re more explicitly supported by your evidence (or at least should be). That being said, using truth alone as a metric of which of y’all to pick up incentivizes intervention and is not how I will evaluate the debate.

2. Evidence quality matters a bunch to me- it’s evidence that you have spent time and effort on your positions, it’s a way to determine the relative truth level of your claims, and it helps overcome some of the time constraints of the activity in a way that allows you to raise the level of complexity of your position in a shorter amount of time. I will read your evidence throughout the debate, especially if it is on a position with which I’m less familiar. I won’t vote on evidence comparison claims unless it becomes a question of the debate raised by either team, but I will think about how your evidence could have been used more effectively by the end of the debate. I enjoy rewarding teams for evidence quality.

3. Every debate could benefit from more comparative work particularly in terms of the relative quality of arguments/the interactions between arguments by the end of the round. Teams should ask "Why?", such as "If I win this argument, WHY is this important?", "If I lose this argument WHY does this matter?". Strategically explaining the implications of winning or losing an argument is the difference between being a middle of the road team and a team advancing to elims.

4. Some expectations for what should be present in arguments that seem to have disappeared in the last few years-

-For me to vote on a single argument, it must have a claim, warrant, impact, and impact comparison.

-A DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link and impact argument is presented.Too many teams are getting away with 2 card DA shells in the 1NC and then reading uniqueness walls in the block. I will generally allow for new 1AR answers.

Similarly, CP's should have a solvency advocate read in the 1NC. I'll be flexible on allowing 1AR arguments in a world where the aff makes an argument about the lack of a solvency advocate.

-Yes, terminal defense exists, however, I do not think that teams take enough advantage of this kind of argument in front of me. I will not always evaluate the round through a lens of offense-defense, but you still need to make arguments as to why I shouldn’t by at least explaining why your argument functions as terminal defense. Again this plays into evidence questions and the relative impacts of arguments claims made above.

Specifics

Case-Debates are won or lost in the case debate. By this, I mean that proving whether or not the aff successfully accesses all, some or none of the case advantages has implications on every flow of the debate and should be a fundamental question of most 2NRs and 2ARs. I think that blocks that are heavy in case defense or impact turns are incredibly advantageous for the neg because they enable you to win any CP (by proving the case defense as a response to the solvency deficit), K (see below) or DA (pretty obvious). I'm also more likely than others to write a presumption ballot or vote neg on inherency arguments. If the status quo solves your aff or you're not a big enough divergence, then you probably need to reconsider your approach to the topic.

Most affs can be divided into two categories: affs with a lot of impacts but poor internal links and affs with very solid internal links but questionable impacts. Acknowledging in which of these two categories the aff you are debating falls should shape how you approach the case debate. I find myself growing increasingly disappointed by negative teams that do not test weak affirmatives. Where's your internal link defense?? I also miss judging impact turn debates, but don't think that spark or wipeout are persuasive arguments. A high level de-dev debate or heg debate, on the other hand, love it.

DA-DAs are questions of probability. Your job as the aff team when debating a DA is to use your defensive arguments to question the probability of the internal links to the DA. Affirmative teams should take more advantage of terminal defense against disads. I'll probably also have a lower threshold for your theory arguments on the disad. Likewise, the neg should use turns case arguments as a reason why your DA calls into question the probability of the aff's internal links. Don't usually find "____ controls the direction of the link" arguments very persuasive. You need to warrant out that claim more if you're going to go for it. Make more rollback-style turns case arguments or more creative turns case arguments to lower the threshold for winning the debate on the disad alone.

CP-CP debates are about the relative weight of a solvency deficit versus the relative weight of the net benefit. The team that is more comparative when discussing the solvency level of these debates usually wins the debate. While, when it is a focus of the debate, I tend to err affirmative on questions of counterplan competiton, I have grown to be more persuaded by a well-executed counterplan strategy even if the counterplan is a process counterplan. The best counterplans have a solvency advocate who is, at least, specific to the topic, and, best, specific to the affirmative. I do not default to judge kicking the counterplan and will be easily persuaded by an affirmative argument about why I should not default to that kind of in-round conditionality. Not a huge fan of the NGA CP and I've voted three out of four times on intrinsic permutations against this counterplan so just be warned. Aff teams should take advantage of presumption arguments against the CP.

K-Used to have a bunch of thoughts spammed here that weren't too easy to navigate pre-round. I've left that section at the bottom of the paradigm for the historical record, but here's the cleaned up version:

What does the ballot do? What is the ballot absolutely incapable of doing? What does the ballot justify? No matter if you are on the aff or the neg, defending the topic or not, these are the kinds of questions that you need to answer by the end of the debate. As so much of K debating has become framework debates on the aff and the neg, I often find myself with a lot of floating pieces of offense that are not attached to a clear explanation of what a vote in either direction can/can't do.

T-Sitting through a bunch of framework debates has made me a better judge for topicality than I used to be. Comparative impact calculus alongside the use of strategic defensive arguments will make it easier for me to vote in a particular direction. Certain interps have a stronger internal link to limits claims and certain affs have better arguments for overlimiting. Being specific about what kind of offense you access, how it comes first, and the relative strength of your internal links in these debates will make it more likely that you win my ballot. I’m not a huge fan of tickytacky topicality claims but, if there’s substantial contestation in the literature, these can be good debates.

Theory- I debated on a team that engaged in a lot of theory debates in high school. There were multiple tournaments where most of our debates boiled down to theory questions, so I would like to think that I am a good judge for theory debates. I think that teams forget that theory debates are structured like a disadvantage. Again, comparative impact calculus is important to win my ballots in these debates. I will say that I tend to err aff on most theory questions. For example, I think that it is probably problematic for there to be more than one conditional advocacy in a round (and that it is equally problematic for your counter interpretation to be dispositionality) and I think that counterplans that compete off of certainty are bad for education and unfair to the aff. The biggest killer in a theory debate is when you just read down your blocks and don’t make specific claims. Debate like your

Notes for the Blue Key RR/Other LD Judging Obligations

Biggest shift for me in judging LD debates is the following: No tricks or intuitively false arguments. I'll vote on dropped arguments, but those arguments need a claim, data, warrant and an impact for me to vote on them. If I can't explain the argument back to you and the implications of that argument on the rest of the debate, I'm not voting for you.

I guess this wasn't clear enough the first time around- I don't flow off the document and your walls of framework and theory analytics are really hard to flow when you don't put any breaks in between them.

Similarly, phil debates are always difficult for me to analyze. I tend to think affirmative's should defend implementation particularly when the resolution specifies an actor. Outside of my general desire to see some debates about implementation, I don't have any kind of background in the phil literature bases and so will have a harder time picturing the implications of you winning specific arguments. If you want me to understand how your argumets interact, you will have to do a lot of explanation.

Theory debates- Yes, I said that I enjoy theory debates in my paradigm above and that is largely still true, but CX theory debates are a lot less technical than LD debates. I also think there are a lot of silly theory arguments in LD and I tend to have a higher threshold for those sorts of arguments. I also don't have much of a reference for norm setting in LD or what the norms actually are. Take that into account if you choose to go for theory and probably don't because I won't award you with high enough speaks for your liking.

K debates- Yes, I enjoy K debates but I tend to think that their LD variant is very shallow. You need to do more specific work in linking to the affirmative and developing the implications of your theory of power claims. While I enjoy good LD debates on the K, I always feel like I have to do a lot of work to justify a ballot in either direction. This is magnified by the limited amount of time that you have to develop your positions.

Old K Paradigm (2020-2022)

After y’all saw the school that I coach, I’m sure this is where you scrolled to first which is fair enough given how long it takes to fill out pref sheets. I will say, if you told me 10 years ago when I began coaching that I’d be coaching a team that primarily reads the K on the aff and on the neg, I probably would have found that absurd because that wasn’t my entry point into the activity so keep that in mind as you work with some of the thoughts below. That being said, I’ve now coached the K at a high level for the past two years which means that I have some semblance of a feeling for a good K debate. If the K is not something that you traditionally go for, you’re better off going for what you’re best at.

The best debates on the K are debates over the explanatory power of the negative’s theory of power relative to the affirmative’s specific example of liberalism, realism, etc. Put another way, the best K debaters are familiar enough with their theory of power AND the affirmative’s specific impact scenarios that they use their theory to explain the dangers of the aff. By the end of the 2NR I should have a very clear idea of what the affirmative does and how your theory explains why doing the affirmative won’t resolve the aff’s impacts or results in a bad thing. This does not necessarily mean that you need to have links to the affirmative’s mechanism (that’s probably a bit high of a research burden), but your link explanations need to be specific to the aff and should be bolstered by specific quotes from 1AC evidence or CX. The specificity of your link explanation should be sufficient to overcome questions of link-uniqueness or I’ll be comfortable voting on “your links only link to the status quo.”

On the flipside, aff teams need to explain why their contingency or specific example of policy action cannot be explained by the negative’s theory of power or that, even if some aspects can be, that the specificity of the aff’s claims justifies voting aff anyway because there’s some offense against the alternative or to the FW ballot. Affirmative teams that use the specificity of the affirmative to generate offense or push back against general link claims will win more debates than those that just default to generic “extinction is irreversible” ballots.

Case Page when going for the K- My biggest pet peeve with the current meta on the K is the role of the case page. Neither the affirmative nor the negative take enough advantage of this page to really stretch out their opponents on this question. For the negative, you need to be challenging the affirmative’s internal links with defense that can bolster some of your thesis level claims. Remember, you are trying to DISPROVE the affirmative’s contingent/specific policy which means that the more specificity you have the better off you will be. This means that just throwing your generic K links onto the case page probably isn’t the move. 9/10 the alternative doesn’t resolve them and you don’t have an explanation of how voting neg resolves the offense. K teams so frequently let policy affs get away with some really poor evidence quality and weak internal links. Please help the community and deter policy teams from reading one bad internal link to their heg aff against your [INSERT THEORY HERE] K. On that note, policy teams, why are you removing your best internal links when debating the K? Your generic framework cards are giving the neg more things to impact turn and your explanation of the internal link level of the aff is lowered when you do that. Read your normal aff against the K and just square up.

Framework debates (with the K on the neg) For better or worse, so much of contemporary K debate is resolved in the framework debate. The contemporary dependence on framework ballots means a couple of things:

1.) Both teams need to do more work here- treat this like a DA and a CP. Compare the relative strength of internal link claims and impact out the terminal impacts. Why does procedural fairness matter? What is the terminal impact to clash? How do we access your skills claims? What does/does not the ballot resolve? To what extent does the ballot resolve those things? The team that usually answers more of these questions usually wins these debates. K teams need to do more to push back against “ballot can solve procedural fairness” claims and aff teams need to do more than just “schools, family, culture, etc.” outweigh subject formation. Many of you all spend more time at debate tournaments or doing debate work than you do at school or doing schoolwork.

2.) I do think it’s possible for the aff to win education claims, but you need to do more comparative impact calculus. What does scenario planning do for subject formation that is more ethical than whatever the impact scenario is to the K? If you can’t explain your education claims at that level, just go for fairness and explain why the ballot can resolve it.

3.) Risk of the link- Explain what winning framework does for how much of a risk of a link that I need to justify a ballot either way. Usually, neg teams will want to say that winning framework means they get a very narrow risk of a link to outweigh. I don’t usually like defaulting to this but affirmative teams very rarely push back on this risk calculus in a world where they lose framework. If you don’t win that you can weigh the aff against the K, aff teams need to think about how they can use their scenarios as offense against the educational claims of the K. This can be done as answers to the link arguments as well, though you’ll probably need to win more pieces of defense elsewhere on the flow to make this viable.

Do I go for the alternative?

I don’t think that you need to go for the alternative if you have a solid enough framework push in the 2NR. However, few things to keep in mind here:

1.) I won’t judge kick the alternative for you unless you explicitly tell me to do it and include a theoretical justification for why that’s possible.

2.) The framework debate should include some arguments about how voting negative resolves the links- i.e. what is the kind of ethical subject position endorsed on the framework page that pushes us towards research projects that avoid the links to the critique? How does this position resolve those links?

3.) Depending on the alternative and the framework interpretation, some of your disads to the alternative will still link to the framework ballot. Smart teams will cross apply these arguments and explain why that complicates voting negative.

K affs (Generic)

Yes, I’m comfortable evaluating debates involving the K on the aff and think that I’ve reached a point where I’m pretty good for either side of this debate. Affirmative teams need to justify an affirmative ballot that beats presumption, especially if you’re defending status quo movements as examples of the aff’s method. Both teams benefit from clarifying early in the round whether or not the affirmative team spills up, whether or not in-round performances specific to this debate resolve any of the affirmative offense, and whatever the accumulation of ballots does or does not do for the aff. Affirmative teams that are not the Louisville project often get away with way too much by just reading a DSRB card and claiming their ballots function the same way. Aff teams should differentiate their ballot claims and negatives should make arguments about the aff’s homogenizing ballot claims. All that being said, like I discussed above, these debates are won and lost on the case page like any other debate. As the K becomes more normalized and standardized to a few specific schools of thought, I have a harder and harder time separating the case and framework pages on generic “we couldn’t truth test your arguments” because I think that shifts a bit too strongly to the negative. That said, I can be persuaded to separate the two if there’s decent time spent in the final rebuttals on this question.

Framework vs. the K Aff

Framework debates are best when both teams spend time comparing the realities of debate in the status quo and the idealized form of debate proposed in model v. model rounds. In that light, both teams need to be thinking about what proposing framework in a status quo where the K is probably going to stick around means for those teams that currently read the K and for those teams that prefer to directly engage the resolution. In a world where the affirmative defends the counter interpretation, the affirmative should have an explanation of what happens when team don’t read an affirmative that meets their model. Most of the counter interpretations are arbitrary or equivalent to “no counter interpretation”, but an interp being arbitrary is just defense that you can still outweigh depending on the offense you’re winning.

In impact turn debates, both teams need to be much clearer about the terminal impacts to their offense while providing an explanation as to why voting in either direction resolves them. After sitting in so many of these debates, I tend to think that the ballot doesn’t do much for either team but that means that teams who have a better explanation of what it means to win the ballot will usually pick up my decision. You can’t just assert that voting negative resolves procedural fairness without warranting that out just like you can’t assert that the aff resolves all forms of violence in debate through a single debate. Both teams need to grapple with how the competitive incentives for debate establish offense for either side. The competitive incentive to read the K is strong and might counteract some of the aff’s access to offense, but the competitive incentives towards framework also have their same issues. Neither sides hands are clean on that question and those that are willing to admit it are usually better off. I have a hard time setting aside clash as an external impact due to the fact that I’m just not sure what the terminal impact is. I like teams that go for clash and think that it usually is an important part of negative strategy vs. the K, but I think this strategy is best when the clash warrants are explained as internal link turns to the aff’s education claims. Some of this has to due with the competitive incentives arguments that I’ve explained above. Both teams need to do more work explaining whether or not fairness or education claims come first. It’s introductory-level impact analysis I find lacking in many of these debates.

Other things to think about-

1.) These debates are at their worst when either team is dependent on blocks. Framework teams should be particularly cautious about this because they’ve had less of these debates over the course of the season, however, K teams are just as bad at just reading their blocks through the 1AR. I will try to draw a clean line between the 1AR and the 2AR and will hold a pretty strict one in debates where the 1AR is just screaming through blocks. Live debating contextualized to this round far outweighs robots with pre-written everything.

2.) I have a hard time pulling the trigger on arguments with “quitting the activity” as a terminal impact. Any evidence on either side of this question is usually anecdotal and that’s not enough to justify a ballot in either direction. There are also a bunch of alternative causes to numbers decline like the lack of coaches, the increased technical rigor of high-level policy debate, budgets, the pandemic, etc. that I think thump most of these impacts for either side. More often than not, the people that are going to stick with debate are already here but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to the kinds of harms to the activity/teams as teams on either side of the clash question learn to coexist.

K vs. K Debates (Overview)

I’ll be perfectly honest, unless this is a K vs. Cap debate, these are the debates that I’m least comfortable evaluating because I feel like they end up being some of the messiest and “gooiest” debates possible. That being said, I think that high level K vs. K debates can be some of the most interesting to evaluate if both teams have a clear understanding of the distinctions between their positions, are able to base their theoretical distinctions in specific, grounded examples that demonstrate potential tradeoffs between each position, and can demonstrate mutual exclusivity outside of the artificial boundary of “no permutations in a method debate.” At their best, these debates require teams to meet a high research burden which is something that I like to reward so if your strat is specific or you can explain it in a nuanced way, go for it. That said, I’m not the greatest for teams whose generic position in these debates are to read “post-truth”/pomo arguments against identity positions and I feel uncomfortable resolving competing ontology claims in debates around identity unless they are specific and grounded. I feel like most debates are too time constrained to meaningfully resolve these positions. Similarly, teams that read framework should be cautious about reading conditional critiques with ontology claims- i.e. conditional pessimism with framework. I’m persuaded by theoretical arguments about conditional ontology claims regarding social death and cross apps to framework in these debates.

I won’t default to “no perms in a methods debate”, though I am sympathetic to the theoretical arguments about why affs not grounded in the resolution are too shifty if they are allowed to defend the permutation. What gets me in these debates is that I think that the affirmative will make the “test of competition”-style permutation arguments anyway like “no link” or the aff is a disad/prereq to the alt regardless of whether or not there’s a permutation. I can’t just magically wave a theory wand here and make those kinds of distinctions go away. It lowers the burden way too much for the negative and creates shallow debates. Let’s have a fleshed out theory argument and you can persuade me otherwise. The aff still needs to win access to the permutation, but if you lose the theory argument still make the same kinds of arguments if you had the permutation. Just do the defensive work to thump the links.

Cap vs. K- I get the strategic utility of these debates, but this debate is becoming pretty stale for me. Teams that go for state-good style capitalism arguments need to explain the process of organization, accountability measures, the kind of party leadership, etc. Aff teams should generate offense off of these questions. Teams that defend Dean should have to defend psychoanalysis answers. Teams that defend Escalante should have specific historical examples of dual power working or not in 1917 or in post-Bolshevik organization elsewhere. Aff teams should force Dean teams to defend psycho and force Escalante teams to defend historical examples of dual power. State crackdown arguments should be specific. I fear that state crackdown arguments will apply to both the alternative and the aff and the team that does a better job describing the comparative risk of crackdown ends up winning my argument. Either team should make more of a push about what it means to shift our research practices towards or away from communist organizing. There are so many debates where we have come to the conclusion that the arguments we make in debate don’t spill out or up and, yet, I find debates where we are talking about politically organizing communist parties are still stuck in some universe where we are doing the actual organizing in a debate round. Tell me what a step towards the party means for our research praxis or provide disads to shifting the resource praxis. All the thoughts on the permutation debate are above. I’m less likely to say no permutation in these debates because there is plenty of clash in the literature between, at least, anti-capitalism and postcapitalism that there can be a robust debate even if you don’t have specifics. That being said, the more you can make ground your theory in specific examples the better off you’ll be.

I debated five years at the University of Minnesota, graduated in 2015. I have always been a 2N.

Pre-round synopsis: Bad for Ks, conditionality is good, enjoys impact turns, dislikes aff vagueness, good for reasonable/less than extinction impacts, zero risk and presumption are things, better than average for the aff on theory vs questionable CPs, better than average for the neg on T (limits are good). On the 2023 topic I've only judged one tournament pre-NDT, so be aware.

Post-2022 NDT notes:

1. I never really went for process CPs as a debater, so I have much less well developed thoughts on competition than people who have debated recently (2021/2022 seemed to have a lot more of those).

2. After a doubles debate I judged + watching finals, I thought I should mention that 1) I enjoy impact turn debates a lot 2) If the 1AC says they solve something then tries to do take backs I'm not very likely to be sympathetic and 3) warming good was my favorite impact turn as a debater and holds a particular place in my heart, though I recognize the evidence has gotten worse since 2014.

**Extended Thoughts**

Kritiks:

Topshelf: I find it very difficult to vote on something which is not an effect of the implementation of the plan. I have no idea how to compare things like ontology to the aff saving people. It is possible to convince me otherwise, but the amount of work you will have to do will be so high that nineteen out of twenty times you would be better off doing something else. I won't hold it against you if you like Ks, and am not going to feel like my time was wasted or you are destroying debate or anything - I am just genuinely very confused about how kritiks answer the aff. I recognize I am way outside of the community norm on this - something just doesn't click for me with kritiks and I want to make sure that no one is caught off guard.

Aff arguments I like:

- Theory: the neg only gets the status quo or fiat from a resolutional actor

- Perm double bind

- New arguments are OK because the neg changed their argument/explained the alt/stopped being vague in the block/2NR

T-USFG note: For whatever reason, I’m mildly friendlier to no plan affs vs framework than I am for kritiks on the neg.

Conditionality:

It isn't impossible to get me to vote on, but one of two things need to happen:

1) the aff explains why something actually bad happened ("they read 6 counterplans" is an FYI, not an arg). For example - Harvard CM counterplaned out of straight turns to disads Wake MT could have read in doubles at Northwestern in 2018. That seems to hurt the aff’s ability to debate. It might be fine! But there's an argument there.

2) the aff goes into depth on why either the neg's model puts an undue burden on the aff, with many specific examples and hypotheticals, or why the neg's model produces a bad educational experience (i.e. depth on CPs > depth on the aff because topic-wide education > plan focused education). Both sides should talk about what the world of debate looks like under your interpretations. Being specific is really important.

The neg args I like the most are testing the aff, reasonability, and skews inevitable/not unique to their interp.

Judge kick I can go either way on, tell me what to do.

Theory:

Impact calc is good. Cheap shots are bad. Reject the argument not the team for everything but conditionality. Severance perms will never be a reason to reject the team.

States, international fiat, and agent/process/consult/condition CPs are probably not necessary.

All of these predispositions can be modified if the literature supports a debate over a specific counterplan.

My ideal form of debate is aff reads a plan neg gets the squo and CPs with a resolutional agent.

Topicality:

I’m friendlier to limits and lit/precision than the average judge.

Disads:

Winning a higher risk of your disad is better than turning the case. I generally care more about links than uniqueness.

Vagueness:

is a real argument. I haven’t been in a situation where it has been the 2nr, but if what the aff does meaningfully affects neg strategy I will vote for it.

**Archive: Old/High School Stuff - can ignore, saved for historical reasons**

Conditionality is good: It isn’t impossible for me to vote on it but probably won’t happen. Judge kick I’m unsure about, so tell me what to do.

Extinction/high magnitude impacts: Most are silly (obvi) and I’m very open to voting on “less than extinction but really bad outweighs 1% risk of extinction). I’m less enamored with try or die than a lot of other judges. If you’re really into doing the high probability/low magnitude stuff you should look at the “K affs with a plan” section below.

Flowing: I flow on paper. I will miss things. Be sure to slow down on important things, and consider slowing down in general.

Wipeout: is not a good argument. However, it is a better argument than most K’s because at least it says the aff is bad and can’t be permed. Aliens wipeout is better than Schopenhauer wipeout.

Presumption: If there’s a counterplan/alt it goes aff and if there isn’t it goes neg but I can be persuaded otherwise. I also am willing to vote on zero risk of the aff/da if you set that framing up and are really beating them on their case/disad.

Offensive stuff: Don't be mean. But, being able to explain why things like imperialism are bad is something debaters should be able to do. There isn't any reason for you to use gendered/ableist/racist language so you should avoid it.

K’s: explain why the aff is bad. Saying “method first” without explaining why that matters is not sufficient. I am very receptive to the neg doesn’t get to fiat different actors than the aff. My problems with Ks are more with the form than with the content, so if you can make your k arguments into reasons why the aff is bad I am much more likely to vote for you.

K’s vs K affs: Read more into my section on K’s than my section on K affs without a plan. I tend to vote aff on the perm/alt does nothing in those debates, but that also might be because people haven’t been explaining links well. Despite going for Marx a lot in college I think that most identity arguments today are set up well to answer it and haven’t voted for it too much recently. Class is likely the most important thing, but other things matter too.

K v K debates: I won't know what your authors say - I'll be asking myself a) is the neg different/not perm-able by the aff and b) which is a better idea. It would likely help if you explained your stuff more than you thought you needed to, and going away from theory and towards examples would be better.

K affs without a plan: T is the path of least resistance. I think we choose topics for a reason and switching sides/some predictability is good. I don't know why reading plans requires teams to "roleplay" the USFG and also think that most of the arguments for why being forced to defend the federal government is bad are silly. The problem is how we do risk calc. If you don’t read a plan and are in front of me, the 3 scenarios where I vote aff tend to be either a. your version of debate gets more people from under-represented groups into debate and debate matters more to them than to others b. the neg team says something silly like if you win the state is bad you win and you technically win that arg, or c. there is a severe skill differential. If you are going for T against a not the topic aff, I am much more likely to be persuaded by limits/skills/stasis point than roleplaying the state makes us awesome policymakers.

K affs with a plan: I am not good for high theory k affs. I am good for affs with reasonable impacts who say they do something and say the neg’s arguments are silly. The best way to win is to take out the probability of their disads- you don’t have to read complexity/predictions cards, but make args why their stuff isn’t true/leaves stuff out. Nate Cohn’s risk calc stuff makes a lot of sense to me (http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,5416.0.html) so take a look at that if you want.

**Archive: 2019 (Prez power) topic thoughts**

- T: I heard a couple of blocks on T subsets at Wake. I found them somewhat persuasive. The topic seems big.

- ESR theory: it is probably OK but I think I could be convinced to vote aff. I am concerned with the size of the topic, but prefer to limit via T than via counterplans.

- I haven't heard a very persuasive answer to "perm do both shields the link to politics" on ESR.

Debate Experience: I debated LD for a year in high school, and I have been judging policy debate in Wisconsin for the past two years.

In general, you’ll do best in front of me with conversational speed, clear impact, and careful explanation of the relevant issues in the round and the important impacts. I am willing to vote on almost anything, but please don’t assume that I will automatically weigh the round the way you want me to without good reasons to. I am especially interested in hearing critical impacts in the round, and have a reasonable level of familiarity with Marxist and anarchist social critique. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do other things, of course - I would love to hear strong work in many other areas, but you should make sure that you make the link and alt very clear to get my ballot.

On theory issues, I have very few pre-conceptions about “the way debate should be”, but I tend to prefer education as a terminal impact, so you will do well to explore exactly how your interpretation affects education in the round. On topicality specifically, please make the standards debate strong!

Oh, did I mention I prefer conversational speed? Take that seriously. I will ask you to clear up once before I put my pen down, and after that point, your speech time is being wasted.

Question: Am I a bad judge?
Answer: Maybe? Probably. I'm either dumb or just slow.

Disclaimer: I have not judged since 2021. Go easy on me

Experience: I debated policy three years for Neenah High School (WI) and have been judging/coaching since 2016. I was an ok (subpar) debater with some nationals experience, but I was double 1s so evaluate that however you want. Most of my judging these days is LD but don't expect me to be an expert on the topic. I have judged maybe once this season.

Paradigm: Tabs. I'm good with speed, if I can't understand you I guess I'll say something. I will vote for anything well run in a debate round. I am pretty good at following K proper flows. I can have a hard time with heavy theory debates. That being said, feel free to run whatever you are comfortable with.

In Round stuff: I really really really would prefer you to time your own speeches/prep/cross. I am very disorganized and absent-minded so I will probably forget to write down the prep usage or start speech times late if at all. Its also just good practice to be mindful of time in a round.

If its allowed at the tournament put me on the email chain.

Special Notes: You are responsible for the language that you use in the debate round; racist, sexist, queerphobic, ableist, or any other discriminatory speech will not be tolerated.

-Anything Else-

Feel free to ask me before a round. Chances are you know more than I do, I generally think I know what I'm talking about but I probably don't.

My email is isaacdorn@gmail.com

Email me if you have any questions about your ballot or my paradigm, I'm happy to reply!

-More Detail-

-Affirmatives-

Policy affs with a plantext: Go for it.

Plantext affs with K impacts: Go for it

Non Traditional Affs (advocacy, narratives, performance, kritikal, etc.): Go for it, but make sure to clearly extend case. Also I need a clear ROB so that I know what I'm voting for at the end of the round.

-Negatives-

DAs: Go for it.

CPs (Consult, Process, Agent, etc.): Go for it, make sure there is a clear net benefit. I tend to grant affs a bit more leeway when it comes to solvency as long as there isn't a competitive fiat debate. I also appreciate good explanations of the perm on both sides (i.e. whether there is functional severance, redundancy, works/doesn't work etc.). Some caveats; I have a history of defaulting affirmative on counterplans that I am unclear on or if the permutation debate seemed muddled to me (I am, however, beginning to shift my mindset on this towards tech>truth)

Ks (any kind): Go for it. Love em'. Like I said, I can keep up with K proper flows. Make sure your alt and link are clearly explained. While I like kritiks, I prefer for them to be educational rather than strategically ambiguous. Although I'm comfortable with my literature base, I will not do the conceptual work for you. You must adequately explain the content of your kritik.

T - Let me preface this by saying I have never voted on T. That being said, there are a few things you need to do to win a T debate in front of me. 1) Clear and present standards AND voters 2) In round abuse (which could be strategically planned) or a compelling reason for me to vote on potential abuse 3) Commitment in the 2NR, the argument is theoretically that you can't engage with a non-topical aff, if you spend half the 2NR with offense on the aff that makes your argument less compelling. IMO Topicality is a tool to keep affirmatives in check, I am much more Truth>Tech on the T flow.

-Theory-

Most of my squirreling on panels is usually because my understanding of theory. I didn't really get it as a debater, so most of my knowledge comes from my experience as a judge/coach/just thinking about it. I think my biggest problem with theory is that it is often presented as a series of quick one-liners that don't have a ton of substance. Seeing that I've never been great at flowing my preference is depth over breadth on theory.

(Update) I will not retract my previous statement, however I have developed my thought process some more. When you are engaged in a theory debate in front of me, make sure you have two things. 1) A sufficient claim that you meet your interpretation of debate better than your opponent. 2) Comparative offense calculus so that I as a judge understand why I should care about your interpretation of debate.

I will for sure vote for theory arguments in a debate, if I can understand them.

IN LD:

The WDCA requires that I add the following to my paradigm

Apply all of the above and...

Framework: Framework is an important aspect of your case and should not be neglected. Don't ignore offense on your FW.

V/VC: I don't need to see a Value/Value criterion in your case in order for me to vote for you. But you are responsible for making a cohesive argument as to why it is important for you to ignore this structure.

Plantexts: Go for it. I come from policy so honestly I would prefer a plantext.

CP: I think a CP is a fundamental part of your offensive toolkit on the negative and you should take advantage of this as much as you can.

Kritik: Kritiks are great. Don't expect me to do the legwork for you though, see above for specifics. Extend your evidence.

What I vote for in LD: Generally I will be voting for the team which understands their case more. Refer to my paradigm for what I like to see in a round.

Ehrlich, Miranda

About me: I debated policy in college for four years at the University of Minnesota and was a semi-finalist at the NDT in 2015. While I have many years of experience judging and coaching policy debate, it's been several years since I've judged at a tournament, and the Wisconsin State Debate Tournament is my first time judging online debate. These are also the first rounds I am judging on this topic, so please err on the side of more explanation of acronyms, key concepts, etc.

Couple of top-level comments:

--Dropped arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication – “perm do both” without an explanation of how it solves the net benefit is not a winning argument

--Impact calc is extremely important, but underutilized

--Clarity in speaking is important to me. Please strive to be comprehensible on both tags and card text!

Some specifics:

Disads – The more specific, the better, but if politics is your primary strategy, I’m a perfectly fine judge for you.

Counterplans – Many are theoretically questionable, but affirmatives rarely push back on this. Substantive PICs are awesome – multi-actor international object fiat is the worst. Everything else is somewhere in between.

Kritiks – Can be a viable strategy in front of me, but they need to be applied specifically to all portions of the case. I would highly recommend extending case defense to bolster your K – the most common aff argument I vote on against K’s is “case outweighs”. I also like K affs that are topical, defend a real-world impact, and critique disads – especially if you can point out why the disad is contrived and silly, which it likely is. Generic postmodern K’s, on the other hand – not my cup of tea, and I’m not familiar with the lit base. On many popular K's, the link seems to be "you don't solve enough" rather than "you actively do something bad". If you can't figure out a way to phrase your link as offense and impact it, you will have a hard time winning my ballot.

Non-traditional – It is important to me that the aff explains how they solve the harms that are presented. If they fail to do this, I can be persuaded by presumption. I am skeptical of the "you don't get a perm in a method debate" argument, but could see myself voting for it if debated poorly by the other team or debated exceptionally well by the negative. Affs should be aware that I generally find a well-debated framework argument to be persuasive. When I vote against framework, it is usually because the aff convinces me that they either have a) out-teched the other team or b) that the neg has mishandled a fundamental thesis claim of the aff that interacts with framework. When I vote for framework, it is usually because the neg has both won some offense (usually with an internal link based on predictable limits) and also mitigated the case by explaining how framework can resolve it (such as T version of the aff) or through case-specific defense.

Theory – I generally think conditionality is good, but I can be persuaded to vote on it, especially if the neg has read 3+ conditional advocacies. I do, however, think that if the neg makes performative contradictions – for example, reads a security K and then a terrorism impact on a disad – it can be justification for the aff to sever their reps or argue for judge choice. I do not default to judge kick unless told to do so. Theory is usually a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Other - I will not vote for arguments that are blatantly morally reprehensible, such as racism good, sexism good, genocide good, etc.

School Affiliation: West Bend High Schools

Experience: I was a policy debater and a forensic orater for New London High School over 30 years ago. I have been a middle school forensic judge and assistant coach for St. Frances Cabrini School, West Bend, for over 10 years, and a judge and assistant coach for high school forensics for West Bend West High School for another 10 years. In addition, I have been a high school debate judge for West Bend High Schools since 2007. As a high school debate judge, I have judged all forms of debate: novice and varsity policy; public forum; and LD. I have also helped coach LD debate as my daughter was a successful LD debater during the 2008-2009 school year and a CFL National Qualifier in 2010. Other related experience includes spending about 10 years in the career of legal secretary/legal assistant for trial lawyers in both civil and criminal litigation; and coaching the Supreme Court branch of Youth In Government for the Kettle Moraine YMCA for five years.

Rate of Communication:
Speed is fine "if" you enunciate and do not run your words together. Please remember that if you speak too quickly, you will likely sacrifice some of your ability to speak persuasively, which is the most important element of debate, in my opinion. If I am unable to understand or flow what you are saying, you will have a difficult time convincing me that you should win.

Persuasive Communication:
Please see "Rate of Communication" above. In addition, this is a values debate where the affirmative debater has the burden of convincing me that the resolution is true while the negative debater has the burden of convincing me that the resolution is false. This can be accomplished through logic, philosophy and some evidence and by explaining to me through voters what makes you're position more significant than your opponent's position.

Cross-Examination:
Please be polite and use your time wisely. When it's your turn to ask questions, please take advantage of the opportunity to do so, because I can be very impressed with a cross-examiner who asks the right questions. When it's your turn to respond to questions, your ability to do so with composure and confidence will also impress me.

Value/Criteria:
Because LD is a values debate, I expect you to have both a value and criteria and to support them throughout the round. You should show me: (a) how your value will be obtained through your criterion and relate your case to that criterion; (b) how your opponent's criterion won't achieve his/her value; and, possibly, (c) how your case better achieves your opponent's value. In addition, because this is a values debate, I expect you to persuade me that your value and criterion are more likely than your opponent's to "make the world a better place".

Other Helpful Hints:
I appreciate meaningful eye contact directed at both me and your opponent off-and-on throughout the debate, especially when you are trying to make a point crystal clear.
I appreciate a civil and respectful debate.
I do not give oral critiques or disclosures.
If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at jgeenen@sbcglobal.net.

Quick Summary: If I had to label myself as a specific paradigm, I would label myself as a picky tabs judge. I will vote on any argument as long as you analyze why that argument is a round-winner. I like to see good solid debates where there are fewer issues and more depth of argumentation. I like to see 2NR’s and 2AR’s analyze what the key argument in the round is and why they are winning that argument. I don’t like sloppy rebuttals that don’t resolve arguments clearly. In rounds like that, I am forced to intervene which is not what you or I want. I will default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative framework.

DAs: I prefer coherent DAs with solid links to the aff plan. Generic DAs are fine also. DAs are the easiest negative arguments for me to weigh in the round, but I still need some analysis in the 2NR as to why they are a round winner. Don’t just say DA turns case and move on. Tell me why the DA turns case, and it will make it easier for me to vote for you.

CPs: CPs need to be competitive. I’m open to topical CPs, but I need you to explain why it still competes. I believe that the negatives need to prove that their CP is competitive. On the other side, I need affs to really explain their perms and how they prove the CP is not competitive, Don’t just read a ton of random perms in the 2AC and extend them blindly in the 1AR. Give me analysis of why the perms prove the CP doesn’t compete. If you expect to win on a perm in the 2AR, I need to hear at least a decent explanation from the 2AC on it.

T: I am not the best judge for a T debate. Too often, T debates devolve into generic standards and voters being thrown about without any clash or analysis. I find the argument of reasonability very persuasive. Overall, don’t run T just to show off your “cool” definition; run it if you feel there is actual abuse in round. Please weigh your standards and voters especially in later rebuttals.

K: Ks need framework. Preferably in the 1NC, but I will also accept 2NC framework as well. Tell me why the K comes before the case otherwise I default to a policy maker framework. For a team to win on a K in front of me I need a solid analysis of what the framework is, how the K links to the plan, what is the impact/implication of the K, and what is the alt/role of the ballot. I will accept a reject the aff alt, but I really like alts that allow me to embrace something with my ballot. A cohesive, well analyzed alt that explains what a ballot for the K means is much more likely to be a round winner for me. I am not familiar with a lot of K lit, so I’d prefer any Ks run to be well explained. Again, make sure your 2NR explains the K link, implication, alt and framework. For the aff, earlier comments on perms apply here as well.

Theory: I am not the best judge for a theory debate. I would only vote a team down on theory if they were doing something truly abusive in round. Other than that, I usually at worst will reject the argument if the team drops the theory violation on it. On questions of CP status, I usually err neg, but if the affs present a convincing violations I could vote on it. The same goes for “cheater” CPs. If you are going for a theory violation, ultimately, I need good analysis in the final rebuttals as to why it is a major issue in the round.

Performance Debate/K Affs: I need convincing solvency and framework arguments from the aff team. I find arguments about clash and portable skills very convincing, so if you are running a K aff in front of me you need to have good answers. I will vote for performance/K affs, but to win it in front of me you need a clear, convincing answer to why you chose not to talk about the topic. I am not the best judge for this type of debate.

I am a tabs judge. I come into a debate being unbiased as possible. Whoever has the best arguments will win the round when I am judging. Furthemore, I like big on speaker points. Teams with good speaking points in most cases win my vote. Finally, I do not like speed. Most judges out there like speed, but I do not. I would rather have a debater speak slower and get the message of argument to insteading of trying to run through all arguments at a quick speed. If a team goes to fast for me I will stop flowing because I do not understand what is being said. 

Email for fileshare:

umstotd@elmbrookschools.org

Don't postround me. I judge on what I heard in the round and nothing you say after the round will change my ballot. If you do choose to postround me I will walk out of the room and give you the lowest speaks possible for the tournament. You may email me with questions after the round provided your adult coach is CCed on the email.

POLICY
Three years policy debate experience, head coach at Brookfield Central High School.

I'm a tabula rasa judge, but if you don't tell me what to vote on, I'll fall back to which is the better policy based on impact calculus. Do the impact calculus for me, unless you want me to do it myself.

I'm not a fan of Topicality. I'll hear it, and I'll flow it, but you must convince me that it's a voter and your definition can't be absolutely ridiculous.

I love Counterplans, as I was a CP-heavy debater myself. Kritiks are fine, but give me a clear alternative and make sure that you explain your K well.

You can speed, but not through tags or analytic arguments. I need to be able to flow. I'll tell you if you're speaking too quickly for me.

Use roadmaps and signposting. It makes it easier for me to flow, and better for you if I can understand the debate.

Clash is by and large one of the most important things in a debate for me. You'll keep my attention and get much higher speaker points.

I like real-world impacts. You might have a hard time convincing me of global extinction. Be smart when it comes to impacts and make sure they realistically link.

Open C-X is fine, but don't go overboard. Keep in mind that it's your partner's C-X, and if you use all of it, I will dock you speaker points.

New in the 2 - I'm okay with this I suppose...but with this in mind, the Affirmative is definitely free to run theory on this if the 2N is just trying to spread the Aff out of the round by saving their entire offense for the 2NC.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS
First and foremost, I evaluate the framework. However, even if you lose the framework, that doesn't mean you've lost the round. Prove your case can fit under your opponent's framework. If I can still evaluate your case under your opponent's framework, I can still buy your case. As far as the contention debate goes, I don't necessarily buy that you have to win every contention to win the contention debate. You don't have to take out all of your opponent's contentions, either. Focus on impacts. Focus on weighing your case against your opponent's case, and how each contention provides the best example of the value. The team who provides the most evidence that shows affirming/negating will benefit society (through either value) more will win the debate.

I welcome CPs, Ks, and ROTBs, as long as you are running them because YOU understand them, not because you think your opponent WON'T. The point of debate is education, and running a tricky K in a convoluted way to confuse your opponent won't win you a ballot in front of me. Be clear and contribute to the education of debate. I prefer that you don't spread too much in LD. Although I do judge policy as well, and can flow most speed, it's not my preference.
I'll disclose but I'm not going to give you excessive oral critiques. That's what my ballot is for.

Jerrod L. Walker

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Varsity Switch Sides

jerrodwalker3@gmail.com

Tabula Rosa w/ Emphasis on Policy

===============THIS IS THE PART YOU NEED TO READ===============

I will listen to any argument, but I need you to weigh the round for me with real world impacts. Seriously, if you want to run a peanut butter and jelly plan that leads to the death of superman, I will listen to you as long as you explain what the impact of this fictional character’s death has on the world and why it is important. I expect everyone to make full use of logic during debate rounds and do the internal link work for impacts. Do not just read the card and expect that to be enough. You need to analyze these cards and give me their warrants. I do not like speed because most people are not clear when doing it. I will tell you once to be clear during the round. From that point forward, I simply will not flow you. I will try to listen, but you are risking me forgetting an argument. To be explicit: I do not like speed, but I’m okay if you do it AND YOU ARE CLEAR; do not go at a snail’s pace because then I become bored.

==================================================================

What is your ideal Debate Round?

I look for excellent direct line-by-line; tell me what they argued, and what your counter-argument is. I need good analysis of cards presented by both sides; do not just read the cards at me and expect me to make the connection. Speed through the card, yes, but slow down just a bit for your analysis if it’s important enough to you. I like to see a variety of arguments run, but tied into a strategy. In each rebuttal speech, you need to weigh the round for me. I also like it if debaters do not sound as if they’re about to die (the gasping thing…don’t do it.)

What are your thoughts on Topicality?

Topicality is about what the plan actually does – what does the plan mandate must happen? Topicality has little to do with advantages that are claimed, the effects of doing the plan, or anything conditional. In other words, your plan text must be topical. Therefore, being effectually topical is a problem because it explodes the topic – a negative simply cannot prepare to debate every single case that is tangentially related to the resolution. However, being effectually topical can be legitimate under some resolutions and it is up to the affirmative to defend their effectual topicality if this is where they fall. By the same token, if negatives argue that the affirmatives are effectually topical, they must tell me why that’s a bad thing both for debate AND they should provide examples of topical plans. The same applies for extra topicality – when an affirmative team is extra-topical, they are including mandates within the plan that are not topical with the resolution. Whether that means the advantages attached to that mandate are illegitimate or the entire plan is illegitimate is up to the negatives to prove. Topicality is also a gateway issue – if the affirmative is not topical and we cannot debate the actual resolution, then nothing else in the round matters and the affirmative loses automatically. It’s out of my hands.

Negatives can use topicality as a part of their strategy – it’s a legitimate argument. Yes, I agree that in most cases it is just a time-suck, but it’s also a very predictable strategy (so I don’t buy that topicality is an abusive argument). Affirmatives should also understand that I’m a writer and I have a degree in English and Legal Studies; in other words, I believe that debating about words and what they mean can be very educational. Not to mention that if policy debate is meant to simulate a courtroom, definitions of words become incredibly important at the appellate level. So affirmatives should know that standards or voters that say, “no one wants to debate about words” are not convincing. However, if topicality IS part of your negative strategy and you run a topicality argument, you should know that I’m going to look very strangely at my flow if I see lots of on-case turns or takeouts or case-specific DA’s. Even still, the burden is on the affirmative to point this out for me and tell me why this is abusive for the round or harmful for debate. Don’t you dare expect me to make arguments or connect the dots for you. That’s your job.

What are your thoughts on Solvency, Advantages and Impacts?

It’s a very simple concept, right? If you cannot solve for your harms or your advantages, then your plan doesn’t matter. Your cards need to actually prove your solvency; if you do not have a card that explicitly says that your plan will solve for the harms/contentions/advantages, you need to do the internal link work to show me how you will solve. Now, because I am a tabs judge with an emphasis on policy, you are probably going to want to run a plan that has advantages that solve real-world problems. Frankly, I don’t believe a nuclear war is ever going to happen. Maybe there will be some nuclear strikes that lead to a war, but the war itself won’t be nuclear. Now, if you can give me legitimate reasoning why nuclear war is likely in a specific scenario (rather than some convoluted systemic postulating that ends with everyone dying), I’ll give it to you. But just as I expect teams to prove topicality, I also expect teams to prove to me through logical internal links backed by evidence that the Nuclear War (or Extinction) is going to happen. But if a team tells me in a speech with pure analytics and empirics that extinction and nuclear war are unlikely, I’m going to be very inclined to believe them. And let’s be honest here – there are impacts beyond these highly unrealistic end-game scenarios. What about genocide? Economic collapse? Human rights violations? Territorial or civil war? Perpetuation of –isms (sexism, racism, elitism) that lead to oppression and dehumanization? At least all of these have actually happened, right? Come on, be creative!

Additionally, because of my emphasis on policy, I am looking for real-world impacts and impact analysis throughout the round. It’s not enough that you simply have impacts, however real they may be. What’s more important is that the impact calculus is done, especially in rebuttals since I do not consider impact calculus a new argument. Talk to me about probability – which is more likely to happen? Just as I was saying above, I’m probably more inclined to believe in a dehumanization/ human rights impact than a mass extinction impact. Why? Because one of those things has happened to the human race before – empirics can be convincing. Tell me about the timeframe of the impacts. If someone has a bunch of internal links that leads to this huge impact (i.e. global warming = climate change = melting of polar ice caps = flooding of the world = loss of life, crops, etc. = extinction) and the opponent have the same impact with a timeframe that happens sooner (i.e. biological warfare = outbreak of uncontrollable disease = extinction), I might be inclined to go with the extinction that happens sooner. You know, if you’ve convinced me that extinction is going to happen in the first place. Talk to me about magnitude – if both sides are arguing about people dying, then which impact has more people dying. If we’re debating dehumanization and one has an impact that dehumanizes a larger group of people (i.e. racism), then I have to go with the impact that saves the most people.

That’s basic impact calculus that I expect to happen, even at a novice level. Now, for advanced Varsity debaters, I’m expecting you guys to be a bit more sophisticated with your arguments. If your opponents are arguing that sexism causes human rights violations but you are arguing an impact of terrorism and national security, sure they might have a larger magnitude, but we can reverse human rights violations eventually. We can’t reverse death. This is called arguing reversibility of an impact – if your impact is irreversible and the opponents can be corrected, you could legitimately argue that for the time being, your impact is more important. You could also take out their internal links with your impact – urban sprawl and industrial development destroys biodiversity and the environment, so the former outweighs the latter impact/advantage. You could also take out their impact by inserting your impact as an internal link that causes their impact – in other words, dehumanization leads to genocide, so stopping dehumanization is more important. You could also include their impact or advantage along with yours; for example, a third world war is inclusive of a civil war (and has a larger magnitude), so the world war outweighs the civil war. Whatever you decide, just be sure not to be lazy during the speeches and forget to do impact analysis.

What are your thoughts on Disadvantages?

Let’s start with the basics. Regardless of how you structure your Disadvantage, there absolutely must be uniqueness, external links, internal links, and impacts. If you want to combine the uniqueness and external link to be a “Unique Link” card, hey, that’s your prerogative (and a time-saver).

However you handle it, I need the negative team to explain to me why the impacts you’re going to claim have not happened yet and how the plan presented by the opposing side will uniquely cause those impacts. For example, if the negative team were going for an economic collapse scenario, then their uniqueness would show that either the economy is doing well now or that we are improving/seeking to improve the economy. I expect uniqueness cards to be current, meaning you should keep those updated throughout the debate season. There are a few scenarios where uniqueness may not require the most up-to-date cards, but that is a rarity.

When giving me a link, please avoid generic links. If every single possible case links, then I have to agree that it’s an abusive argument. Unless of course you tell me why generic disadvantages are good for debate. In fact, when it comes to generic disadvantages, the only time I really approve of them is when a team is running them along with a topicality argument and I’m told “this is all we can run because of how non-topical their plan is.” That is called good strategy. Otherwise, if your DA is important to you, make sure the link is specific to the plan you are debating against. Whatever the case, it is the presenter’s burden to prove to me that the plan causes the disadvantage you are claiming. Following your link, you should probably have an internal link if the connection between the external link and the impact is unclear. You could leave it out, but running a DA in the 2NC with no internal link and then trying to provide them in rebuttals is abusive. It’s simply good practice to ensure that you have done the work to show me how this change that the plan causes leads directly (or systemically) to the impact you provide. Refer to the above section for my thoughts on impacts.

As far as how I like to see teams defeat Disadvantages, there are a few ways that I think work very well. The easiest is usually going to be demonstrating that you do not link to the disadvantage (No Link arg). You could also argue that your plan doesn’t cause the internal link that causes the impact. And then, of course, you can argue that there is no uniqueness – demonstrating that the link has happened in the past and the impact has not happened. Then there is the no threshold argument, arguing that the link does not make it clear when the impact will happen, which is mildly convincing. Now, these are all defensive arguments and while easier to make, are not the best for a good debate round. An offensive argument that works very well with me is a link turn, which I think should always happen in two ways: 1) Show me that the impact is already going to happen in the status quo (Non-Unique) and 2) Show me that you actually do the opposite of what the opponent’s link says (turn). This is a great strategy because now you can include their impact scenario as an advantage to your plan! Now, if you want to make things really interesting for me, do impact turns where you try to convince me that the impacts of the disadvantage are actually a good thing. Again, I am a tabs judge, so I’ll consider any argument fairly. Put the opponent into a position where they must respond to your arguments or risk them becoming advantages to your plan. Just be careful not to double turn the disadvantage by doing a link turn and an impact turn (because then, you’re telling me that the status quo is doing something that you stop, but that thing you stop is actually a good thing…meaning I shouldn’t do your plan). I’ll also accept severance permutations if you can convince me they are legitimate.

As far as how I like to see disadvantages run, I only have a few things. First, please clearly say which cards apply to which arguments: Uniqueness/Unique Link, Link, Internal Link, Impact, etc. (same for responding: No uniqueness, No Link, Link Turn, Impact Turn, No Internal Link, etc.) Second, disads are fair during any constructive, even during the 2NC – still, it’s sporting to ensure that you do most of your off-case in the 1NC. Oh, and side-note: I’m going to be very impressed by an affirmative team that effectively uses a disadvantage against a counterplan.

What are your thoughts on Counterplans?

While in traditional, old school debate, the negative’s job was to negate the resolution (argue against it), today, we realize that sometimes, a resolution is such an obvious societal good that counterplans have become common. And you know what? I love it when negatives run counterplans! I am of the philosophy that once an affirmative gives us a topical plan text, they abandon all other grounds within the resolution to the negative because you are saying that your plan is the best method for answering the resolution, or at the very least the only plan you’ll be advocating this round. As a tabs judge, I don’t care whether the plan is topical or non-topical. A smart affirmative that runs into a non-topical CP would be smart to argue how abusive it is to allow a negative to run non-topical plans. But ensure that you understand the debate theory behind such an argument.

Unless you convince me otherwise (which, again, is more than possible), a negative team must offer a counterplan that is competitive. This means that the CP should be fundamentally better and different to the affirmative plan and any combination of the plan and counterplan; in other words, they should be mutually exclusive, meaning unable to exist simultaneously.

One final thing on counterplans: You MUST present a counterplan in the 1NC and if you continue to advocate for the counterplan in the negative block, I expect you to continue it throughout the round. If you’re going to make us debate a counterplan at all, it had better not be a time-suck. Hypothesis testing is fine, but you can determine after you’ve heard the 2AC if you want to continue that route or not. If you do, then stick to it. If you’ve run a bunch of other arguments along with a CP during the negative block, then kick the CP in the 2NR, I will totally side with the affirmatives if they claim abuse.

What are your thoughts on Framework, Theory & Kritiks?

When dealing with a tabs judge like me, providing a framework is one way to take control of the debate. In most cases, judges will default to “calculative framework,” which doesn’t necessarily consider which course of action is the best, but which course of action causes the least damage (or saves the most lives/resources/etc.). Now, for many teams, this is perfectly fine. But depending on what type of arguments you run, you might decide that you need me to consider things differently. Perhaps you need me to think about morality over anything else. Perhaps you need me to consider future advantages over immediate disadvantages. Again, when you run a framework, you’re telling me how to evaluate the round in the end (and for a tabs judge, that works out really well). Here’s the thing – if a team runs a framework argument, you MUST respond to it or you’re telling me that you agree with them, which probably isn’t in your best interests. And I get rather excited when I have two competing frameworks – it makes the debate more interesting.

When it comes to debate theory and kritikal arguments, I absolutely LOVE them. When it comes down to it, we are debating about ideas. If I vote for your plan, in the real world, nothing actually happens. But a kritik allows us to examine how we are thinking, which can have a very real impact in our lives. In my humble opinion, kritiks tend to be some of the most important debates in the round. Indeed, it’s important enough that it’s considered an a priori argument, meaning that I will consider a kritik before I consider any other argument(indeed, I’ll place it directly after topicality during evaluation). But as much as I love kritiks, I love coherent debate more. That is, if you do not understand a kritik well enough to make what you’re arguments are explicitly clear to your opponents, you shouldn’t use it. I don’t want to see someone struggling to make an argument they don’t understand… or, worse, running arguments that bite into their own kritik.

If you do decide to run a kritik, you must have all 3 parts of the kritik and you should clearly sign-post them  (unless, of course, your kritik is against linear thinking…). First, you must provide me with a link. Because a kritik is usually a philosophical argument, there’s no need to prove that it is not happening in the status quo (in other words, I don’t expect a kritik to have uniqueness to the opponent’s arguments/plan), but you have to show me how the affirmatives actually bite into the kritik. You must explain to me how the affirmative or negative’s entire mindset is wrong. When giving me the link, you should clearly explain what the opponent’s mindset is as well as explaining the fundamental ideals behind that mindset. Next, you’re going to want to give me an implication. Here, you will explain to me what impact that mindset has on the world or society. What is the moral/ethical/real world impact? Finally, a kritik must have an alternative; it’s all well and good that we understand how harmful a certain mindset is, but what is our alternative? Give me an option that is better than what the opponent is doing.

Defeating kritiks can be done in a number of ways, but there are a few that I’m partial to. Among the easiest ways to defeat them with me is to attack the alternative. I am not a fan of the “reject the affirmative” or “reject the mindset” alternative and, should the opponent be so foolish as to not read this and use that sort of alternative, feel free to point out that they’ve provided no “real” alternative. You’d also want to point out that the mindset also exists in the status quo while doing so. For me, that’s enough. Now if they actually went ahead and provided a real alternative, it becomes a bit stickier for you.

You could also go for more logical refutation. Maybe the opponent doesn’t actually end up making an argument for something that is objectionable, so then you shouldn’t be required to respond to it. After all, they have an entire speech to make a clear argument and shouldn’t be allowed to expand on an a priori topic so late in a debate when they’ve already had the opportunity. You could concede that what the opponents claim as a bad mindset is bad, but that it doesn’t actually link to your case. You could argue that after re-thinking everything through, that the kritik actually still doesn’t matter that much (all the easier if you’ve provided a framework for the debate already). If the negatives have run any other arguments that bite into their kritik, you could argue that the kritik should be thrown out for pure reasons of inconsistency. Sure, I’ll buy that (but here, you run into the risk of the negs kicking that argument; you can try to still point out that the kritik is invalid since, regardless of whether they kicked the argument or not, they’ve already demonstrated the exact same mindset, so they are no better and don’t deserve to win the round).

More interesting still, you could decide to argue against the kritik itself! Prove, through reasoning and evidence, that the kritik simply isn’t true. Or, you could argue that the assumptions being made are justified because it’s the best option we have (again, easier with a framework). For those most comfortable with traditional policy debate, it’s probably your best bet.

The most interesting of answers involves kritiking the kritik. You could kritik the assumptions that the kritik is making using your own evidence and analysis (so yeah, make blocks against common kritiks). You could argue that kritiks are, by their nature, self-contradictory; if kritiks are saying we must question all assumptions, then you can probably convince me that negatives have the burden of proving that there are no hidden assumptions in their kritik and that before we consider any part of their kritik, they must provide evidence that they are not vulnerable to hidden assumptions (almost like a T argument). Finally, you could lean on the fact that I place emphasis on policy and argue that kritiks are not valid because of their nihilistic nature – if we have to question everything, then we are left with never-ending skepticism with no solution, which just isn’t acceptable for the world. If we are to get on with life and solve problems, then we have to reject kritiks as a concept because they stop us from living. I may love kritiks, but I concede that this might be a problem with kritikal arguments. You just have to argue it.