Updated January 2023

Email: greg.achten@harker.org please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: he/him/his

Pref Shortcuts: 1: substantive arguments about the topic 2: mainstream K's, good T debates 3: Theory, Pomo K's 4: Phil 5-6: Tricks

Overview

I expect the debate to be conducted as though it were a classroom setting. As such inappropriate behavior, specifically cursing, will not be tolerated. If you choose to curse during the debate expect dramatically lower speaker points. Further, if the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to highly sexual or sexualized performances, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

My background prior to coming to Harker in 2010 was almost entirely in college policy debate though I have been coaching LD since then and Public Forum since 2016. But it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates.

I do not judge very much anymore but enjoy judging when I am able to do so! Despite not judging a great deal I am very involved in our team's evidence production and preparation and judge lots of practice debates in class so my topic knowledge is fairly strong.

.

Argument Preferences:

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

Critiques: I am familiar with most mainstream critical arguments that are prevalent but anything outside of that is likely to require more explanation. I took a handful of continental philosophy classes in grad school but that was a long time ago and my knowledge of a lot of the underlying literature for lots of critical arguments, particularly high theory, is likely lacking. Having said that I think I am an ok judge for critical arguments, especially when executed technically. I often find the strongest elements of K's to be the link and the weakest to be the alternative, though of course this varies from argument to argument. I also think impact turning is an underutilized strategy though I get that can be hard to pull off at times in LD.

Critical Affs: I think the affirmative should have a meaningful relationship to the topic. Thus topical, soft left affs are often very strategic. I am very sympathetic to t/framework against affs with little or no relationship to the topic. In these debates I think the best aff strategy is to impact turn framework, depending on what that looks like in the context of the aff. But overall I am likely not the best judge for non-T affs.

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Although I do take a fairly strict view of the topic and am willing to enforce that view when teams do a good job of arguing topicality. I often find topicality arguments that are not based on expert/technical definitions of key terms of art in the resolution to be fairly hard for the negative to win. I am also more likely than most judges to vote on reasonability if well explained and this is true for most theory arguments as well.

In debates about counterplan theory, I probably err slightly neg. on most theory issues, though I have voted aff. on things like PIC’s bad, etc. so I am not terribly biased. The main exception is that I think that a lot of mainstream counterplans that compete on the function of the affirmative are not competitive (think consultation, delay). I am kind of a sucker for the argument that counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive though this is not something I will automatically check in on, especially if the negative has strong explanations for their defense of their counterplan.

I am a solid no on judge kick. Make strategic choices.

Theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are non-starters. Don’t waste your time.

Theory arguments are generally too underdeveloped for my tastes so if that is a key part of your strategy invest some time.

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

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

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

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

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.

Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery (especially important in online debates), quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards lack of clarity. I will say clear once or maybe twice and if clarity does not improve afterwards I will flow the things I understand and the speaker's points will decline significantly. I will not vote on a card or argument I was incapable of flowing. I will under no circumstances flow from the speech doc.

Public Forum

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

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

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

Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

How should this affect the way I debate?

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

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

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

More stuff:

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

The affirmative probably should be topical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

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

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

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

Some considerations for you:

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

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

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Boyd%2C+Megan

For email chains and/or any questions: mvboyd@sbcglobal.net

Public Forum

I am open to both traditional and progressive styles. My only preference is that you debate the style that is most comfortable for you.

Framing: Please give me lens through which to view the round. If you don't give me any framing, I'm either going to vote based off your opponent's framing, or worst case scenario something completely arbitrary. It's incredibly difficult to judge a debate with two entirely different impacts and zero weighing mechanism. Please, please, please don't waste your time reading me definitions for literally every single word in the resolution.

Theory: This is public forum, I truly believe you have no time to read incredibly progressive and complex arguments here. If you want to, I will listen. However, keep in mind I am now four years out and have not kept up with the literature. With that being said, basic arguments relating to topicality, reasonability, and competing interps are always welcome.

CP/K/Aff Advocacy: Sure. I personally think the time constraints of PF make it hard to do any of these things, but that doesn't mean you can't pull it off in an abbreviated sense.

Flow: Now for what you all really came here for, I do not expect the second speaking team to extend offense in the first rebuttal. If you have time to extend offense, more power to you. I understand that four minutes is an incredibly short amount of time to attack your opponent's case then literally defend against all their attacks. This was literally never an issue when I debated and don't know who decided the second speaking team has to work twice as hard to win the round. If you actually want to waste your breath calling out your opponent in your two minute speech for not extending offense I will literally sit there and stare at you until you actually say something worthwhile. Your summary is your second, and final rebuttal. I expect you to take 1 or 2 (3 if you're fast) of the round's biggest arguments at this point. The final focus is not meant for line by line debate. At this point, hand me clear voters and call it a day.

Speed: Chances are if you are spreading in PF you're literally just doing it for clout points you won't get. Mind you, I'm not saying you cannot speak fast. I understand how short four minutes is to get through a lot of information. Speak as fast as you'd like, but I will tell you to stop if I nobody can discern a word you're saying.

Speaker Points: I don't hand out 29s or 30s. If you're looking for presentation points, I suggest you go ahead and strike me right now. If you have a pretty voice, but terrible argumentation skills I'm not your girl. A 29 from me is rare, but very possible. My range is generally 27.25-29.25. I don't tolerate racism, sexism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, the list goes on. I will dock your speaks for those issues. If your opponent calls you out, you might even lose the round. If it's utterly abhorrent I will stop the round.

Lastly, I will not do any work for you. I'm not here to babysit you, or connect any dots that you may have missed. It is your job, and your job alone, to tell me why I should vote for you.

Background: I have spent almost 3 plus years judging policy debate. but you should definitely avoid using too much complicated jargon. That means you should explain your impacts well enough so that I can evaluate them and easily follow your arguments--always signpost. I know that Ks are basically inevitable in the policy community at this point, but keep in mind I probably don't know as much about the high theory literature as you do.

Speaker points: I usually give speaker points based on courtesy, fluency, and confidence. Humour will always work in your favor. At the end of the day, debate is just a game so there is never a reason to get hostile.

Speed: I would probably retain the most information if you don't "spread". I won't vote on it if it's not on my flow, so it would be in your best interest to not go too fast

Weighing arguments: I dont have any specific agruments that I like to vote on--you can consider me a tabula rasa judge. Just make sure you organize all of your arguments, articulate your impact calculus well, and concisely state your most important points. Tell me what I'm voting for in the overviews of your rebuttals.

Remember to have have fun, debate is all about the learning experience!

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

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

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

Practices Trigger Warnings

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

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

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

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

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

[Evidence Ethics]

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

[Things I would like written out before a speech]

1. Interps & Counterinterps
2. Perm texts

[Strategies I love]

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

[Strategies I don't love]

1. Tricks
2. Dense Phil
3. Analytical args
4. Dense critical lit

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

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

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

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

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

@berk debaters: I've been completely removed from debate for the last year, so please build up to top speed as opposed to going all out in the beginning

ALSO IF YOU WANT HIGH SPEAKS GIVE ME NICE and CLEAR OVERVIEWS

email for chain is coylejack1@gmail.com

hey, I'm Jack! I'm a senior at Berkeley and I debated for four years at La Costa Canyon High School in San Diego. I debated policy for two years and ld for two years. I went to the most national circuit tournaments for ld my senior year, and I cleared at stanford and berkeley. here are some of my thoughts on debate.

theory - I am very comfortable with theory debates. whether you use theory only as a genuine check on abuse or for frivolous purposes is fine by me. I won't buy arguments that just say drop this shell because it's frivolous. if it's a dumb shell just beat it quickly. i will not drop a shell just because i personally think there's no abuse. warrant your arguments and you will be good. Absent the arguments being made in round, I default competing interps, drop the debater, RVIs, theory > K, and fairness before education. but make the arguments anyways, a messy theory debate is no bueno.

also as an aside, i don't love disclosure theory. i'll vote on it if your interp is sufficiently warranted, but just know that it will be a bit more of an uphill battle for you.

t - i think T is a great and undervalued strategy, go for it.

kritiks - i think critical arguments are awesome and make for super interesting debates. good critical debates are honestly some of my favorite debates to judge / listen to. i love when debaters explain how the kritik specifically links into the aff and how it interacts with other layers in the round. big picture overviews are awesome on the K. As I've judged more and more rounds, K debates have become some of my favorites to judge.

util - very comfortable with util debates. please slow down on tags and authors here. i will be impressed if you know the methodologies of your studies well and can press opponents on these factors. good evidence comparison is key. other than that make sure you cover the basics (cp's need a net benefit to the aff (through some disad), solvency advocates are a thing, good empirical studies are awesome (and undervalued!!).

framework - i debated fw the least in high school, so i'm not super well versed in dense philosophies. i only ever read util, kant, virtue ethics, and non ideal theory in HS. if you have a good understanding of your fw, i'd appreciate a quick explanation of the fw before you begin reading substance. i am more persuaded by line by line responses to fw rather than reading a dump and not explaining how the answers interact with the nuances of the opponents fw. if you are looking for a super dense fw debate i am probably not the best judge for that round. also, i default epistemic confidence, but will evaluate under epistemic modesty if you justify it.

tricks - they're alright, i don't have a ton of experience with tricks, so don't expect to blow through a nailbomb aff and for me to understand your complex burden structure and all the spikes. i'm not impressed if your entire strategy is only tricks from the get go. i don't like when you extend blippy arguments without elaborating how those arguments affect the ballot. explain how the trick works and you will be fine.

speaks - i start at a 28.5 and adjust from there. if i think you should clear you will get a 29 or higher. don't be evasive or excessively rude in cx, ESPECIALLY if you are debating someone who is less experienced that you. explaining your arguments to an opponent who may not have heard them before will give you better speaks.
2. big picture overviews. i love 1ar and 2nr overviews that break down the round for me. i want you to tell me how to write my ballot (pls do this i will be so happy)
3. delineate between tag lines and cards, pause between layers
4. humor, general strategic choices, and interesting/cool arguments will grant you higher speaks
6. if you have an interesting/unique position and run it well, I will probably give you higher speaks

any questions? coylejack1@berkeley.edu or facebook

i know debate is stressful, but enjoy your time in the activity! if you feel really flustered, just take a deep breath and gather your thoughts. it's really helpful especially when you feel overwhelmed in round! good luck!

I debated on the national circuit from 2008 - 2012 at Scarsdale High School in New York. I received 3 career bids, and competed at TOC in 2012. I also won the 2012 Lexington Invitational (Quarters Bid).

I'm open to any debate style or interpretation as long as things are sufficiently warranted. I award speaking points based on strategy and decision making. As a debater I enjoyed theory and think that if properly used they can lead to very interesting rounds.

To quote Ben Fife, "I haven’t judged [in a while] so don’t expect me to know anything about the topic or the current trends in debate. The most important thing is to give me a way out in the round. Slow down and tell me exactly what you want me to vote on. I want an easy way out."

I also pretty much agree with Geoff Kristof's paradigm so please check that out too: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Kristof%2C+Geoffrey

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts of mine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

General: I debated for four years on nat circuit at Harker. I'm open to any sort of argument, but here are my defaults:

Theory:
- If your A strat is to run a bunch of theory spikes/presumption triggers every round and do no topic prep, don't pref me :D I will not vote on frivolous theory.
- I'll still listen to any shell you read, especially if there is legit abuse in the round. Well-executed plans good/plans bad, pics good/bad, etc. are fine.
- I default to competing interpretations and drop the argument, but I'll vote on whatever is decided in the debate.
- RVIs are fine.

Fmwk/Philosophy:
- I ran mostly util and policy style arguments, but you can read whatever you want so long as you justify your framework fully and explain how you (and your opponent) can weigh under your standard clearly
- Just because you win framework or ROB doesn't mean you win the round - weigh your links
- I'm not very compelled by skep - its probably defense

Kritiks:
- Run them - I think they're the most educational part of debate, but if you read a rather uncommon K (i.e. something other than Cap, Fem, Racism, Anthro, etc.) make sure you explain them in english and not esoteric philosophical terms.

Most importantly, have fun! Debate is about learning and having fun while learning, not just trophies :D

This is preetty short, but please let me know if there are any more specific questions, whether in an email or before the round.

In general, I will vote on anything you put out there as long as it's well argued etc. I'm pretty much completely tabula rasa. I will vote on things I personally disagree with or wouldn't do if you win that argument.

I did 3 years of policy debate in high school with some LD and parli mixed into that. In my senior year I ran a soft left aff and a fem performance aff, to give you some idea of the arguments I'm familiar with. I'm doing APDA in college so my reent exposure to policy is pretty limited. If if you have any questions about my paradigm or have questions after a round, my email is laurelmeddins@gmail.com

Specific arguments:

DAs: I mainly went for DAs in high school. In varsity I expect them to be well linked and impacted. If not, you're going to have a harder time getting my ballot in the 2ar. Specific are always preferable to generics.

CPs: I strongly believe that a CP can be the most strategic argument in debate. I'm a big fan of PICS but I'll also vote on theory against them.

Theory/T/FW: I have a relatively high threshold on theory but can be persuaded to lower that depending on the argument. I'm generally not a big fan of any of these types of debates (partly because I was never very good at them, tbh) but also because I find them repetitive. If you want to go for theory or FW or T in front of me feel free to, just make sure to argue it well.

Ks: I'm reasonably comfortable with basic Ks, but it really depends on what you're running. Feel free to ask me before the round for specifics, but as a general rule I don't understand anything too, too advanced. That being said! I love learning new things but you're going to have to explain things well to me. If you're reading something I don't understand and do a bad job of making it clear, I'm probably not going to vote for you.

Speed is good but I haven't been around debate for 6ish months so please keep it reasonable. Use CX to your advantage and you'll get more speaks, pretty generic. If you're conflicted about where to pref me or have any other questions feel free to shoot me an email or know that I'm tab enough to probably adapt to whatever you're doing.

For LD, same as for policy, I understand that the V/C debate is important but honestly I prefer the actual policy debate. Obviously still read the V/C stuff but if your last speech is JUST about the framing it might be harder to get my ballot. Other than that, everything is the same as policy. I did a few tournaments in LD so I'm reasonably familiar with the format.

PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND PLEASE

I did pf for 4 years completed on the national circuit.

Warrant every argument you make, and don’t expect your opponents/judge to take it at face value.

Weigh the round so I don’t have to, by the end of the second final focus it should be pretty clear who I am voting for because the debaters evaluated the round and condensed it for me. You don’t want to be in the position where I am left at the end of the round weighing arguments for you and putting the decision in my hands.

If you’re gonna spend 30+ seconds of your speech on framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what u gain/opponents lose. Speeches in public forum are too short for you to waste your time debating framework if winning it makes no difference on the overall decision.

Debate style: I am open to anything. If you’re going to talk fast you need to be clear and sign post properly or it will work against you. Be respectful to one another, you can be assertive and make points without being rude.

Quick Summary - Run whatever you want, be clear. It's your round, take advantage of it! Flow judge, give me articulated arguments. Kritiks are appreciated, warrants are awesome and taglines are not enough. The squo is more scarier now than ever - tell me whatever I can do to make debate a welcome space for you.

Background -

NPDA Debate - 3 years - Enough tournaments and practice to be very familiar with pretty much anything you can throw at me in the debate space.

Judging for 3 1/2 years - judged parli, policy and LD a lot (and I.E.s but whateverrr)

Approach to Judging -

-I am pretty tabula rasa, within reason. I default to reasonability inmost debates unless there is framework that asks me to change my perspective.

-I like high-probability, systemic impacts first and foremost. Give me real warrants and evidence and ANALYSIS I can weigh and you'll find my ballot favorable. I will vote on any framing though.

-I am a flow judge. I always walk the path of least intervention and won't extend or make arguments for you. Give me voters to refer to and it'll make my life easier. I'm really serious about this.

-I love anything kritikal, but it isn't necessary. I like topical and non-topical affs, but be careful with ID tix and other super generic non-topical advocacies. I like straight-up policy cases with advantages and DA's and the like. I like contentions with good framework articulated. Essentially, you can do anything if you do it well and make it easy for me to follow.

-I need articulated impacts, and arguments in general. Taglines are not enough. Explain to me the directionality and extent of your impacts.

-I don't like arguments dropped in member speeches to be suddenly voters in rebuttals AKA shadow extensions but people need to point of order it for me to not evaluate it.

-Let me know if there's anything I can do to make the debate space more inclusive for you. If you have any needs or preferences, I'm happy to help.

Argument Prefs -

Framework - I will evaluate the round as you want me to as long as you win framework. I do default to net benes/util, but am totally open to other ways of viewing the round.

Spec -I think spec arguments are rough to win, but I'm open to them. Give me solid standards and proven ground loss and I might pick you up on it.

Topicality - I don't like time-suck T's, and I think that a lot of T arguments don't actually really impact the debate except to inhibit clash. I have a medium threshold for T. You need articulated ground loss usually. However, if you drop it, or any a-priori arguments, you're going to lose the debate. Just be careful.

CPs - Always a great idea. I think CP's are super underused and really effective. I like PIC debates and if you run a CP, you just need to be careful about mutual exclusivity. I don't have a problem with condo CPs.

RVI's - I will vote on them, but only for a good reason i.e. rhetoric in the procedural/DA/whatever, timesuck arguments that are fully fleshed out, etc. Just like all other arguments, if it's blippy I probably won't vote on it and your time is probably better spent elsewhere.

Perms - Always go for the perm. I think the Opp has to really win the perm doesn't function to have a good shot in the round because it is often one of the easiest places to vote.

Kritiks - I like K's! I don't have a ton of background knowledge on some kritiks but have run a lot of Nietzsche, some D&G, Baud, Wilderson, but not enough of any lit other than Nietzsche that I feel confident with, so you need to explain it to me thoroughly. Any form, whether it's performance, rhetoric or otherwise, I am totally cool with. Be careful of overly-generic links.

Performance Prefs -

-I personally can handle speed as long as it's clear, but if your opponents clear or slow you, I expect you accommodate them. Additionally, attempting to spread opponents out of the round will destroy your speaks.

-I couldn't care less if you sit or stand - it's your space, make yourself comfortable

-Partner communication is fine, verbally or through notes, as long as you aren't puppeting. I will only flow what the designated speaker says.

-I don't have an issue with sass or playfulness, but don't be mean to your opponents or partner. There's a fine-line between the two and if you have trouble walking it, I'd be nice to be safe.

-Use your time as you wish, but try not to be too repetitive.

-I don't think you need to yell or be overly angry to try to project confidence. At the same time, you do you.

-If you are being sexist, racist or generally a jerk, your speaks will absolutely reflect that. You don't need to tread on eggshells, but don't be a misogynist, racist person.

Benjamin Franklin High School

Tulane University

Current Conflicts: Durham Academy

Email: SeanFaheyLD@gmail.com (please put me on email chains and feel free to email me questions)

September 2022 Update (Read if you're a traditional debater): How exciting to be back in person! Some notes on lay debate in front of me. I am open-minded in terms of how you approach these debates as long as it does not come at an unfair expense to your opponent (ex: spreading against competitors who do not want to). Please be respectful of each other. I think about traditional LD fairly linearly - win offense underneath whatever framework is winning in the round. Whether that means conceding your opponents framework and going for turns or having an elaborate framework debate, all that matters to me is whether you outweigh under the winning framework. Cases without a criterion are very hard to evaluate unless you contextualize your offense to your opponents standard. I don't see much value in the value debate (no pun intended) other than using the value as an additional reason to prefer a certain criterion. I will listen to lay theory arguments, such as 'no counterplans', but, if you want to win on this argument, you need to articulate the theoretical argument as a voting issue and why (fairness/education/etc.). I appreciate thoroughly extended impacts and clear, decisive weighing. Also - with peace and love - please don't try to shake my hand, we just got out of a big pandemic. Have fun and debate your best!

I debated for 4 years at Benjamin Franklin High School in New Orleans, LA. I competed at the TOC twice and got to finals of the CFL National Tournament my senior year. I've taught at the Victory Briefs Institute and The Debate Intensive.

I read all styles of arguments at some point in time, but mostly read critical theory. That said, I’m open to all styles of argumentation and speed (I will state clear as needed). I like in-depth debates that emphasize critical and comparative handling of evidence/nuanced arguments. Simply reading a card is not really a full argument to me; rebuttals need to have a clear, full extension of arguments presented in your evidence. I don't have much lenience in evaluating extensions that are just the tagline and author. This should also flag that I’m not a huge fan of blippy styles of argumentation and, while debate is a competitive activity, I’d rather evaluate a more scholastic engagement of ideas.

I decide based on the flow, but everyone says that and it kinda means nothing. That said, I view myself as an educator and, as such, I don’t allow hateful/violent discourse and I will reflect that with my ballot/RFD.

I usually flow CX. I like well-used CX time.

Please slow down for plan texts, CP texts, theory interpretations, perm texts, or anything that has precise value in its wording.

Little blurb on disclosure+debating politely:

I think open source disclosure is a very good thing and I regard most attempts to avoid this norm as unpersuasive. That said, I have voted against disclosure theory many times on impact turns to fairness or transparency, given those arguments are won on the flow, of course. I think reading disclosure theory against debaters clearly out of the national circuit loop is pretty unkind and often voids engagement, so please don’t. That said, I think reading disclosure theory against novices/early varsity members of large programs on the wiki is acceptable because their coaches should tell them to do so/do so for them (especially if the rest of the team discloses) and sometimes these debates are the only way for people to learn.

In the same vein as my policy on disclosure theory, please do not spread out debaters who clearly can not spread. You can still win this way because I won't intervene, but I will dock your speaks because I think it's rude. Please be considerate and inclusive.

Little blurb on theoretical presumptions:

In the past I have said what I default to in terms of paradigms for theory and framework, but I’ve come to view this norm as an incentive for lazy debating. I think you should have to justify everything necessary for you to win.

Things ppl actually care about:

• 50-50 on Framework v Non-T affs and not necessarily because of my personal opinions on the matter.
• Fairness and education are voters in no particular order; I think strength of link is especially relevant in the determination of which of these matters more in a given round.
• That said, I think epistemic modesty, as it is generally used, is pretty nonsensical. Don’t really understand weighing a deontic violation against a risk of an impact.
• I think K affs should do something or place some theoretical weight in the act of affirmation. Pessimism based affs with no clear solvency mechanism (or definition of what solvency is in the eyes of the affirmative position) generally seem to be negative presumption arguments in my mind. Feel free to change my mind on this point. I’ve seen exceptions to this.
• Please explain your permutations by illustrating a clear picture of the world it supposes.
• Weigh impacts and strength of internal links. PLEASE. Don’t presume that I think extinction is worse than genocide, war, etc. and give me some way to do risk analysis.
• Asinine theory follows the pornography rule for me, you know it when you see - my threshold on answering these args is substantively very low.
• Have fun, take it easy, and make some jokes or something.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fee%2CSean

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

Hard and Fast Rules:

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

You must either flash or email your opponent your docs.

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

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

Toc 18:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated for Northwestern: It occurs to me I haven't touched this thing in awhile. They often feel quite self-aggrandizing, so I'm hoping to keep this short and informative.

For college debates, please add

caldebatechain@gmail.com

For HS, please add

nathankarlfleming@gmail.com

Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. I don't believe that heg good isn't offense, and people should feel comfortable going for impact turns against the K in front of me, because it's cleaner than T a lot of the time. Fairness is an impact, but it's way worse than skills.

Theory: the primary concern is the predictability of the interp. In order for it to be predictable, it needs to be based in a logical interpretation of the resolution. This precludes the vast majority of theory arguments. People seem to be souring on conditionality --- I am not one of those people. I've yet to hear an objection to it not solved by writing and reading higher quality arguments.

A few closing comments: unsorted

-I'm kind of an ev hack. I try not to read cards unless instructed, but if you read great ev, you should be loud and clear about telling me to read it, and if it's as good as you say, then speaker points may be in order.

-Sometimes recutting the other team's card to answer their argument is better than reading one of your own. If you want me to read their card on your terms, include highlighting in another color so we're on the same page on what part you think goes the other way.

-Arguments I won't vote for

-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate

-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea

-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate

-new affs bad

Lincoln Douglas

I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.

-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.

-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.

-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.

-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.

-I don’t flow RVIs.

Public Forum

Copy-Pasting Achten's.

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence.

This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

I'll listen to anything but am generally not a great judge. Especially bad with philosophy and kritiks. 

Good luck and don't be late for rounds. 

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Garcia%2C+Brandon

TLDR; May your heart be your guiding key, I say it all the time. You ultimately need to do what your heart feels is right.

While I am new to judging high school debate, I have judged middle school debate rounds for a couple years and have 3 years of CXD experience on the AZ Chandler Prep team. I brought all types of arguments to debate rounds, so feel free to bring them to your rounds as well. Some small odd tidbits: I don't like topical counterplans, I like affirmatives in the direction of the topic, I won't ask to see evidence after the round unless there is blatant disagreement on what words are on the page. Of the first two, they obviously are just opinions and can be sidestepped reasonably with being the better debater.

All in all, don't try to pick your arguments based on me. Debate how and what you have practiced to have the best round possible.

I will judge your debate by determining which arguments have been preserved to the final speeches and are adequately supported by evidence or persuasive explanation. Then I will compare your arguments, hopefully with instruction from you which frames the important issues and tells me how to make close calls.

Judge philosophies are a bit silly because it is the exceptionally rare case where an issue must be resolved with reference to the judge’s arbitrary preferences. Usually the debaters make their arguments, one side presents a more comprehensive approach to the important issues and frames the close calls, and then judge votes for that team. That being said, I include the following as my thoughts on issues which many teams seem to base their judge preference decisions on.

1. In an ideal world, the affirmative will read a plan that is topical. I do not feel the need to impose a hard rule here; the arguments against affirmative topicality are bad. A debate between equally competent teams should not produce the sentence: “I voted affirmative despite them being untopical.” I do not think debate would function if everyone disregarded the topic, and I think debate—a thing we all do—is good.

2. The arguments against negative conditionality are equally unpersuasive. Again, no hard rule. But I struggle to imagine an affirmative team that convincingly defends an arbitrary limit on the number of a certain type of argument that the negative may read after the 1NC has already occurred, and also that that limit requires the negative team lose the debate. If you think CPs are not “kickable,” then just say that.

3. Cross-examination answers should be binding on the team which made them. Possible exceptions include intricate clarifications of plan mechanism for the purposes of competition (which may not be suitable for on-the-spot Q&A) and promises about how the debate will unfold (e.g., whether a CP will be kicked or whether you will impact turn something if given the chance; I do not think debaters can reasonably rely on advance notice about their opponents’ strategy).

4. Initial constructives should be flowable. Rebuttals should be thoroughly understandable.

5. Speaker points are a composite of argument strategy (ultimately successful or not), clarity in speaking, cross-examination tactics, and organization.

6. I reserve the right to handle ethics challenges on an ad hoc basis to best facilitate the continuation of a fair debate. Sometimes this is impossible.

I have a higher threshold for T and independent voters, if you go for it, you can win it, I won't pull the trigger as easy as I would on a solvency card. It is more interventionist than not for me.

I debated one year at Stanford, and have debated policy and LD since high school on both the national circuit and local level. I’m Black and if that makes you reluctant to pref me, check yourself. Run whatever you want, however you want to run it. My job is to fairly facilitate the round that will allow both debaters to do their best. My ear might be a little untrained for unclear or incredibly fast spreading (i.e. varsity college spread level), but otherwise I should be good. I will let you know if it’s too fast. Just noticeably slow down on tags. Slow down on authors. Emphasize key warrants. If you speed through key analytical args, all of them aren't likely to make the flow.

I love K’s, BUT do not run them because I like them. Run your own game in your own lane. Avoid being problematic about theorizing what is best for marginalized communities if you are not from them. Your speaks can get docked for explicitly discriminatory and offensive positions. I'm not as much of a fan of T, but I do enjoy it if it is creative and well flushed out. I'm down for a good theory debate too. Again, if it is flushed out. Nothing is beyond me voting on if it is well warranted and impacted out. I will not vote on a floating PIC, UNLESS you spend time on it. A one line argument at the end of your speech will not give you the ballot. Don't berate me about it in the RFD. YOU GOTTA PUT WERK IN FOR THE BALLOT. I will note it though and give some weight.
Weigh everything, tell me how I should evaluate the round. I don’t have a default framework. However, if you give me none, I will simply evaluate both sides equally on each contesting level. I know I’ve said I love a lot of stuff, but I REALLY love performance args. That being said, if it is terrible, it is terrible and I will pull the trigger on T if they won it. I also like PETTINESS and HUMOR. I’m human. I like to see people put in work. If you don’t make it a boring round, you’ll see some speaker points. (*DJ Khaled voice*) I promise you. Keep me awake and entertained with substantive arguments and I will keep you happy with them awards.

All this being said, I am here to help you have the debate you want to have. Do you.

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

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

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

Am a very good judge for phil debate.

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

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

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

I've never voted on disclosure theory.

Overview:

Y'all know me, still the same O.G. but I been low-key
Hated on by most these nigg@s with no cheese, no deals and no G's
No wheels and no keys, no boats, no snowmobiles, and no skis
Mad at me cause I can finally afford to provide my family with groceries
Got a crib with a studio and it's all full of tracks to add to the wall
Full of plaques, hanging up in the office in back of my house like trophies
Did y'all think I'mma let my dough freeze, ho please
You better bow down on both knees, who you think taught you to smoke trees
Who you think brought you the oldies
Eazy-E's, Ice Cubes, and D.O.C's
The Snoop D-O-double-G's
And the group that said motherduck the police
Gave you a tape full of dope beats
To bump when you stroll through in your hood
And when your album sales wasn't doing too good
Who's the Doctor they told you to go see
Y'all better listen up closely, all you nigg@s that said that I turned pop
Or The Firm flopped, y'all are the reason that Dre ain't been getting no sleep
So duck y'all, all of y'all, if y'all don't like me, blow me
Y'all are gonna keep ducking around with me and turn me back to the old me

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move their lips
Just a bunch of gibberish
And motherduckers act like they forgot about Dre

Line-by-line

Semi-retired from the policy debate world few years back, but I am around for 4 years during my daughter’s high school policy debate career. Maybe another 4 after that for my son’s. Maybe even longer if they decide to debate in college. “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!”

Experienced former circuit debater from the Bay Area. Previous coach in Sacramento for CK McClatchy, Rosemont, Davis Senior, and others. Also coached several Bay Area programs. I am the former Executive Director and founder of the Sacramento Urban Debate League (SUDL). I spent the better part of a decade running SUDL while personally coaching several schools. I've judged a ton of rounds on all levels of policy debate and feel in-depth and informative verbal RFD's are key to debate education.

I will adapt to you rather than you to me. It's not my place as a judge to exclude or marginalize any sort of argument or framework. On the neg, I will vote for K/K + case, T, CP + DA, DA + case, FW/FW + case, performance, theory.... whatever. I personally prefer hearing a good K or theory debate, not that I'm more inclined to vote on those genres of argumentation. I am down for the K, performance, or topical aff. Anything goes with me.

I'm big on organization. Hit the line by line hard. Don't just give me 3 min overviews or read a bunch of cards off the line, then expect me to conveniently find the best place on the flow for you. Do the work for me. I flow on paper OG style, so don't drop arguments. I don't flow off speech docs (neither should you), but put me on the email chain so I can read cards along with you and refer back to them. I can handle any level of speed, but please be as clear and loud as possible.

I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronoun, or if there is anything you wish to communicate privately, please let me know or send me an email. markcorp2004@msn.com

My judging philosophy is very short for a reason. Its your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote. Write my ballot for me in your 2NR/2AR.

Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.

Speaks:

· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.


The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.

Framework:

· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.

Procedurals:

· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.

K:

· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.

Performance:

· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.

CP/DA:

· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.

Tricks:

· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

I'm a freshman at Wesleyan University and I debated LD for four years at Brentwood School in Los Angeles. Facebook message or email me (carsonahorky@gmail.com) with questions
I HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT DEBATE IN LIKE A YEAR PLEASE SLOW DOWN AND EXPLAIN STUFF K THANKS.
PLEASE PREFLOW EITHER BEFORE THE ROUND OR DURING YOUR OPPONENT'S PREP TIME I HATE WAITING FOR THIS

Short version: be smart and nice.    Automatic sub-25 speaker points/ likely loss for any of the following:  -disclosure theory. Just don't.  -if you are aff and don't affirm in some way  -skep triggers-- if you're gonna run something as blatantly bad for debate as skep, at least have the courage to be up front about it -running skep clearly as an avoidance of substance or anything that might resemble quality debate -arguments that implicate that racism, sexism, genocide, homophobia, etc are good.  -being a dick    Defaults  -Comparative worlds* -Theory is drop the arg  -Fairness is a voter -No RVIs -Competing interps** -Theory before T  -Theory on the K before K; K before unrelated theory -Presume aff or whoever is being nicer*   *Things I probably won't budge on. I'll most likely evaluate the round this way    **Note about reasonability: I have no idea what a reasonability brightline could possibly be. My "gut check" usually tells me that most arguments in debate are dumb anyways, so why would my gut check go in your favor? For me, reasonability is a cop out for people who know they violated theory and don't know what to do about it. If you ask me to use reasonability, I'll just default to competing interps because I think the more reasonable argument is one that links offense into an interp.    I'm probably flowing by hand and therefore going slower than most judges. I'll say slow and clear, but if I'm losing you, I'll just stop flowing. I won't vote on arguments that I don't have on my flow, so be careful about this.    For some reason I'm really bad at flowing theory implications-- I don't know why. But go slower for theory voters, drop the debater/arg, and RVIs    Just some things: -Merely being more leftist will not win you a K debate. I don't know why debaters think that K args are so special that they can go unwarranted and unexplained and then call their judges racist and evil for dropping them. Bad K debate will max your speaks at a 27  -I will not vote for arguments that I do not understand  -Risk of offense if not a compelling reason to vote for you. Obviously there's a risk of offense. Literally everything has a risk of offense. -if you're a privileged white kid, please for the love of God don't read anything that implicates that you're black. You're not black. Stop.  -don't read purposely confusing positions. It's no fun for anyone involved. -if you're gonna read a PIC, you might as well look at me and say " I don't know how to respond!!"  -if this is a lay tournament, I will judge with a lay paradigm -Politics/Election DAs make me sad    -you might get a little speaker point bonus for making jokes regarding any of the following: West Wing, Game of Thrones, anyone from the Class of 2015 or 2016 at Brentwood, or Achal Srinivasan. DEBATE PHRASES THAT MAKE ME SAD: 1.  "That's an empirical claim without an empirical warrant" (@greenhill Wtf does this mean) 2.  "Infinite regress" without explaining  3.  Anything Bostrom says.

Hey my name is Kat and I debated for IHHS for 4 years till my graduation in 2014.

I qualified to both NSDA nationals and the ToC, so I'm comfortable with speed or lack thereof.

I was mostly a traditional util debater and was not terribly fond of Ks, but will obviously listen to anything except flat ontology.

Kesha references in your speeches yield higher speaks, as does overall polite behavior and smart, clever strategy.

Theory, T, Plans, are all good. I've been out of the community for a year or so, so I'm not super aware of current trends - just something to be aware of.

I also competed often and to varying success in congress, extemp, and other I.E.'s and have judged pretty much every event in existence at this point.

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

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

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument Preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Forum

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

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

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

Speed is fine.

Run what you want. You're better off running policy arguments if you want me to fully grasp everything. I will listen to and vote for pretty much anything (nothing blatantly offensive). Just win the argument.

Good speaks will come if you're respectful and you link everything back to some standard or ROB that I can use to evaluate the round.

Good luck and feel free to ask any questions if this isn't clear enough.

Director of Speech and Debate at Lake Highland Prep - Orlando, FL

Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind)
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

Contact info: jeff@immigrationissues.com

I coach debate so I am comfortable with most debate styles. I coach LD and am more familiar with LD, but also did policy in college and assist in coaching it now. I am qualified to judge both events.

Debate is fun. I value wit and humor. Debate is educational. I value scissor-sharp logic. Debate is a chance for high school students to make radical arguments for change. Don't be afraid to be yourself and express your opinion in any method you choose.

I like well-developed, persuasive and interesting cases with strong internal links and warrants and interesting and novel approaches to the resolution.

I believe that debate is, at its core, a thought experience. As a debater, you get to approach each debate round as your debate round. You get to set the rules. You get to debate what you find educational and valuable. To me that is the greatest thing about debate. To that extent, I like creative arguments and the arguments do not have to be conventional. However, you have to persuade me that there is a reason to vote for you, and you have to be prepared to justify that what you are debating is fair and educational to your opponent. To that extent, your opponent also gets to set the rules and play the game the way he or she wants to as well. That means that I am open to theory/topicality arguments on either side in order to set the ground rules for the debate.

I value cross-examination. It shows how a debater thinks on his or her feet, how well he or she understands the resolution and case and how well he or she uses rhetoric and logic. Use it effectively. I want you to answer your opponent's questions and not blow off cross ex. I flow cross-ex and consider statements made in CX as binding.

I will vote on textual arguments, Ks, policy arguments, theory, narratives and performative debate as long as you present an overall persuasive case.

In terms of layering, Theory/Topicality is evaluated as the first layer in debate. I have to first determine that the game is being played fairly before I consider the substance of the arguments. To that extent, I am open to theory arguments. If you are going to make theory arguments, please set forth an interpretation, standards and voters. Don't just claim your opponent is being unfair. If you are are arguing against the theory argument, please provide a counterinterpretation or show me that no counterinterpretation is necessary because you meet the interpretation and do not violate. I am open to RVI arguments and will evaluate those arguments, but only if you prove the theory is frivolous, time suck or strat suck. So RVIs will be considered but you have to show me that the theory argument, itself, was abusive. I will not consider an RVI just because you blip it out. Neg does not get reciprocity on RVIs.

After theory, I next evaluate ROTB, ROTJ and framework arguments. ROTB and ROTJ tells me that there is a role that I play that transcends the debate round. As such, I evaluate ROTB and ROTJ equally with other more traditional framework arguments. If you tell me what my role is, I will accept that as my role. That means the opponent has to come up with a counter ROTB, or show how he or she accesses your ROTB or how your ROTB is somehow bad or that your framework is superior. Same with arguments that you tell me are a priori, prior questions or decision rules. If you tell me there are, justify it, provide rationale. It is then up to your opponent to counter that. Your counter ROTB can be as simple as you should vote for the better debater, but don't just drop it because you assume that traditional framework (weighing case) comes first.

After framework, I will evaluate the contention level. Ks, narratives and performative arguments will be evaluated equally with other arguments but you have to provide the layering for me and tell me how to evaluate those arguments in the round.

Great weighing of arguments is your best route to high speaks. Don't just extend args. Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round and how those arguments interact with the other side. I will evaluate all arguments that are not blatantly offensive. But it is up to you to tell my why those arguments are voters. The worst rounds are rounds where there is no weighing, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped. Tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round. I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend an argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient. Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way. Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round. And, don't go for everything. The best debaters are the ones who are able to succinctly crystalize the key issues in the round and collapse down to those key issues and tell me why they win the debate.

Kritiks: I love them and I love how they are progressing in debate. This includes narratives/performance arguments. Some of the best debates I have seen are good perfomative Kritiks. I will evaluate Ks equally with other positions. However, I have a few ground rules for Ks. First, if you are going to do a K, clearly explain your alt, ROTB and methodology and do not stray from it. It is a pet peeve when someone runs a K and then cannot justify it in CX or is snarky about answering questions about it in CX. If you are criticizing something, you have to be able to explain it under pressure. Second pet peeve: Your method/performance must go in the same direction as the K. If you are running Bifo (semiocapitalism) and then spread without giving your entire speech document to your opponent, I find that to be a performative contradiction. This will not end well for you. On a K explain whether you claim pre-fiat or post-fiat solvency and clearly how your discourse preempts other arguments in the round and weigh your discourse against your opponents framework. If you are doing a narrative or performative argument, you should be able to clearly articulate your methodology for your performance in the round. I know that I bring my own biases in the round, but I try my best to leave them at the door of the debate room and approach narratives and performative arguments with a blank slate. I appreciate hearing your voice in the round. If you are running fem rage or queer rage I want to hear it in the round. I want to hear your voice. That, to me, is the point of using the debate space for performance and narrative. So, I expect you to be able to clearly articulate your methodology and narrative and answer questions about how your opponent interacts with the methodology in the round. If you run a narrative but fumble over how that narrative and methodology works in the debate space, I find it less credible.

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all evaluated. If you're running a DA, make sure the link debate and impacts are clear. Make sure you are doing good impact calculus on timeframe, magnitude, probability, reversability, etc. I will consider all impact scenarios. It is up to your opponent to tell me why those impact scenarios are outweighed.

Spikes, tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments: I am not a fan of "tricks," spikes and blippy arguments and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for underview blips and extensions of spikes and blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses. That means if your opponent has a halfway coherent response to them I am likely to drop the argument. I know that tricks are a new and sexy thing in debate. I just hate them.

Speed: I can flow speed. However, I like to be included in the email chain or pocketbox. Also if your analytics are not on the document, I will try my best to keep up, but don't blame me if you spread through them and I miss something. It is up to you to make the argument explicitly enough that I flow it and extend it. I like to review the evidence, so if you speed, I will follow along as I flow. Make sure the tags and card tags are are slightly slower and are clear. My issue is most often with enunciation, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. No speed at the cost of understanding.

Points--(Note that these points have changed as of the ASU 2018 tournament)

30--You have a chance of winning this tournament and are one of the best debaters I have seen in a while.

29.0-29.5 - You are in the top 10% of the tournament and will definitely break.

28.5.-29.0 - You should break at this tournament.

28.0-28.5 - My default speaks. This is for a good and above average debater.

27.5-28.0 - You are average compared to other debaters in the tournament.

27.0-27.5 You are learning and have significant areas of improvement.

<27 This is the lowest I will go. You have done something unfair, offensive or unethical in the round.

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

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

May 28th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

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

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

GGI 2019 Parli-Specific Update:

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

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

Past Paradigm:

Also:

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

Delivery and speaks:

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

Frameworks:

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

Theory and T:

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

Utilz:

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

K's:

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

Note for HS Parli:

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

Alta 2022 Judging Philosophy

Email: stevejknell@gmail.com

Education:

- DMA, University of Texas at Austin (2019)

- MM, University of Georgia (2013)

- BMus, University of Utah (2011)

Debate experience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- I will not vote on moral skepticism.

- This is new for people who know my philosophy:

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

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

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

More things consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated for 2023 TOC

Conflicts: Newark Science.

I’m Amit Kukreja and I debated for Newark Science in Newark, NJ for four years.

If it helps, I debated on the local NJ Circuit, the national circuit, and was a member of the USA Debate Team. I did PF for a couple of tournaments my freshman/sophomore year. I went to the TOC in LD my junior and senior year. I competed in policy my senior year at one national circuit tournament and received a bid in policy to the TOC and won the NJ State championship in policy. I debated internationally in worlds format for Team USA my senior year. For the better part of three years, I mainly did LD, ending out in octos of TOC senior year.

So, I've been coaching for the past 7 years and my views on debate have changed dramatically from when I was in highschool. The number one thing to understand about me is that I truly do consider myself to be tabula-rasa, meaning you can read anything, I simply value the execution of the strategy that you read. The ONLY caveat I have here is tricks; please please do not read some one-line bs, the other side drops it, and then you get up and extend it and win. If you make an actual argument and it's dropped, I totally get it - but the "resolved apriori" will make me very sad. It's not that I won't vote off it, but my threshold for rejecting it will be so low that as long as the other side says "No. Just No." that will be enough for me. I want to see actual debates!

Okay, besides tricks - do whatever you want. I've coached a ton of kids the past 7 years in phil, policy, kritiks, etc. and really enjoy judging all types of debates. I love a one-off K strat just as much as a 4-off NC strat, to me it's about the strategy in which you deploy an argument and how it collapses by the end of the debate that influence me.

I love impact turn debates, solid counterplans, strong internal links on disads, core assumptions challenged within links for a kritik - all is game. I do really enjoy CX, if you can be dominant there and have some personality, speaks will benefit and I'll just be more engaged.

Feel free to ask if any questions!

Email: akukreja227@gmail.com

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

Experience: 3 Years (Local and National Circuit)
I am fine with anything, as long as its well warranted and impacted throughout the round.
As a debater I favored the K, I'm not a fan of theory but will vote off of it if the abuse scenario is clear.

Plans, CP, DA, T- all are perfectly fine
Ks- Love a good K, prefer the K to be specific rather than general. Slow down on tags and alts. Dont assume I know every weird philosophy.
Theory- Default competing interps and no rvi. Slow down so I can understand the shell. I prefer abuse thats already happened.

Things I like-
Sass, Specific cases, comprehensive overviews and good roadmaps.

Things I don't like-
Needless hostility, Racism, Sexism, Xenophobia, Polls, Disclosure Theory

Have fun :)

*Updated on 4/21/18 while migrating to Tabroom. I'm revising this because my former paradigm was dated, not because of any significant changes to my judging philosophy.*

Background: I coach LD for the Brentwood School in Los Angeles. I competed in LD for Robbinsdale Cooper HS and Blake HS, both in Minnesota, from 2006-10. I studied philosophy, economics, and entrepreneurship at Northwestern University, graduating in 2014. I have judged several hundred circuit LD rounds, and plenty traditional rounds too.

Overall: I am a 'least-intervention' judge, and try my best to vote on the arguments in the round. Barring certain complicated extremes (i.e. offensive language, physical coercion), I vote for the best reason articulated to me during the debate. This involves establishing a framework (or whatever you want to call it - a mechanism for evaluation) for my decision, and winning offense to it.

Some implications/nuance to 'least-intervention' - a) I won't evaluate/vote on what I perceive to be new arguments in the 2NR or 2AR, b) I won't vote on arguments that I don't understand when they're introduced, c) I won't vote on arguments that I don't hear, and d) I won't vote on arguments you don't make (i.e. if your evidence answers something and you don't point it out)

Spreading: I think speed is overall bad for debate, but I will not penalize you for my belief. You should debate at whatever speed you want, granted I can understand it. If it's just me judging you, I will say clear / slow up to three times per speech. After three I will stop trying. The first two 'clears' are free, but after the third one I will reduce your speaker points by 2 for a maximum of 28. On a panel I will say 'clear' once, maybe twice, depending how the other judges seem to be keeping up.

Speaker points: holistic measure of good debating. I'm looking for good arguments, strategy, and speaking. I average around a 28.5. A 29.3+ suggests I imagine you in elimination rounds of whichever tournament we're at. I'm averaging a 30 once every four years at my current rate.

Loose ends:

- As of the 4/21/18 update, I do not need extensions to be 'full', i.e. claim / warrant / impact, especially in the 1AR, but I do expect you to articulate what arguments you are advancing in the debate. For conceded arguments, a concise extension of the implications is sufficient.

- If I think there is literally no offense for either side, I presume aff.

- I default to a comparative world paradigm.

- I default to drop the argument, competing interpretations, no RVI, fairness/education are voters.

- I will call evidence situationally - on the one hand it is crucial to resolving some debates, on the other hand I think it can advantage unclear debaters who get the benefit of judges carefully reviewing their evidence. I will do my best to balance these interests.

Feel free to contact me at erik.legried@gmail.com.

I debated for four years on the national circuit in LD and then coached Lake Highland and several independent debaters from 2013-2017. I now judge sporadically.

Feel free to call me Terrence. If you have any questions, contact me at tlonam@gmail.com.

I think I'm in line with most general judge preferences, except that I won't vote on disclosure theory or evaluate disclosure as offense back to a counter-interp (i.e. having disclosed something won't be offense for your counter-interp). Also, I think I have a reasonably high threshold for extensions.

My default interpretation of the resolution is that it is a truth statement, and so any way that the aff or neg chooses to prove that truth or falsity is fair game. If you want me to evaluate the resolution a different way, that's fine too, this is just my default. I think I'm pretty center of the road argument-wise (i.e. if you want to read a pre-fiat performance aff, that sounds good, and if you want to go hard on tricks or phil, that's fine too). I think that debaters do their best when they do what they want to. Don't read a complicated philosophical AC in front of me if that's not what you want to do, I would much rather see you do a great job on util or the K if that's your thing.

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

My paradigm was too long. Here is a good one that should make preffing easier.

“If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose.” - Calum Matheson

Email for chain: adam.martin707@gmail.com

First: Qualifications

• Competing: St Vincent ‘16, UC Berkeley ‘20

• 3x TOC, 14 bids, coach’s poll, tournament wins, speaker trophies, etc

• Coaching: South Eugene 16-18, Analy 22-23, Sonoma Academy 2023-Present

Second: Argument Preferences

• I try very hard to be a judging robot. I will vote for any argument with a warrant. ASPEC, Process CPs, Death K, Set Col, Time-Cube - they are all as good as the warrant you give.

• I read a kritik on the aff and went for framework on the neg. I truly don’t have any emotional attachment to a particular argument.

• While I don’t have argument preferences, there are things I know more or less about.

• Debate things I know a lot about: Baudrillard, Deleuze, Bifo, Set Col, Queerness, Afropess, Framework debates, really any K

• Life things I know about: Philosophy, politics, tech, mushrooms!

• Debate things I don’t know a lot about: Most topics, competition theory norms, process CPs, general policy tricks. By don’t know “a lot” I just mean I’m not an expert - I still have a pretty solid understanding of all of this, but I generally prefer you explain more on competition shells rather than just reading 30 definitions and expecting me to know the norms of how to interpret them

• My lack of argument preferences applies to theory, meaning I’m more likely to vote for straight up “condo bad” than most judges. Just as I’m willing to listen to any arg, I’m equally willing to hear that an arg is unfair.

Third: Notes on How I Judge

• I flow what you say, not what I read in your doc. For the most part, I do not open speech docs during the round. I will not read your doc to understand something that didn’t make sense in your speech. This means you need to slow down on theory arguments and counterplan texts. I am a techy judge so if I don’t understand the CP because you went too fast, you don’t have a CP.

• Arguments need warrants. I will very quickly vote on 0 risk if you don't say "because" in your arguments and instead just extend author names. I am very strict about this so don't be surprised when my RFD says "you had no reason for this claim".

• Do not try and bring up anything that happened outside of the round. I cannot verify any claim about something external to the round. The only exception is disclosure. I will check the wiki to see if you disclosed if that is relevant to the round.

• Normal means is a thing and you should know how that works. If you write a vague plan text, you don’t get to define what it means. I assume that congress will pass the most likely interpretation of what your plan text says. You do not get to read a generic “federal jobs guarantee” plan text then say it just means bunny daycare jobs on Mars.

• New arguments in rebuttals are becoming the norm. I now hold the line for you in the 2nr and 2ar, but it is up to the 2nr to point out how certain 1ar args were completely new and explain why that means I should reject them. Flagging “no new 1ar args” in the block can help get ahead of this.

• Until an argument is made to the contrary, I think of voting for an advocacy as me signifying that that thing would be a good thing if done, not that the negative or affirmative has actually performed said advocacy.

• I will kick the CP for you if condo is never mentioned or won by the neg and I decide that the aff is a bad idea. This is something I am going to think about a lot but as of now, I will presume judge kick.

• Cross-applications are not new arguments. If the 1ar says reasonability on one T violation, and the 2nr goes for a different one, the 2ar can cross-apply it legitimately. However, this does assume that there was a reason why their c/i is reasonable in the 1ar.

• You can have my flow: I always wished that it wasn't awkward to ask the judge for their flow, so this is me telling you that it is not awkward for you to ask me for mine. I think that reading someone's flow of your speech is incredibly educational and so I will happily send you a copy.

• I may be standing for some or all of your speech. Yeah I know it’s weird, but sitting sucks. I promise I am paying better attention than the half-asleep judge sitting comfortably in their chair.

• Contradictions are only abusive if the negative asserts two opposing truth claims neither of which did the affirmative explicitly defend. This standard usually means it is more strategic to just cross-apply one of their claims to take out the other then spend your time no-linking the first position. To give an example, I do not think that it is abusive for a team to read a death reps K and then read a disad that has death impacts if your affirmative also had death impacts. I just can't conceive of how that could be abusive. There is no functional distinction between '1nc - Death K, DA, Case' and '1nc - Disease Reps K, DA, Case' in terms of abusing the affirmative. However, reading the cap K and then a DA that says the aff hurts cap and cap is good against an aff that is about emission reduction and doesn't mention capitalism is obviously abusive. The negative has made two competing truth claims, neither of which did the affirmative defend. HOWEVER, this rant is just my thoughts, and can be used by either team in the round but it does not mean that I won't vote for con if the neg reads a Death K and an extinction-level DA, I'll still evaluate it like any other round.

• Always send cards in docs, not in the body of the email. Otherwise it's hard for me to steal them.

• You can ask for a marked copy outside of cx, but any question about which arguments were read is cx.

Speaker Points – (I inflate/curve points depending upon the difficulty of the tournament)

To me, speaker points are where I get to reward quality debating. Quality debating means the following: understanding of your argument, clear speaking, smart choices, and kindness. My speaks may surprise you. A team who is less technical but clearly communicates their argument may get a 29.5, while a highly technical team who shadow-extends arguments without warrants may get a 28.5. I heavily punish being mean - there is no reason for it.

- Above 29.5: I will spend tonight crying about how beautifully you debated

- 29.5: I will tell my friends about you

- 29 – 29.5: You should get a top 5 speaker award

- 28.7 – 29: You should probably break

- 28.5 – 28.7: You gave solid speeches

- 28 – 28.5: You are a good debater, some strategic errors

- 27.5 – 28: You are decent, but made many errors

- 27 – 27.5: You made many mistakes, and probably lost the debate for your team

- 26.5 – 27: You made many errors and should end 1-5 or 0-6

- 26 – 26.5: You shouldn’t be in whatever level of debate you are

- Under 26: You were literally incomprehensible or offensive

If you have any specific questions, please ask in round.

I don't disclose. I don't ask for evidence. I don't accept post-rounding. The round should be controlled by debaters, and anything that you feel is important to earning my ballot needs to be addressed in the round. Once completed, the round is out of sight and mind. Any critiques I have will go on the ballot. No one's opinion is worth an additional ten minutes of hearing themselves talk.

While I am flexible in terms of argumentation style, for PF and LD, I prefer traditional arguments. It's super easy to rest on jargon and to vomit a case. Brevity is becoming a lost skill in debate, and I like seeing it. If you think you can win on progressive arguments regardless, please present them.

In Policy and PF, I judge almost entirely on impact and framework. In LD, VC gets a little more weight, naturally. Voters are super helpful. Anything you drop is weighed against you.

Topicality is annoying, so please avoid running it. If you think you can swing Theory, do your darnedest. Kritiks are cool, too.

If you want to do speed, that's fine, but anything I can't understand can't go on my flow, and I'm not gonna correct you. You're in charge of your own performance.

FLASHING COMES OUT OF PREP, unless done before the 1AC. Also, if your preflow takes more than five minutes, I will dock speaks for each additional minute.

Clashing and some aggressiveness is fine, but if you're scoffing or snickering at any opponent, I'm going to be especially motivated to find reasons to drop you, obviously. Even if I like your argument or pick you up, I'm probably going to give you really low speaks. Respect the fact that your opponents also work hard to be in the same room as you.

When I call "time," nothing you say gets added to the flow. Simply stop speaking, because it's not going to be counted. No exceptions.

Most of all, if you have me as your judge, relax. It is debate. You're not defusing a bomb. You're not performing neurosurgery. You'll make it out of the round alive, and you'll probably go on to debate many other rounds. You want to do well, and a lot goes into that. You will be okay, regardless of how I vote.

Miscellaneous items that won't decide around, but could garner higher speaks

-Uses of the words, and various thereof, "flummoxed," "cantankerous," "trill," "inconceivable, "verisimilitude," and "betwixt"

-Quotes from television series Community, Steven Universe, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, and 30 Rock

-Knowing the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial"

-Rhyming

GDS RFDs:

R1- voted neg, triggered presumption

R2- the aff had the only offense left

R3- novice round

R6- I voted for a fem k aff against 2NR cap k on no link and risk of aff method solvency in-round

Novice semis - I voted for neg case turns

Novice finals - I voted for a conceded disad

I don't know if people still read these, but if you are here welcome! This is updated for Georgetown Day School 2022.

email chain: uva234@gmail.com

People who's thoughts I generally agree with on debate: Gabriel Koo, Michael Koo, Sooho Park, Viraj Patel, Holden Bukowsky, Patrick Fox, Gabby Lea, Phoenix Pittman, Megan Wu, Evan Alexis, Khoa Pham

I have not been active in debate since the 2021 TOC where I coached and judged. I currently work as an economic analyst for Congress after graduating from UC Berkeley in 2020. Previously, I was active in debate for 8 years as a competitor/judge/coach in Texas and California primarily in national circuit LD. I will be admittedly rusty, but you will have my full attention and focus in round. I know nothing about the topic meta or what arguments are being run, but I am familiar with issues in the topic area. 

If you're doing prefs, I have no preferences for any kind/style of argument. As a coach/judge/competitor, I took a flexible approach in terms of k/policy/other kinds of arguments (You can read below the line to see what specifically I judged and voted for in 2020-21).

Things that will boost your speaks: specific and contextual k or DA links, good strategic decisions, quality evidence, logical advantages and link chains, clear impact calc and weighing, clear explanations of k concepts, taking strategic risks and all or nothing strategies like 26 minutes of framework/one off k or going all in on impact turns or something like condo in the 1AR.

Things that will make me unhappy: Poorly explaining arguments, reading bad evidence, long overviews, more than 3 condo, not collapsing as the round progresses, making me vote on arguments that don't make sense, being mean or dishonest in-round.

Be respectful of those in the room, and best of luck!

(Old paradigm below is LD focused, but left up for transparency)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*TOC 2021 running update*

(copied from megan wu's paradigm)

"given that toc is often the last tournament of the year/debaters’ last tournament, and also an unusually stressful tournament, i am happy to honor the wishes you may have about my rfd—i am happy to do anything from giving compliments instead of critique, to only sharing the decision with your opponent, etc. if you want me to do this, please communicate this to me before i begin with the rfd!

enjoy the toc experience—you deserve it!"

I work for the government--better explanations of inter-governmental processes or policymaking would be much appreciated.

R1, F2: Voted for Scarsdale ZS on their moral non-naturalism, intuitions good aff

R3, F1: Voted for Immaculate Heart BC on 1 condo bad.

R4, F1: Voted for American Heritage Broward EM on their contracts/internalism NC.

Conflicts: Garland (TX), Lindale PP, Westlake (TX)

Pref Shortcut: K: 1-2; LARP: 1-2, Phil: 2-4, T/Theory: 3-4, Tricks: Strike

If you'd like to see what rounds/who I've judged, how I voted, my side bias, average speak stats and what kinds of args I've judged, here's a spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vs4kAHB-mdhbm7QInTPOX-Jp8KAZeO1s7WsGGX1m3fs/edit?usp=sharing

Past 2NRs that I've voted for this year (2020-21):

jan-feb: sgr-a1 PIC w/ korea NB, terror DA + case defense, queer pess k

sep-oct: T-"a", prison abolition k, disability pess k, anti-blackness kritiks [4 times], sortition cp and elections da, a multi-plank voting improvement cp and case turns, presumption

Past 2AR's that I've voted for this year (2020-21):

jan-feb: the aff itself [3 times]

sep-oct: AFC [:(], multiple dispo bad, vague alts bad, ableism independent voting issue on a spec shell, the aff itself [only once though *shockingly*]

I'm going back to (in an attempt to be a better listener in round): a) flowing on paper b) flowing what you say, not the doc c) re-tracing the round using relevant parts of the doc only after the round.

Speaks: I'll default to the tournament's speaker point scale if given, otherwise I'll start at a 28.6 and go up/down from there.

Things that will get you extra speaks:

---Writing my ballot in the 2NR/2AR.

---K 2NR's that have aff-specific links, use specific in-round issues to evaluate the debate, and generally explain the K well.

---Executing an aff-specific LARP strategy with robust argumentation.

---Explaining philosophy well. (I'll be super impressed with this specifically)

---A well-researched and well constructed aff.

---Strategic choices and concessions that get you ahead in the debate.

---Weighing

---An all or nothing strategy and winning it. Examples: a) the 2NR goes all-in on impact turns to the aff and nothing else b) the 1AR straight turns the 1nc's disads c) the 2AR only goes for their Kant framing and precluding all the neg's offense d) the 2AR goes for a 1AR discourse K

Things that will make me unhappy and likely lose you speaks:

---Poorly explaining arguments or reading bad evidence.

---Making me yell clear multiple times

---Going for everything in the 2NR or 2AR

---Making me vote on tricks, a random truth-testing argument, an RVI, or on a theory shell that doesn't pass the common sense test.

---Being mean or saying something awful in-round. [I reserve the right to intervene if what you said is truly awful]

---Long 2NR K overviews.

---Being overly reliant on blocks, or not utilizing the flow/issues that happened in-round.

Some thoughts I have on debate that reflect my thinking and may affect how I judge the round:

1] I prefer to hear smart, well-researched, good quality arguments. The bright line for this is whether or not a school administrator/sponsor would view debate positively after seeing/hearing the argument. This matters because all too often people are willing to vote on illogical, poor quality, or dumb arguments that reduce the value of debate as an activity. I would prefer that debate becomes a stronger and more vibrant activity, and to that end, I will strive as a judge to promote that goal.

2] At the end of the round, I want to only vote for arguments that I can explain back to the debaters. As a judge, I feel that this is only fair so that I can give a coherent RFD and not leave one or both debaters confused and/or angry. That means that in your 2NR or 2AR, you should explain the position/argument that you're going for well, in addition to winning the position/argument on a technical level.

3] Defaults I will use (in the absence of argumentation or being told otherwise):

Framing: Util

Competing Worlds > Truth Testing

Presumption: Neg

Theory paradigm issues: 1AR theory is legitimate, No RVI's, Reasonability, Drop the Argument

T paradigm issues: No RVI's, Competing Interps, Drop the Debater

Role of the Ballot: Vote for the debater who did the better debating.

Role of the Judge: To decide a winner, a loser, and assign speaker points if this is prelims.

4] While the 1AR or 2NR might be time-compressed or skewed strategy-wise, I believe that granting an RVI is not the right correction to make. Instead, reasonability and/or drop the argument make way more sense to me to correct the abuse incurred by skews or frivolous theory shells.

5] I find that unless there is substantial demonstrated in-round abuse, I'm skeptical of voting on theory and tend to think that it's a reason to reject the argument, not the debater.

6] Evidence ethics is a stop the round issue. If a challenge is initiated, I will evaluate it and nothing else in the debate. A successful challenge will result in an L20 for the evidence offender, and an unsuccessful challenge will result in an L20 for the challenge initiator.

Old paradigm (that's still true, but was scrapped for length and being overly complicated): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bxnud-Adkse3iBuHL3LW6WOx-tPHHxUHGVLSLpjTSO0/edit?usp=sharing

Experience:

• University of Wyoming policy debater & coach
• UC Berkeley policy coach
• Judging CARD for 3+ years (critic of the year in 2022)

CARD is not policy debate by design. I want to be moved and persuaded by your arguments, which you can't do if you are reading or speaking fast and using a bunch of technical jargon. Keep this activity accessible.

Read any style of arguments you want (kritical, policy, lived experience), but relate them to the topic. If you want to read an untopical affirmative then get ready to impact-turn and tell me why your arguments are important for this specific activity.

The 2NR and 2AR are for telling me exactly why you won the debate. A dropped argument is a true argument, but you need to tell me why that argument being true is important for your overall case (i.e. compare the quality of your arguments). Debate isn't just about winning individual arguments on the flow, but telling the judge a compelling story. An important part of telling the story is through impact calculus/comparison.

Flowing: I still prefer to flow CARD like a traditional policy round. I flow each argument on a separate page and I want to be able to line up the arguments to quickly compare them when rendering my decision. So, try to stay organized and answer the arguments in the order they were made.

Bottom line: Arguments need evidence and warrants. Keep it cute, don't post-round me.

Happy to answer any questions before the round begins.

I debated for Lexington High School for 4 years as a 2N and now I am a freshman debater at UC Berkeley. I love debate and the intellectual inquiry that goes into succeeding in a debate round.

In terms of arguments, I am open to listening to most arguments. I don't necessarily lean aff or neg on any policy arguments, including theory violations- I will vote for whomever does the better debating. I go for all sorts of arguments including kritiks, impact turns, disads, and counterplans so I have no argumentative biases.

However, against affs that don't defend a plan text, I exclusively go for topicality. Although I am open to listening to your critical aff, the neg should feel comfortable going for topicality or framework. 

Feel free to ask many any questions before the round. 

Good Luck!

Fairness is not a voting issue, and predictability is my least favorite thing to hear about in a debate round. I am okay with Topicality debates about semantics and have an extremely high threshold for a prioris. Other than that, you can run whatever you want: topic-specific positions, K's, narratives, performances, stacked cases, temporary autonomous zones, ritual incantations, and interpretive dance are all welcome as long as you debate with style and swagger.

I take miscut evidence very seriously. Please have proper citations on hand.

Me
I have been teaching and coaching speech and debate for 13 years, and I currently help coach the AHS/SILSA Speech & Debate team. I am a lover of the written and spoken word who fell hard for forensics. I received my BA in English from Florida Atlantic University, and have judged local and national debate tournaments including out-rounds at Harvard, The Glenbrooks, Emory, The Tradition, Bronx, Sunvite and The Cal Invitational (Mostly LD, but also scores of speech and other debate event rounds).

General Paradigm
I am open to whatever kind of position you would like to run, but clarity and weighing is essential in fleshing-out arguments and my decision-making process. That being said, I do appreciate when debaters explain complex theory arguments. I grasp and enjoy K debate. I also do not retain details of all the obscure literature I've heard about. Just because it is a commonly used concept in competitive debate, don't assume that I understand how it interacts with your position. Explain stuff!!!

Speed/Delivery
I can follow most speeds.
I flow. Please slow down on authors and tags.

Speaker Points
I think that speaker points are unnecessarily arbitrary; I also know that giving every debater in a round 30s skews results. As such, I use speaker points as a rank. If you are the best debater in the round, you will get 29 points(30 will be reserved for a truly stunning performance), second best, 28.5 points, etc. I will only give you below a 26 in a round if I am offended about an argument or action in the round.

Policy Debate: I have only judged a handful of national policy tournaments. I understand the structure and basic principles, but much of the jargon is foreign to me, and explanation may be necessary to obtain my ballot.

I don't have any strong argumentative preferences. I don't think a dropped argument is true if I don't understand what the argument is.

LD: I've never debated or coached this format. It doesn't make any sense to me. I don't care about most of the theory arguments introduced. 

FOR COLLEGE TOURNAMENTS: ukydebate@gmail.com

FOR HS TOURNAMENTS:devanemdebate@gmail.com

My name is Devane (Da-Von) Murphy, and I'm the Associate Director of Debate at the University of Kentucky. My conflicts are Newark Science, Coppell High School, University High School, Rutgers-Newark, Dartmouth College, and the University of Kentucky. I debated 4 years of policy in high school and for some time in college, however, I've coached Lincoln-Douglas as well as Public Forum debaters so I should be good on all fronts. I ran all types of arguments in my career, from Politics to Deleuze and back, and my largest piece of advice to you with me in the back of the room is to run what you are comfortable with. Also, I stole this from Elijah Smith's philosophy

"If you are a policy team, please take into account that most of the "K" judges started by learning the rules of policy debate and competing traditionally. I respect your right to decide what debate means to you, but debate also means something to me and every other judge. Thinking about the form of your argument as something I may not be receptive to is much different from me saying that I don't appreciate the hard work you have done to produce the content"

***Emory LD Edit***

I'm a policy debater in training but I'm not completely oblivious to the different terms and strategies used in LD. That being said, I hate some of the things that are supposed to be "acceptable" in the activity. First, I HATE frivolous Theory debates. I will vote for it if I absolutely have to but I have VERY HIGH threshold and I will not be kind to your speaker points. Second, if your thing is to do whatever a "skeptrigger" is or something along that vein, please STRIKE me. It'd be a waste of your time as I have nothing to offer you educationally. Another argument that I probably will have a hard time evaluating is constitutivism/truth testing. Please compare impacts and tell me why I should vote for you. Other than that, everything else here is applicable. Have fun and if you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

DA's: I like these kinds of debates. My largest criticism is that if you are going to read a DA in front of me, please give some form of impact calculus that helps me to evaluate which argument should be prioritized with my ballot. And I'm not just saying calculus to mean timeframe, probability or magnitude but rather to ask for a comparison between the impacts offered in the round. (just a precursor but this is necessary for all arguments not just DA's)

CP's: I like CP's however for the abusive ones (and yes I'm referring to Consult, Condition, Multi-Plank, Sunset, etc.) Theoretical objections persuade me. I'm not saying don't run these in front of me however if someone runs theory please don't just gloss over it because it will be a reason to reject the argument and if its in the 2NR the team.

K's: I like the K too however that does not mean that I am completely familiar with the lit that you are reading as arguments. The easiest way to persuade me is to have contextualized links to the aff as well as not blazing through the intricate details of your stuff. Not to say I can't flow speed (college debate is kinda fast) I would rather not flow a bunch of high theory which would mean that I won't know what you're talking about. You really don't want me to not know what you're talking about. SERIOUSLY. I will lower your speaker points without hesitation

Framework: I'm usually debating on the K side of this, but I will vote on either side. If the negative is winning and impacting their decision-making impact over the impacts of the aff then I would vote negative. On the flip side, if the aff wins that the interpretation is a targeted method of skewing certain conversations and wins offense to the conversation, I would vote aff. This being said I go by my flow. Also, I'm honestly not too persuaded by fairness as an impact, but the decision-making parts of the argument intrigue me.

K-Affs/Performance: I'm 100% with these. However, they have to be done the right way. I don't wanna hear poetry spread at me at high speeds nor do I want to hear convoluted high theory without much explanation. That being said, I love to watch these kinds of debates and have been a part of a bunch of them.

Theory: I'll vote on it if you're impacting your standards. If you're spreading blocks, probably won't vote for it.

Update December 2020: I am removing from a mild head injury, I would probably advise against spreading especially with the online format.

Update January 2021: 60-75% speed is OK.

I am a special education teacher and coach debate for New Trier Township High School (IL). I debated Lincoln Douglas and some PF at Valley High School 2008-2013.

Online Debate: Please start the email chain before the round starts. YES, I would like to be included. megan.nubel@gmail.com. PLEASE slow down. If tournaments have guidelines/protocols for what to do if someone drops off the call, I will follow those. If not, please:

-Record your speeches on your own end in case someone drops off the call. If you do NOT do this, I'm sorry but I have to consider that your problem. If you are unable to for some reason please let me know before the round. You may want to record the speeches individually because some platforms/iPhone have length limits for recordings. Audio recording only is fine.

-If YOU drop off the call in the middle of the speech: finish the speech via recording and then send immediately via the email chain. We will time-check to verify your speech was within the time limit, etc. Your opponent will be provided with the time necessary to flow the recording.

-If YOUR OPPONENT drops off the call in the middle of the speech: finish your speech (again, you should be recording) and then immediately send via the email chain. I will provide up to the length of the missed speech for your opponent to flow before they must take prep/begin their speech.

-If YOUR JUDGE (me) drops off the call, finish your speech and send the recording at the end. I may rejoin prior to the end of the speech, but still send the recording so I can fill in the gaps. I will attempt to do so during prep time but may need additional time.

Overall: Debate the way you know how in the best way you can. Clearly explain your arguments, impacts, and interactions in the round. Articulate what my reason for the decision should be. Here's how I evaluate the round once it ends: (1) Look at the 2ar, decide whether there's anything the aff can win on, (2) if yes, consider neg interaction with that/those argument(s) and consider comparable neg offense then decide what wins, (3) if no, look at the NR and decide if there's anything that the neg can win on, (4) if still no, ???

General/neither here nor there:

-Sit wherever makes sense. I don't care which side sits in which place in the room, and feel free to sit or stand at any point in the debate.

-Flash before your speech but you don't need to use prep time to do so. Please flash analytics.

-I think brackets are fine in evidence if they are used *properly.* Please line down cards honestly and include full citations.

-The value is not particularly important to me; the value-criterion is how I evaluate the framework if it’s relevant in the round.

-I judge on the national circuit a few times tournaments year, so please don't expect me to know the general happenings or stock arguments.

-I don't flow off of speech docs but I will look at cards after the round (sometimes prompted, sometimes unprompted)

-Please disclose. There are some exceptions to this that are more lenient (local debater and you're not sure what that means, wiki down, etc) but if your opponent asks what the aff is, don’t leave them on read. You probably don’t have to disclose >30 min before the round but I’m open to hearing otherwise.

Arguments:

-I don't default to anything on theory or T, I just sit there very confused when things aren't explicit and justified. If you justify the argument once and it's dropped, then it becomes my default.

-I'm familiar with most types of arguments (traditional, disads, advantages, plans, theory, topicality, critical, types of counter-plans, types of perms). I have heard of and judged most frameworks used in debate but I'm not deeply knowledgeable about any.

-Sometimes I’ll get questions like “are you ok with...” or “will you listen to...” and the answer is yes. There are no arguments I feel so strongly about that I’ll reject them outright. I don’t even really have arguments I prefer. It’s my job to judge the debate so I do. That being said, I will react negatively if your argument feels abhorrent.

-Complete extensions are a must. Claim, warrant, and impact. Please do your impact analysis for me and address all aspects of the debate in your crystallization. If I don't clearly understand your side and ballot story, you might not get my vote because of confusion or misinterpretation on my end. Pre-correct for my potential judging errors in your speeches.

Delivery:

-I have high-frequency hearing loss so my ears ring. If you anticipate your speech will include very loud noises or high-frequency pitches from music, etc, please let me know.

-I'm not going to flow what I don't hear or understand. Sometimes I say clear or slow or louder if necessary. I don't always look at my keyboard or computer when I'm typing, so if I'm looking at you it doesn't necessarily mean I'm not flowing. I can type very fast so sometimes I’ll just flow extensions verbatim to sort them out later.

-If I'm flowing on paper you probably need to go about 60% of your top speed. If I am flowing on a computer it’s all good, just work up to your top speed and slow down on tags, transitions between offs, etc. If I miss the author name I just write “CARD/“ on my flow.

Please feel free to ask me about anything not mentioned here that might be pertinent to your debate. I can't say I have many strong opinions in any direction way when it comes to debate styles, arguments, etc.

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

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

Flashing/emailing is on prep time.

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

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

Mandatory scary stuff:

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



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


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

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

UPDATE CAL 2024

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

UC Berkeley 2018

East Kentwood Highschool 2016

Put me on the chain:

michaelobuchi@gmail.com

I like:

warrants, line by line, effort and humor

I don't like:

rudeness

I will hold the line on:

speech times, evidence quality and clipping

@cps people: If you give me a big picture overview in the 2n/2a breaking down the round and how i should write my ballot I will be very happy and will give you higher speaks

HS: Monte Vista High School (Danville, CA)

College: UC Berkeley

Short Version:

I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for 4 years, with dozens of rounds at circuit tournaments. I also competed in National Extemp, winning the California state tournament my senior year and finishing 12th in the nation. I’m open to literally any argument as long as you support it properly with well-linked logic and evidence, and explain it properly. Feel free to run K's, theory, etc. I'm ok, but not great with speed, but if you give me a copy of your case or speech before you give it, you can go as fast as you'd like. I judge from the top down; layer by layer. If you can distinguish yourself as the winner at the top layer, you win.

Long Version:

Background

I’m currently a second year student at UC Berkeley studying Economics and Public Policy. Over my four years at Monte Vista, I competed primarily in National Extemp and Lincoln Douglas, finishing 24th and 12th during my junior and senior years (respectively) at nationals in extemp. I also won the California state tournament my senior year in National Extemp. I've judged a few dozen rounds of LD at CPS, Stanford, and Berkeley.

Speaking Preferences

I’m fine with speed as long as it isn’t excessive; if you give me your cases or speech, go as fast as you want.

Argument Preferences

Theory - I'm fine with theory debate; I tend to prefer that you use it for actual abuse, but I'm happy to vote on it regardless of the reason you have for adding it as an element of the debate. I won't buy arguments that discount your opponent's use of theory solely because it's strategic or frivolous . If that's the case, you shouldn't have trouble identifying its meaninglessness. Slow down as you read your interps. Aside from the arguments being made in round, I default competing interps, drop the debater, RVIs, theory > K, fairness before education, but make arguments anyways for clarity.

T - T debate is very interesting, I enjoy hearing it, just make sure you explain your logic from top to bottom

Kritiks - I love critical arguments, they're awesome, but be sure to slow down for tags and explain main arguments. Also, when extending, be sure to explain why the card you're referencing is impactful.

Util - I'm super familiar with util arguments, just make sure that you explain methodology well and can weight impacts properly against other evidence. I'm definitely best on util arguments.

Framework - I'm a big fan of framework debate, but you'll have to do a good job explaining how your philosophy interacts with other layers of the debate round. Feel free to run unconventional framework.

Speaker Points

I'll default to 28.5 and go higher or lower based on the quality of your round. If you explain logic well and refute and extend in an organized fashion, you'll do well.

Other things that can cause your speaks to go up:

1. Treating your opponent with respect and giving them substantive explanations of your arguments if they're having trouble understanding.

2. Giving solid big-picture overviews

3. Making tag lines and delineations in your case and speech clear

I look forward to a well-argued, logically substantive debate!

Any questions? Email ryan.olson@berkeley.edu

Judging Paradigm for John Overing

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

Email: johnovering@berkeley.edu

Pre-Round Paradigm-Viewing:

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

Here's how you win in front of me:

1. Identify the issue that will win you the round

2. Collapse to that issue and win it

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

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

Disclosure

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

Speaker Points

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

Be clear, and do not spread. Make your arguments convincing and do not leave the work up to me to decide who should win or lose; you should stipulate in your speech and weigh impacts. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

I debated policy and LD at Lynbrook for 4 years and also some NPDA parli at UCLA. The best thing in debate for me was to have a critic with an open mind and the ability to listen to anything. I'll try to be this critic and always make my rfd based on how you tell me to frame the round provided.

T
I'm a huge fan of good T debates but please signpost well and slow down from your top speed.

Theory
Have an interpretation and articulate voters early in the round. The more time you spend on theory in the constructives, the more comfortable I'll be pulling the trigger.

CP/DA
I often went for agent cp/ptx as the 2N and believe that counterplan+disad strategy is one of the best answers to most policy affs. If you're reading politics, make sure to win the uniqueness debate and have solid evidence.

K
Ask me about specific K lit before the round but I've read most of the popular authors used in debate. Please warrant your arguments and focus on articulating how the alternative functions in relation to the affirmative. The K should interact with the case at a substantive level by turning some of the internal links. Also, most K debates come down to the perm so win and use the framework debate to your advantage.

Updated 4/11/23* Email: yungprk23@gmail.com

Me - I debated for Clovis North from 2012-2016. I debated for Cal from 2016-2018. Prior coach for Clovis North and BAUDL. Current coach for Leland High School.

Debate: Debate is a game, maybe it's more than just a game. I find myself adjudicating lots of these debates, and I find these discussions very interesting. Tell me what I should prefer. Some personal thoughts of mine for sake of transparency: I would like to believe that while we are all here to win, debate does have value to influence beliefs, inspire others, serve a platform for performances, and offer community for some. However, it is almost indisputable that competition, maybe for the sake of gamesmanship or maybe not, sustains the activity because it enables debaters to do what they need to do to win. Other side notes: I am indifferent to either a 9 off or 1 off strat, but what you decide to do might demonstrate some validity for conditionality arguments. Teams that treat their speeches as a story rather than a speech doc tend to be more engaging.

Topicality: The more you articulate your impacts or what the neg ground looks like in the world of the affirmative the better. If you want to run more than 3 T arguments, be my guest. Though when teams do this, explanations naturally tend to become repetitive. I will let the debaters choose if I will be weighing competing interpretations over reasonability or vice versa as long as you give a reason why one is better than the other.

Disads: Impact framing such as time frame and case turns are very persuasive arguments to me. External impacts also help me weigh the disad easily.

Counterplans: Do read solvency cards, or at least have a clear articulation of how the CP solves the aff. I don't necessarily need a specific solvency card if exploiting a plan flaw or reading a PIC. Net benefits to the CP vs external add-ons against the CP are often where I hang my decisions. Affirmatives should use their advantages as disads to the CP and pick out solvency deficits from the counterplan text.

Theory: It's a strategic procedural argument. I don't necessarily have strong feelings toward any theoretical positions. I am okay with teams reading 10 off or PICs that do the aff and spend 1 less dollar. However, this gives the other team more credibility if they read theory, but you could care less if you feel confident defending your position. I judge theory the same as I judge any other argument on the flow ie: impact calculus.

Framework/K Affs: - I've been on both sides of the argument, and I tend to judge these debates the majority of the time. For framework, offensive reasons why your interpretation matters in the debate and what the aff does to affect the general principles of the game. I am persuaded by arguments that list what specific affs under their counter-interp explode the limits of the topic. TVA's gain a large advantage over your opponents for strategic reasons. Both theoretical and substantive framework are great so long as you demonstrate your impacts whether that be fairness, movements, etc. Fairness can be a terminal impact. However, fairness can also not be an impact. Tell me what I should think of fairness and persuade me. Otherwise, movements/policy education are also great impacts. For K affirmatives, have some relationship to the topic whether that be negative or positive. Explain why you chose not to go through with traditional policy affirmatives and/or what model of debate you envision to be better. Impact turning framework or having internal link turns with residual offense are absolutely fine arguments.

Kritiks: Most of my experience lies here, but that doesn't mean i'll favor or give you leverage on your arguments in any way, it just means I know the literature enough to give better feedback and etc. High theory is strategic and fine but do be careful about buzzwords that aren't explained and assumed to be made true. Kritiks must be context specific to the aff. Just some of the authors I have knowledge of that might be useful: Marx, Wilderson, Lacan, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Moten, Kroker, Puar, etc.

Performance: Can be very strategic and enjoyable. However, you must have reasons why your performance was good and necessary. I will not allow speech times to be broken or interrupted, mid-round coach interventions, or anything silly of that sort - debate is an argumentative competition, just beat them at it.

Case: Probably one of the most underrated arguments people go for nowadays. I think case-turns, impact defense and solvency deficits are perfect. They lower the threshold of any risk to vote aff as well as give me reasons to weigh your other off-case positions more. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.

LD/Public Forum/Parli: I will likely view the debate from a policy perspective. This does not mean you have to change your style of debate. For example, this does not mean LD debaters need to change their value-value criterion structure and the same applies for public forum and parli. After all, you should do what you do best. However, because of my policy background, technicality and quality of evidence is super important to me. You may also decide to spread and/or read a plan, counterplans, disads, kritiks, and performative arguments. I will vote on these arguments even if unconventional in the practice. However, the other side may assert a theoretical argument that spreading has no place in a non-policy context. They could also assert a framework argument that policy and critical debates are bad alternative models of debate. If you do lean into a policy/K debate, then please feel free to read the rest of my paradigm above. In short, I am fair game and will evaluate such arguments as long as it is justified.

General Notes:

- Ask permission to record

- Don't clip cards

- Have fun! I recognize debate is competitive, but life is much more than debate. There is a clear line between passion and aggression. Give the proper respect to the other team and if for some reason this becomes a problem, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated: 2/19

I debated 4 years on the local and national circuit for Lake Highland Prep, graduating in 2016

Conflicts: Lake Highland

PF: Paradigm is pretty much the same as LD: I don't want to have to work to figure out who won the round—warrant arguments, weigh them, and if you do that better than your opponent you will win the round.

I’ll vote for whoever wins on the flow- to minimize intervention, arguments should be explicitly compared, weighed, and extended. Additionally, although I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments, if an argument is important, more emphasis/explanation should be given. Preclusion and internal link arguments should be explicitly warranted in order to make the debate easier to evaluate.

I’ll weigh arguments based on the paradigm presented to me in the round. Run what you are most comfortable with. As a default, I assume the resolution functions as a statement that the aff has to prove true and the neg has to prove false. If there is uncertainty as to which paradigm offense is to be evaluated in, I’ll do my best to adopt assumptions made by both debaters.

Theory: Competing Interps is my default, but make sure you state whether the violation results in dropping the arg/debater; to minimize intervention, I don’t default one or the other coming into the round. Additionally, I’ll be receptive to any abuse story- frivolous theory included.

Ks: I’m not familiar with most K literature, so slow down and explain arguments/how they interact in the bigger picture of the round. It should be clear to me how to evaluate offense under the ROTB/ROTJ (this goes for normative FWs too).

I can flow a medium level of speed and will say clear/slow as many times as needed but it will help to start off slowly and slow down for interps/anything else that should be flowed verbatim.

High speaks for clever arguments, efficiency and overall strategy.

TL;DR- In order to minimize intervention, I'll vote on any argument as long as it is warranted and I understand that warrant.

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask me before the round.

I don't have a personal preference for debate style, I'm interested in your content and interactions. I will flow as you all clarify, otherwise I will default to standard practices. I want you to practice the freedom to think critically, don't like an argument? Tell me why and impact it out. Don't like frameworks of debate? Tell me why, impact it out, also love alternatives but don't need them to win. Think I should toss the ballot? Same deal. Please practice respect for one another, this does factor into speaker points for me.

Email chain -- shivane.sabharwal98@gmail.com

berkeley update: havent judged in 2 years so go slow. also theres a lotta inexperienced debaters in the pool. be nice or your speaks shall suffer!

I debated at Mission San Jose High School in California for four years and graduated in 2016. I mostly read util and theory.

Debate is your activity and I don't have a strong preference for any particular sort of argument, so do whatever you want. I will vote on any argument as long as it is warranted.

I mainly assign speaks based on strategy and argument quality.

Please stop reading theory, especially disclosure theory, against debaters that are clearly less experienced than you. your speaks will suffer

I am an Assistant Coach for Milpitas High School. I have been judging since 2009. I have judged mostly LD and Public Forum and some policy. I PREFER persuasive delivery, NOT speed. I flow every round, but I do not flow at spread speed.

My Preferred Pronouns: she/her

For all debaters:
When you are speaking, stand up. I've noticed in some rounds that competitors do not even stand up and just sit and stare at their computers and talk as fast as they can. With me, their speaker points would be incredibly low for this. (Under 15) - This is a big no-no. Always stand up during your speeches. I WILL give low speaks for not standing during speeches.(You do not have to stand during grand crossfire in PF- this is the only exception).

Will I disclose results? Is it required? No? Then probably not. I will write feedback on the ballot though, including an RFD and other relevant information for you to read. I am a flow judge. Keep that in mind and try not to drop things on the flow.



LD

For novices:

I look for logic, good evidence, and DO NOT drop contentions. Support your value and criteria well with your contentions - there needs to be a link.

For Varsity:

Speed: No spreading. I do not flow spread speed. If you spread, I will not get everything you are saying down and I'm a flow judge. I've had top seeds lose a round to low seed because two judges split their decision and I was the deciding judge and the top seed spread the round. Just do not spread in a round with me if you want to win the round.

I do not have a particular philosophy concerning what I will vote on. If you can convince me, I'm open to it. This means almost anything... I'm open to theory, philosophy, Kritiks...If you are running a K, It may be more difficult for you to convince me but not impossible. IF you run a plan or CP though, keep in mind that I will judge you like I judge policy debates and I am a stock issues judge for policy - that means you have to meet ALL FIVE stock issues in order to win on AFF. (Topicality, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, and Significance). If you drop one or lose one, you lose the round. Also, do remember to be at least borderline respectful of each other. Stand up during speeches and during cross ex or I give reduced speaker points.



Public Forum

Always have framework. If you don't have framework, be prepared to consent to whatever framework your opponent lays out and prove that your case supports their framework better. Framework matters.

Be sure to have evidence to back up your claims (that you can show when asked for it by opponent or judge). Make sure you attack your opponents case as well as offer your own. Just offering your own case without attacking your opponents is not enough to win usually. I look for logic as well as evidence when attacking an opponent's case - it's always good to use both to support your own case and to attack your opponent's case. I like tags and cites and DATES. Use credible evidence. If I do not hear an author/date, I typically just write "blah blah" or "no source" on the flow, since I assume you are saying it yourself and it is not coming from a source. Do not cite Fox News or Wikipedia. Also do not use Huff Post unless you are saying the author name and credentials. Do not drop things on the flow. As a flow judge, that means if you drop something, you agree with it.




Policy

I have some experience with judging policy. I do not like speed. Speak clear, and in a reasonable pace or I will not be able to keep up with what you say and judge accordingly. If I put down my pen (or stop typing if I am using my computer at the time) while you are giving a speech and stare at you, it's because you are talking too fast and I can not write anything - it's a hint to slow down or you are not getting credit for anything you say. (In other words, do NOT spread with me). You do not have to talk slow though, as I've been judging for 5 years and can keep pace reasonably well.
I am a Stock issues judge and I generally follow this paradigm.
I do not have an issue with tag team cross ex. I also do not have an issue with flex prep. (Asking questions for clarifications during your own prep time)

Parli


Generally speaking AFF sets up how the round will be run in Parli debate. Depending on what type of debate AFF decides to run, see above on how I judge each type of debate. I'm a pretty consistent judge so if you run a plan count on me judging like I judge policy debate. If you run a Value debate, count on me judging you like I judge LD and so on.

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

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

Arguments

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

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

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

Procedure

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

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

I was a policy debater at the Harker school from 2012- 2016 and I now coach for the Harker LD team.

In short, read what you want as long as you understand it and can defend it. I read mostly policy arguments in high school although I do have experience debating against kritical and performative arguments. This means I'm going to be a lot more familiar with more traditional arguments, so if you're going to be reading other stuff make sure you explain it well and weigh it against your opponents arguments. That being said, I enjoy watching debates with case specific das and cps, as I find those have the most clash and development of arguments.

Speaking: SLOW DOWN AND BE MORE CLEAR WHEN READING ANALYTICS, THEORY, AND TAGS. I have had a lot of experience with debaters just speeding through these because they assume I'm going to know what they're saying and be able to type lightening fast. I am a human however, and I cannot flow that fast, and if I cannot flow you, I am much less likely to give you your arguments later in the debate. An extra note about tags, make sure I can tell the difference between the tag of a card and the text. I do not enjoy having to look at the speech doc to figure out when you're reading a tag, and it will hurt your speaker points and I will be at higher risk of missing an argument.

Change to my previous paradigm: I have found that as I judge more LD, I am more likely to vote on arguments that I had previously thought I would not. Therefore, feel free to read any theoretical or performative arguments that you like. You must, however, have a good reason for reading your arguments and be able to defend your position well, as usually in these debates I have little intrinsic bias as to which side I prefer. That being said, I still do not understand arguments like skep, rvis, and traditionally more "ld" arguments very well. If you do decide to read these, you should be extremely clear and explain your arguments very well. Otherwise, you are better off not preffing me or reading different arguments.

I am a student at UC Berkeley majoring in political science. I did speech and debate for 4 years at Carlsbad High School. I come primarily from a public forum background, but competed in policy and LD for a year each. I would warn against (real) spreading unless you are very clear.

For the most part, I do not intervene as a judge. The exception to this is in hypocrisy with critical arguments, which I will note and vote down for. It is also usually difficult for me to buy pre-fiat impacts. I will also vote you down if you are being blatantly rude and unnecessarily aggressive. Direct comparisons, very clear presentation and continued organization of the debate throughout the round are things that I like to see, and will make you favorable in my eyes as a judge.

If you have any questions about my political views/specific judging experiences/favorite color feel free to ask me before the round.

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

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

Congress

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

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

Public Forum

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

Policy Debate

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


LD Debate

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

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

I'm the current assistant coach at Coppell High School where I also have the lovely opportunity to teach Speech & Debate to great students. I did LD, Policy, and Worlds in High School (Newark Science '15) and a bit of Policy while I was in college (Stanford '19). I'm by no means "old" but I've been around long enough to appreciate different types of debate arguments at this point. As long as you're having fun, I can feel it and will probably have fun listening to you, too!

WSD

This is now my main event nowadays. Given my LD/Policy background, I do rely very heavily on my flow. That doesn't mean you have to be very techy--you should and can group arguments and do weighing--but I try my best to not just ignore concessions. Framing matters a lot to me because it helps me filter what impacts I should care about most by the end of the debate.

If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask.

Also follow @worldofwordsinstitute on Instagram or check out www.worldofworldsinstitute.com for quality WSD content :)

LD/Policy

I'd love to be on the email chain. My email is sunhee.simon@gmail.com

Pref shortcut for those of you who like those:

LARP: 1-2

K: 1-2

Phil: 1-2

Tricks: 5/strike

Theory (if it's your PRIMARY strat - otherwise I can be preffed higher): 3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.

LD + Policy

Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). I've also been mostly coaching and judging World Schools debate the past two years so you're going to need to slow down for me for sure. As the tournament goes on my ear adjusts but it's likely I'll say "slow" to get you to slow down. After 3 times, I won't do it anymore and will just stop listening.

Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 or 90 mins we're spending together! More info on specific things below:

Stock/Traditional Arguments

Makes sense.

Ks

I get this. The role of the ballots/framing is really helpful for me and usually where I look first.

T

I understand this. If reading against a K team I'd encourage you to make argument about how fairness/education relates to the theory of power/epistemology of the K. Would make all of our lives better and more interesting.

Theory

I also understand this. But don't abuse the privilege. I am not a friv theory fan so don't read it if you can (or else I might miss things as you blip through things).

Plans/CP/DAs

I understand this too. Slow down when the cards are shorter so I catch the tags.

I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun.

On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.

Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

Background: I competed on national and local level LD for all of high school during which I achieved moderate success and qualified to the TOC. I judged consistently throughout college and coached for 3 years on the national level. I have only judged a few times in the past two years. My pronouns are he/him/his.

Email for chain: calenjsmith@gmail.com

Warning: I haven't judged in a bit but find that I am still ok at keeping up in high speed rounds, though the Stanford 2021 tournament is my first virtual tournament so just check in throughout the round.

Speaking: I used to do and coach national circuit debate so I am fine with speed however my tolerance is diminished so I will probably be better at judging medium paced rounds. I will tell you to slow down. If I tell you to slow down I have probably already missed arguments you are making.

Substance: Ill judge any round (K, Theory, Substance, etc) I am probably more adapt at judging framework debates but I enjoy anything that is well explained and am happy to judge kritiks, theory, policy making etc.

hey all, i'm john spurlock. i debated for ckm for four years and currently debate for uc berkeley. when i used to do prefs, i was looking to answer four questions about the judge, so i'm just going to ask and answer those four questions as best i can.

1. is this person qualified/experienced enough to judge my debate?
well this is up to you, but i've been in policy debate for five years and had a lot of rounds at high levels of competition. i have some solid experience, and i've thought about debate a lot. i can't guarantee that i am qualified or experienced enough to judge your debate, but i can assure you that i feel qualified and experience enough to judge your debate (if that means anything lol).

2. is this person fine with the type(s) of argument(s) that i read in debates?
almost assuredly yes, i am convinced there is value in almost every form of debate and every type of argument. short of blatantly offensive argumentation, i am willing to consider almost every position that an aff or neg team might introduce. i've read framework, read no-plan affs, gone for politics, the k, etc. how you debate is so much more important than what you are debating about. i don't think there is any team that should not prefer me because of a certain type of argument that they make.

3. how does this person go about deciding debate rounds?
my process is slightly different for every debate that i judge, but i think there is an overall trend in my process based on the debates i've judged so far. i want to vote on arguments that are in the 2nr/2ar that i can easily trace back to previous neg/aff speeches. after the debate ends, i go through my flow and make a list of the key arguments from the 2nr and the 2ar in the debate. i put this on a separate sheet from my flow and try to assess (a) what i think the other team has said against this key claim, (b) whether it is new, (c) who wins this point, and (d) what impact this claim has on the debate. from here, i find myself able to render my decision.

4. what are the special things about this judge that i need to be aware of?
i'm probably like most judges in most ways, but i will include a few short facts here.
(a) i will probably flow on paper.
(b) i will almost assuredly not call for cards unless to settle a factual question. i will not call for cards in 98% of debates. i will not call for cards if you say "our evidence is good on this question." you need to explain to me why your evidence is good. you need to explain to me why their evidence is bad. i will not reward debaters who use cards as a substitute for argumentation.
(c) i need every speech that you give to be clear enough such that i can discern every word that you say. this includes the text of your cards. if i cannot understand you due to a prioritization of speed over clarity, you will suffer in speaker points and in terms of what arguments i count. this is related to point (b) in that the only way to prevent people from lying about the content of their cards is to be clear enough such that i can hear your cards.
(d) i place a high value on filtering and framing arguments in all styles of debates. your setting up a smart, strategic lens for how i evaluate the debate (and the impacts in the debate) can cause me to place a lesser weight on particular arguments even if you are not winning every single argument on the flow.

I debated LD for 2 years at Keller High School competing on both the local (TFA) and national circuit. I graduated from the George Washington University in 2016, where I did Policy for 3 years, British Parliamentary for 2 years, and public debate for 4 years. I'm currently a computer science Ph.D. student at UC Berkeley. 

First, some general pointers. I try not to intervene when it comes to my role as a judge. I'm fine with any argument or style of debate you're comfortable with as long as you explain to me how your arguments interact in the round.

Weighing impacts is essential. If you don't do the work in-round to weigh, I'll be forced to intervene and your speaks will suffer.  I feel like this happens most in Clash of Civs debates.  I prefer clear articulations of impacts in these rounds - e.g. what does the K give you that a topical aff wouldn't, or what education type is exclusive to a topical aff.  A pet peeve of mine is when debates are like two ships passing in the night, so be sure to weigh your arguments against your opponent's.

Speed: Speed won't be a problem for me, as long as you are clear. Don't sacrifice clarity for the sake of getting a few extra words in. I will yell clear or louder once or twice but after that, your speaker points will be docked and I'll fault you if I don't flow an argument due to clarity issues. Also, don't spread through a massive block of analytics or theory. Give appropriate breaks to write and please read slow enough to allow me to flow your interp! I will dock your speaks if you are being unnecessarily fast against a debater who is clearly more inexperienced - use common sense and be courteous if it is obvious you are better and don't need to spread.

Speaks: I cater speaker points on the tournament I am at and base them off of strategy and style. If you utilize CX, your speaks will go up. Your speaks are likely to be higher if you are kind and courteous to your opponent and me as a judge. My pet peeve is when debaters are rude or assholes in round, but doing this will only affect your speaker points.

Misc:

• Prep time stops when the speech doc has been assembled.  If you take a suspiciously long time to flash/email/share your speech doc, I will dock speaks harshly and call you out on it.  
• I haven't judged at all this year, and have judged primarily policy the past 4 years, so don't assume I know topic-specific nuances. 
• I like to be included on email chains - katstasaski [at] gmail.  If you have any specific questions, feel free to email me or ask me before round.
• Have fun!  :)

I've outlined specifics about the ways I evaluate LD and policy below.

LD

Resolution: I default to a truth-testing view of debate where the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the neg's is to prove it false. I'd prefer some standard or weighing mechanism to view the round. I'm fine with philosophically heavy frameworks, as long as you have warrants for them and can explain how your offense links.  I've ran non-topical and semi-topical affirmatives in the past, so I'm fine with non-topical K's, but be ready to explain why you couldn't have run a topical affirmative on this topic.

Extentions: When you extend a piece of evidence, you need to extend the warrant, not only the claim.  If a piece of evidence goes conceded, your extention can be short and sweet, but you still need to extend the warrant.  If you shadow-extend and blow up an argument in the 2AR, I'm unlikely to give it a lot of weight.

Theory/T: Theory or topicality needs to be in the form of a shell with an interp, violation, and voters. If you just tell me why your opponent is being unfair without any explanation of what I should do in terms of the ballot, I will probably disregard the argument. You need to be super clear on if the implication is drop the debater, drop the argument, etc. I default to theory is NOT an RVI unless reasons are made for why I should allow them. I default competing interps, but feel free to make arguments for reasonability. I defualt drop the argument.  My defaults only come into play if no arguments stating otherwise are made in-round. 

Kritiks: Please be able to explain what your K is saying. I was a kritikal policy debater and I love kritiks, but if you can't give a clear, concise explanation of what your argument is saying, please don't run a K. I prefer links that specific to the aff being run, not the resolution, but I will listen to either.  Moreover, I'm not a fan of rejection alts, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on them. Just be ready to explain why your K negates and answer theoretical objections.

Plans, DAs, and CPs: I am fine with these types of arguments in LD. When I debated LD, I ran a lot of plans and DAs, and I also ran them on the policy circuit. I think a good LARP debate is awesome. However, if you do choose to engage in this type of debate, justify your framework!  You need to do the work to justify util if you have extension impacts - it is not a given in my book.  I also recognize that these type of arguments are run different in LD vs Policy, so don't assume that just because I did policy that I won't listen to T.

Policy 

Topicality: I'm fine with topicality and theory, as long as you are doing all of the work for me to vote on it. I default to competing interpretations. Also, be sure to weigh strength of link to education and fairness. Weigh your standards against any counterstandards. Nothing is more annoying than multiple undisputed standards with no impact analysis. Also, if you choose to run ASPEC, you should ask the opposing team to specify an agent in CX. If they fail to specify one and are being abusive, then you can think about running ASPEC. I'm not a fan of petty theory arguments, so if you're adding a random 30 second shell into your 6-off, probably not worth it.

Ks: I was a kritikal debater and I'm fine with evaluating K's in debate. That being said, please be able to explain what your K is saying. Don't run a kritik if you don't understand what it is saying. If you can't clearly and concisely summarize your kritik, you shouldn't run one in front of me. I also prefer links that are specific to the affirmative, not the resolution, but I'll listen to either.

CPs: I'm down with CPs, but if you read a consult CP, there'd better be a damn good reason why. I'd prefer CPs to be uber specific to the aff's plan and have a solid solvency advocate.

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

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

email: s.stolte33@gmail.com

*I don't look at docs during the debate, if it isn't on my flow, I'm not evaluating it*

**prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'**

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate.

-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms:you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters. This also means:

3) Pen time. If you're going to read 10 blippy theory arguments back-to-back or spit out 5 different perms in a row, I'm not going get them all on my flow, you have to give judges time between args to catch it all. I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range28.4-28.5average;28.6-28.7 should clear;28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

Arjun Tambe

Co-director, The Debate Intensive

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

Send speech docs to - arjuntambe1 AT gmail

General Beliefs / Rules

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

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

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

Hard and Fast Rules

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

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

Counterplans and disads

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

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

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

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

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

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

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

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

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

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

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

Framework

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

Tricks and Triggers

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

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

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

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

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

Non-Intervention

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

Speed

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

Extensions

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

Evidence

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

Speaker Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rude or Unethical Actions

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

Card Clipping

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

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

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

Questions

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

Update for Loyola 2020

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

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

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

Update Pending

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

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

I want debaters to present their case clearly. I don't like it when debaters spread. I do not give points to others who say things that don't make sense, every single sentence of your case need to prove a point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cal debate 13-17, coached for Cal 18-22, currently coaching Houston.

I'm online for Georgetown but expect to judge in person at Texas and the NDT. Online, please slow down a bit and record your speeches in case there are connection issues.

Debate is for debaters; I'll vote for no-plan Affs, Ks, and even conditionality bad. Of course, arguments that attack opponents as people, wipeout*, spark, and "new Affs bad" will never be considered.

Default is judge kick. This can be reversed but requires ink before the 2AR.

I take judge instruction very seriously.

I have a very high bar for ethics challenges and will presume good faith error by the accused.

*Saying another value matters more than extinction is perfectly fine.

Howdy, I debated at Katy Taylor for four years, and I currently coach at Harker.

The following is copied and pasted from:

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fink%2C+Ryan

I've decided that debaters can flash me constructives if they want. This will help with the previously mentioned card clipping problem and also help me flow since debaters refuse to make obvious when cards end by whispering author names.

General Stuff

-I default to evaluating rounds via a comparing worlds paradigm
-I do not base speaker points based on speaking ability but rather based on strategic decisions in rebuttals which means your constructive can go against everything I stand for but have good issue selection and you'll get high speaks
-I am not persuaded by the extension of spikes to take out whole positions unless the implications of those spikes are clearly articulated within the AC
-I give the 1AR leeway on extensions 
-I will presume if I have to but not because a debater told me to. In the absence of offense I presume to whichever side is less of a shift from the status quo.
-If you get through a round without flashing problems you get higher speaker points
-if you make the round shorter you will get higher speaker points
-logical fallacy arguments reduce your speaker points



Theory:
-If your interp is a preposterous attempt to abuse competing interps my threshold for responses goes down
-RVIs are fine
-I meets or defense don’t get you an RVI in front of me
-Default competing interps and drop debater
-Philosophy args don’t disprove fairness or education as voters


Framework/Philosophy:
-Obvi I prefer util but you can read whatever you want
-I usually don’t know what dense phil frameworks actually say but I rarely feel that impacts the decision because neither does anyone else
-since I view debate rounds from a comparing worlds paradigm it means that skepticism and permissibility are probably defensive arguments
-I'm very persuaded by life is a pre req args


Critical Arguments:
-Familiar with some but not a lot of lit
-I personally believe topicality should be a constraint on critical AFFs but can be persuaded otherwise in round
-If you debate against a K you are much more likely to win with clash not shenanigans


Ask me questions if I've missed something important to you.

2024- 2/4/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:

Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:

Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:

I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:

Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:

Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:

Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:

Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:

Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:

Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School.

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

TOC Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution.

I don't want to hear spreading, kritiks, theory, etc. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

Additionally, I expect that your evidence abides by NSDA rules as outlined in the NSDA Evidence Guide. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time. I'll also cap your speaks at 28.5.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
5. Give judge instruction—tell me how to evaluate the debate.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

LD

I've judged over 1000 LD and policy rounds from novice locals to TOC elims. I am not particularly partial to a style in which you debate the topic, e.g. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., but I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the question of the debate start a few steps behind for me.

Ideological stances that might influence prefs:

1. Fairness and logic are good—args to the contrary are self-defeating.
2. The aff should defend the topic; the neg should disprove the aff—I've voted against framework/for Ks a decent amount too but it's just a tougher route to take in front of me.
3. Some tricks are fine, most stretch the definition of what counts as an argument—anything that relies almost entirely on your opponent dropping it probably isn't even worth making in front of me.
4. I think Nebel T is true, but tech > truth.
5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good; most other counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
6. I'm inclined to think that everything other than conditionality and T should be a reason to reject the arg. Most other theoretical objections aren't particularly persuasive to me.
7. I'm generally against sandbagging both in the 1NC and 1AR. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1AR make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean. How much "new-ness" is allowed in the 2NR or 2AR is obviously contextual but the default is that it's determined by how new your opponent was.
8. Ev ethics are important—I'll default to the NSDA Evidence Guide.
9. I'd prefer not to read your cards—I'd rather you explain them to me.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy. I'm not sure I have strong opinions about much else. Like most other judges, I like evidence quality, impact calculus, and strategic choices. Like most other judges, I dislike cheating, unclarity, and impropriety.

---

Traditional LD

I will NOT hesitate drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved.

1. Please time yourselves. Using a phone is fine.
2. Yes, off-time roadmaps are good.
3. Offense (why you win) is superior to defense (why you don't lose). I'm much more interested in the former; don't spend so much time on the latter.
4. The criterion/framework is not a voting issue. If you say it is, I'll make a big sad face :(.
5. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in debate. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence.
6. I prefer voting issues to be given as they arise on the flow, not in a discrete section at the end of rebuttal speeches.
7. You do not need to ask me to use your prep time (although I will keep track of time myself).
8. You can read my longer LD paradigm at the bottom for a more detailed view at my decision-making process.
9. You MUST follow the NSDA Evidence Rules (High School Manual here, shorter version here). I care deeply about evidentiary ethics in an academic event and I will not hesitate to punish to the full extent allowed by the rules up to, and including, voting against you.
10. I hate evasion. Direct clash with your opponent's central points is preferred.
11. I will keep a rigorous flow, time all speeches, and not hesitate to enforce those time limits.

Good luck!

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.