Hello fellow debate enthusiasts, you probably don't have a lot of time to read this, so I'll get straight to the point. I debated four years of CX debate at Caddo Magnet High in Shreveport, Louisiana (which really means I debated in Texas). I participated in the Harvard Round Robin and got a bid by getting to quarters of Harvard my senior year (2014-2015). I work at the UTNIF Debate camp held at UT Austin during the summer. I am currently in my senior year of college at Louisiana Tech University, where I am majoring in chemistry. As for gender, I am non-binary, specifically agender. Any pronouns are fine with me and you may take your pick of Cole or Juliet.

If you came here to see if you could run your weird and unique argument, the answer is yes, specifically I am fine with any word PIC ("the" PIC included) conditionality theory (my favorite), and many many other weird/sketchy K (and policy) arguments.

Short Version
I have debated everything from politics to the craziest K. I was a 2N for 3 years. Freshman year and sophomore year politics was my jam. Junior year anthro was my jam. Senior year as a 2A, Nietzsche Chaos aff I cut was my jam. Long story short, you do you, and I will do me. I am a tabula rasa- blank slate- I will do my best to only vote on things said in the round. All arguments are still arguments so at least answer them. I WILL VOTE ON ANYTHING.

Long Version

Top Level:
Tabula rasa- anything goes (within reason), debate is a game so play it, tech over truth (in most cases- you wont win that the sky is red or the ocean is orange, but you may win a link if the other team allows you to frame/explain their arguments in such a way that you get the link, even if it is just not true). Clarity over speed. Differentiate between tags and the body of the card. Signpost effectively because a happy judge means more speaker points. NEVER be rude to your opponents or your speaker points will get nuked (especially if you attempt to argue offensive arguments such as sexism or racism good). Keep everything professional and be sportsmanlike. Open C-X is cool as long as one partner doesn't dominate. For paperless, I don't count flashing as prep, but be reasonable and don't steal prep. Stick to the line-by-line instead of huge overviews for better clash. I'll try to keep my biases to a minimum and will basically evaluate the round as I am told (policymaker, academic, etc.). ALSO, bonus speaker points if you make funny references (or references to some of my favorite shows- i.e. Steven Universe, South Park, Adventure Time, Rick and Morty). A little humor never hurt anyone, but don't be disrespectful.

Case:
I love a good case debate with lots of clash. I think case is undervalued a lot these days and usually is underdeveloped. A hugely mitigated case can win you the round. I'm okay with generic impact defense and internal-link take-outs, but never forget analytics. Always point out logical fallacies or exaggerations made by the opponent. Not just for case either; this can apply to other off-case arguments, too.

Disads:
I love disads, but the internal link is where most disads fall apart. True links and true impacts are better than probable (or really, improbable) impacts, but the truth of anything is up for debate, as it should be. Always answer turns the case argument, because they can be damning. Bonus points for case-specific disads.

Counterplans:
Counterplans are awesome, but I'm willing to give the aff some leeway on theory for abusive counterplans like word PICs and process counterplans. On severance and intrinsic perms, I default to rejecting the argument and not the team (if theory is brought up). Again, case-specificity is amazing and will impress me.

Kritiks:
I can follow most critiques pretty well. That being said, don't expect me to do alt work for you. Alt work is the most important thing. Do all your tricky tricky K tricks but explain and impact them. K affs are fine too, but get ready for them framework debates. Please do not mispronounce your author the K is based around (Nietzsche for one).

Theory/Topicality:
Don't be blippy on theory. Slow down. If you don't, I can't flow and that means I may miss a crucial argument. You will get an extra speaker point for actually understanding theory and not reading blocks, but engaging in the warrants of education, fairness, predictability args, etc. RVI's are probably a waste of time. Potential abuse is a voter because its about competing visions of debate, but in-round abuse is also pretty persuasive. Don't just say reasonability - I don't know what it means to be reasonable.

Performance:
I haven't seen much performative debate, but as long as you follow relatively the same guidelines as for everything else (well-warranted explanations and lots of clash) there won't be any problems.

Obviously, I probably forgot something, so if this doesn't answer your questions, you can always ask me during the round :)

I am a former policy debate from Parkway High School in Bossier City, Louisiana. I am currently a coach for Parkway High School in Bossier City, Louisiana.

I am more likely to vote for a policy option than a Kritik or Kritikal Affirmative.

I have always liked a good Topicality debate as well as traditional disad/counterplan combos.

Ok with open cx, I want to be in on the e-mail chain because I cannot flow spreading as I once could. I will ask you to slow down or be clearer if I cannot hear/understand what you are saying.

I also do not tolerate post-rounding. If you would like feedback, you should listen respectfully and ask appropriate questions. Otherwise, your speaker points and ranks will be consequently impacted.

TLDR: I’m fine with any argument you want to throw at me. I prefer a good policy debate for novice, but I would love to hear a critical debate if it is a good one.

History: I debate for Caddo Magnet High, and I am a junior. I’ve been debating for 5 years in policy. I’ve run everything from politics and case to OOO and Anti-Blackness. Please don’t hold back a strategy because you think I won’t buy it.

T: I default to competing interpretations. If you do go for this, you need to have standards that are CLEARLY STATED. It’s not a question of if they are actually topical or not, but rather a question of how much you win that it is not topical. Topicality, for me at least, is evaluated as a disadvantage that if you win a significant risk of, you win the debate.

Framework: (See T) Also if the aff wins a significant risk of a critique to your framework, then they win. You have to do impact calculus with this because you go against arguments that deal with discourse rather than fiated action.

CP’s: I love really sketchy counterplans that have good solvency but sketchy action. Word PICs are great, Agent PICs are great. Perm do the counterplan is terrible. ALWAYS MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A NET BENEFIT.

DA’s: All disadvantages are great. Politics is the best argument for novices—it’s simple, easy to understand, and easy to vote on. Terrorism is one of my favorite arguments. In the 2NR I need a story of the DA.

K’s: One of the most strategic arguments in debate. Make a good case solvency claim in the 2NR so that you can mitigate a good chance of impact calculus. Floating PIKs are totally legitimate, but a dropped theory argument will cost you the round. This is the literature base that I’m most familiar with, but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t explain it as best you can.

K Affirmatives: Run them if you can. I love them when you have a plan text. If you have an advocacy statement, please ground it in some type of real and concrete action, but if it’s not concrete, explain why it’s not and why that’s good.

Ethicality arguments: Usually reasons to end the round—card clipping and internet use. Reasons I will refuse to vote for you—racism good and patriarchy good type arguments. You’ll get low speaker points—yelling at your partner or talking to people outside the room. 

I will evaluate anything that is fleshed out and meaningfully impacted as a voter in the round. If someone correctly believes they can run something coherently, their only fear should be how well the opponents will refute it.

That said, if I was to comment on a bias or "preference," it wouldn't be about the content of an argument, but its delivery. In close matches, I often find myself voting for the team which does a better job keeping the flow clean and organized. Making transitions clear is much appreciated and a speech which is more easily flowed is more easily remembered and analyzed afterwards, when its time to decide who wins which line of the flow.

Debated for Caddo Magnet 2014-2018

Assistant Coach @ Caddo Magnet

Law Student at LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center

General

Email chain: nathan.jagot@gmail.com

Prep ends when the speech doc is saved/flashed.

Don't take too long while you're "sending the doc over" and still typing.

Don't clip.

Evidence quality > evidence quantity.

Tech v. Truth is very much over-debated and over-theorized and I'm not sure why it is. If your evidence is correct/accurate about how things operate and your internal links are logical, then you're in the clear. Truth claims warrant a certain amount of technical skills to be won, just as technical arguments need a good deal of truth in reality to be won.

Debate's stressful. Be kind.

Play smart. Be scrappy.

A few of my debate coaches and people who helped shape how I approach everything: Neill Normand, Kasi & Jonathan McCartney, Sam Gustavson, Ian Dill, Darius White, Calen Martin, Cole Allen, Ethan Courtman, and Jake Crusan.

Frame your arguments:

If you can tell me what the central points of the debate are in the final rebuttals, make effective arguments and prove why you're winning, you will most likely win the debate. I think line by line is good, but that you also need to keep in mind the big picture/nexus question for the debate. Being wax poetic is especially good (but not necessary), but tell me what's most important and why, and explain it. "Even if" statements are also really useful in this situation, and be sure to use competing claims and why making the decision for you should be easy even if you're not winning the other/most important parts of the debate.

Be strategic:

Embedded clash is important. For argument extensions, make sure you have a claim, warrant, and an impact. Make sure you use this to your advantage and point out interactions between different arguments, be smart in pointing out double turns, etc.

Clarity > speed:

I'd rather hear a very engaging 4-5 off debate that has a variety of winning 2NRs against a certain aff, rather than a team who reads 8-10 off just to scare the other team. I'm not as inclined to the "throw 9 off at the wall to see what sticks" strategies. Not to be frank, but if you know you can beat an aff without going all out, do just that and make each component of the debate that much more convincing.

Slow down on blocks and analytics, because they're going to be the point in the debate where I really start paying attention to the arguments at hand and seeing how they function (also the point in the debate where you should explain them as such). Being efficient and prepared rather than fast and blippy until the 2NR is better than not.

Line by line is important:

This is very important and I think some debaters sadly forget about. Answer arguments in the order in which they appear - if "they say (x), but (x)" statements are helpful in this instance. Clean flows = good flows = organized debates = good debates.

CX:

CX should be treated as another speech. Write down your questions beforehand and have a strategy. Some judges flow CX, I tend to stray away of that, but I may star an argument a team mentions something multiple times or if an argument seemed to be critical for any particular side during CX. If an important argument is an effective turning point for the debate in CX, point it out in later speeches. Use your time wisely.

Critical Affirmatives:

I'm finding myself frustrated with a lot of these types of affirmatives. The 1AC should ground itself with a foundational disagreement with resolutional action (depending on the way the topic is worded) - meaning a solid, specific topic link - and go from there about debating it. Not doing so will likely result to me just voting negative on T. Debates where the affirmative identifies a problem with resolutional action and uses that as offense against framework/T-USfg are much more interesting than stale debates that recycle old K-affs that change 1-2 cards to fit the topic.

***I think for topics where the resolution mandates the USfg reduces something negative it does (like restrict immigration or reduce arms sales), reading an aff with a plan is much more legitimate than not reading a plan.

***Please ask questions about this. But, if I were debating and reading this paradigm, I'd stick with a plan.

T-USfg:

I think this is the most legitimate strategy against planless affs. Though it's a legitimate claim that the aff not using the USfg as an agent is unfair, you need to explain why in terms of why it's bad for normative debate practices and why it's bad that you can't engage with the aff as well as you could with one that had a specific policy proposal.

Fairness is an impact in itself, but that should be explained in terms of what unfairness is, how the affirmative makes it worse, and then funnel into discussion of other "greatest hits" impacts on the flow.

Make sure your TVA is logical and at accesses the affirmative's offense, and the aff answers need to be logical and established in order for me to not vote on it.

Well-thought out aff impact turns to T/Framework are convincing to me if executed effectively.

Framework should also be debated in the context of every aff - don't just read the same overview you do for every K aff. Specific overviews + reasons to reject the aff = higher speaks and more of a chance I'll vote for you.

Case:

You NEED to engage case. Smart analytics on case are just as good as impact turns/no solvency arguments. Make sure to utilize it, it's there for a reason. Interact with it, don't forget it. Scrap the 2-3 card DA that you won't extend past the 1NC and put some of that time and effort on case.

Good case debates about the warrants of the aff, internal link strength, sensibility, etc. are good. Debating case makes you better.

I like impact turns. I like it when teams read impact turns specific to the aff.

Spark = silly. I won't even bother telling you how silly it is---I'll give you my professors' emails and let you take it up with them.

Topicality:

Caselists = good.

Don't get bogged down in the non-essential details.

Competing interps when actually competitive = good.

Reasonability against arbitrary/asinine interps that are semi-ridiculous = 100% will vote on it.

Counterplans:

Long text = slow down.

Specific PICs are good, I like them. Debate them well.

Consult and conditions counterplans are fine as long as you defend them as you're supposed to practically and theoretically. Don't get too carried away.

Make sure it's actually competitive---this means it needs to access not only the impacts of the advantage, but the rest of the advantage itself.

Disadvantages:

The DA should have specific links to what the aff is talking about, or at least a claim that what the aff is fiating will cause what you say it will because it's that large of a policy.

Your block work on the DA should be thorough explanation, as well as lots of cards that prove your argument(s). Specific links/analysis to the aff are highly appreciated.

Lots of cards + lots of analysis = extra good.

Kritiks:

Being from a relatively small school, I understand their strategic value. If you think there may be a risk that I don't know what you mean, don't use buzz-words and be sure to explain your args well.

Couple of K things I value:

Link Contextualization---You absolutely need to win a link to the affirmative. Generic links rarely grab my attention, unless the aff just mishandles it completely. A K 1NC that has mechanism and content links to the aff (links to the aff's process, either K-based or state-based, depending on the type of aff) is better than a K 1NC that has the link arguments "state + scenario analysis bad," without mentioning the aff's advantages. A smart 2NR will go all-in on 1 or 2 solid links with clear impacts. Links should be able to turn case without winning the alternative (even though you should still win your alt), and should each have an impact-level claim that are distinct from the other links and that can independently win you the debate. But, you need to win the alternative to win the debate, tell my why it resolves your links specific to the aff and any other link you may read - this is where the links that fit the aff best come in. I'd rather hear the 2NR go for 2 solid links rather than 3-4 not-so-good links.

Framework---a decisive win on framework will make me much more likely to vote for you, regardless if you're aff or neg.

Theory:

I'll consider theory only if it is severely mishandled/conceded by the other team. I think having it as your A-game strategy isn't as strategic, but don't be discouraged and think you can't go for it in front of me, just remember there are certain times and places for those debates.

Conditionality is bad if an absurd number of advocacies are in the 1NC (more than 4 is questionable, but I'm open to a debate on whether or not that is true), but make sure to contextualize your theory blocks to the debate at hand and tell me why what they did in round is bad and incentivizes worse debates for everyone else. Tell me more of a story about what they did, why they should lose, and what your model of debate looks like under a certain interpretation (that isn't just repeating your interpretation you read in the 2AC/2NC).

Final rebuttals:

These should be used to write my ballot. Easy ways to do this are to do the "final review of the debate" at the top of the 2NR/2AR and then get into the substance/nuance of individual arguments you're winning on the flow.

If Debating In Louisiana:

You're on the clock. You can thank me after the round, don't use your speech time for it.

Explain your arguments well. Answer your opponents' arguments well. I judge LD sometimes in-state because of tab-based restraints and something I've noticed is a severe lack of clash in these debates, and I think forcing yourself to interact with the other team's arguments is generally a good thing in debate.

Good luck and have fun!

Spreading, I need to be able to understand you. I'm flowing by listening, and if I can't understand it, I will not flow it.

  I will vote on anything if you explain it well.   Time yourselves. Flash quickly.  

I will not give an oral critique to students who are disrespectful or try to change my decision in any way. 

I did policy debate in high school for 4 years, and now do APDA (and to a lesser extent British Parliamentary) at Boston University. I have been disconnected from policy debate for a few years, as I've been doing parli instead. Essentially, I will vote on anything. I am perfectly fine with kritikal arguments on both the aff and the neg, so feel free to run those. I am also fine with standard policy arguments. Regarding Topicality, in order for me to vote on T a clear violation needs to be proven with fair standards and limits. That being said, I have no qualms voting on T, if a lot of arguments are dropped.In a more general sense, I prioritize warrants and internal link chains more than the average policy judge, especially in terms of weighing this in impact calc at the end of the round. I try my best efforts to not be an interventionist judge in the slightest, as I think this is one of the most important factors of a judging philosophy. This means as a debater, the best way to win the round is to essentially write the RFD for me.

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

Current Debate Coach at Caddo Magnet HS

LHSSL Executive Secretary

email: Kasi.mccartney@gmail.com

Please show up on time. Have email chains, stands and other needs set up before the start time of the round.

I generally look to the fastest and easiest way to resolve the debate. In order to win you should make clear impact calculus throughout the debate and provide a specific path for round resolution in the 2NR/2AR. First tell me how you win the round, then tell me why even if I buy into some of the other team's arguments you should still win. This is how you win my ballot.

I default to a policy maker framework. I will vote for non-policy strategies but they MUST present a clean structure for their impacts. I prefer the affirmative to have a plan text. I do not consider myself an activist or that my role is to balance forces within the debate community.

Identity Politics - You should probably not pref me. You MUST have a link to the aff or specific in round actions for me to vote on this. I understand and sympathize with the issues in round, but this is not my preferred argument. It will take a lot of convincing to get me to vote on a strategy that is outside the resolutional bounds. I ultimately believe that traditional forms of debate have value.

Theory – I think theory is definitely a voting issue, but there needs to be some form of in round abuse for me to truly buy that it is a reason alone to reject one team or the other. I do not think that simply kicking a CP in block is a time skew that is truly worth voting against a neg team unless there are other circumstances. I don't like CP's with lots of planks. I think that it makes the debate too messy.

Case - I must say I have a hard time being persuaded that the negative has enough weight on their side to win with only case defense and a DA. What can I say, I'm a product of the late 90's. I much prefer to have a CP/K in there to give the flexibility, especially with a topic that allows for affirmatives to have heavy military impacts. Please be careful and make sure that if you takea case only route that you attack each advantage with offense and have a very very weighty DA on your side.

Kritiks- Not my bread and butter, although I do understand their strategic benefit, having come from an underfunded public school. It is my preference that K’s have a clear order and structure. I will vote on the K if you win that your impacts outweigh the impacts of the plan and that there is a true need for action, but I would not be the judge to introduce an extremely loose and unstructured argument to. I understand and buy into threat construction and realism claims, but in the end, I much prefer a well executed CP and politics debate to a poorly executed critical strategy. You will need to a have link specific to the plan. Links based off of the SQ will not be enough for me.

Framework - I default to the framework that the aff can weight the impacts of their plan versus the impacts of the neg.

Impacts – I believe that impact analysis is at the heart of a judging decision. You are an advocate for your arguments and as such you should provide insight and analysis as to why your specific impacts are the greatest in the round, how they should be evaluated by the judge and how they change the evaluation of the impacts to the other team’s case. Without this assessment I feel like you leave too much wiggle room for the judge to pick their personal preference of impact.

T - normally I like T. I default to competing interpretations. I think CX checks for ASPEC. I dont buy RVI's. I like for there to be a robust discussion of specific ground loss and the impact that it would have on debate as a whole.

Speaker points- Speed can be an advantage in the round and should be encouraged, but always with the intent of being clear first. My ability to clearly understand your arguments is crucial to getting them evaluated at the end of the round. The ability to provide analytics and analysis in the round will get you much further with me. As far as CX is concerned, I simply ask that the person who is supposed to be asking/answering the questions, gets the first shot at speaking. If they ask for help that’s perfectly fine, but don’t overwhelm your partner’s ability to conduct their own cx. Baseline speaks for me is 28.5 and you move up or down from there. I hardly ever give above a 29.5

Matthew R. Moore - Debate Coach at Ruston High School

I have been coaching debate for two years and was a competitor in high school for four. I have a preference for policy rounds, but I will listen to whatever arguments you use and try to not insert my own opinions into the round as much as possible. More specifics below:

Topicality: I believe this is a burden affirmatives should meet. I have little sympathy for affs who claim that they don't have to be topical. That said, I don't find myself voting neg on topicality all that often. In most close T debate, I tend to side with the affirmative.

Disadvantages: I love DAs and enjoy a good DA debate. I like politics.

Counterplans: These are great too, especially when combined with DAs to make a great strat. You can run your counterplan however you like. I will also listen to any theory arguments you make, more on that below.

Kritiks: As I said, I'm a policy guy at heart, but I have no problem with teams running kritiks. Make sure you are clearly explaining what it is you are criticizing and how your alternative solves. Also, as much as possible, please avoid the esoteric language that makes some kritiks almost indecipherable. If I can't understand it, I won't vote for it.

Theory: I have a fairly high threshold for theory. I am much more likely to use theory to reject the argument rather than the team. If you want me to reject the team, there had better be a very serious violation.

Speed: I am fine with spreading. Please clearly distinguish between cards. Also, please slow down on your theory and analytics. If I can't flow it, I'm not going to give you the argument. I will say "clear" if I'm having trouble understanding you.

Case: I am used to traditional cases that have plan texts and advantages. If you are doing something different, I need to be clear on what you are advocating. As stated above, you need to be topical.

Other notes:

• I do not take prep for flashing as long as you don't abuse it
• I'm not a huge fan of flex prep
• I like evidence to be clearly and specifically extended. Simply saying "extend my economy advantage" is insufficient.

Updated:12/1/22

NOTE: This paradigm is meant for policy debate. If I am judging you in any other form of debate then what I have below does still apply but I am not all that familiar with the format or norms of argumentation for other forms of debate. If there is a specific way in which your form of debate should be framed and evaluated, it is your responsibility for making that known and then forwarding an argument about why it should be evaluated in that way.

About Me:

• I competed in policy debate at Ruston High School.
• I did some coaching and judging and debating while in college at Tulane, where I received a Masters in Policy Economics.
• I work as a research associate at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
• I prefer a good policy debate with an intensive case debate and relevant disadvantages over a critical debate. See the Kritik section if you are thinking about running one.

Big Picture:

• Sportsmanship: Debate is a platform by which competitors mutually enter into an academic environment to pursue education. If you do not respect your competitors, your speaker points will reflect it. With that being said, I am open to debates about what the academic environment should look like.
• Communication: It is the job of the debater to effectively convey their point. It is the debater's responsibility for making sure that the judge clearly understands their points. I do not enjoy yelling "Clear," but I will do it 3 times before I stop flowing entirely. Likewise, your speaker points will suffer for each time I have to intervene. Because debate is contingent upon good communication, I do not want to be added to the email chain or to be given evidence to follow along with as this defeats the purpose for actually speaking (if the tournament is in-person). I make exceptions if the tournament is online, as poor internet quality and natural technological hiccups can result in me missing arguments that would have otherwise been effectively communicated.
• Prep: Flash time does count as prep time. Clearly say when you are starting and ending prep. I will penalize teams that appear to be doing prep after they have ended prep.
• Speaker Points: Speaker points are contingent upon a variety of factors including: clarity, road-mapping, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, effective participation in CX, a constructive speech, and a rebuttal, merits of your strategy, and presentation.
• Flowing: I evaluate the debate entirely off of my flow. It is your responsibility to ensure that you are clear enough for me to flow you. If it is not on my flow, do not expect me to "fill in the blanks." If there is evidence in contention, I will call for it after the round to see what it actually says. If the tournament is in-person, I do not want to be added to your email chain, if it is online, ask me for my email and please add me.It is in your best interests to accurately represent the author's argument.
• Evidence: I reward teams who use quality evidence over a hot jumble of buzzwords. If a card is in question, I will call for it after the round. I give credit to an author's credentials and I think you should too. I should not have to read un-highlighted parts of your evidence to understand it. I have no tolerance for clipping, or jumping around parts of a card unannounced. If you mark a card, you better have it clearly marked on your document.
• Decision Making: The way I judge the debate is entirely up to you. I will default to whatever I am told to do. Therefore, it is important to win framing arguments if you expect to win the round.

Specifics:

• Topicality:
  • I prefer the Aff actually have a plan or advocacy statement.
  • T is always a potential voter, but the negative must show an actual violation of the definition and prove in-round abuse for me to actually want to vote for it. With that being said, if the other team drops it entirely, of course I will vote on T.
  • The more specific the better.
• Kritiks:
  • Must have an alternative
  • Alt must solve
  • Must win Framework debate if you expect to win the K
  • Must prove why thinking and acting are opportunity costs. If your alternative does not involve an action, but instead is something that can and does take place solely in the mind, then there better be a reason why you can't think in a different way to fulfill the alt while also doing a policy action to solve the Aff. In other words, I hold the negative to a high threshold on permutation debates.
  • Although I ran and debated against Kritiks a lot in high school, I am honestly not that big of a fan of them. Run them at your own risk: I hold Kritiks to a high threshold both on the link debate and the alt solvency debate. I am fair though, if your opponents do not prove why such a high threshold should be imposed and you are winning these debates along with the framework debate, you will win the K.
• Performance:
  • Must have a purpose
  • Must prove why conventional policy debate doesn't work to represent your point and why I should value your point
  • If you break from the conventional platform of debate only to be funny, expect to lose. With that being said, I think performances can serve a vital role in advocacy if it is sincere
• Counter Plans:
  • I love a good theory debate.
  • I also love coherent Neg strats meaning that DAs that link to the CP will hurt you.
  • Read CP text slowly and clearly enough for me to actually flow it (like seriously, if I could bold this anymore, I would)
  • I seriously doubt your one terrible card below your generic CP text makes it all that much better than the 8 minute 1AC.
• Disadvantages:
  • Please have current Uniqueness cards
  • Not every impact has to be nuclear war or extinction, but I will evaluate them as they are presented.
  • I love impact calc debates

Rhys Waters

I've been in the debate world since 2010 in both Policy and IPDA. I debated in college with the IPDA format until 2017 and I currently assist with high schools' CX squads.

General

While spreading please speak clearly with the taglines/analytics. If I can't understand you then I can't flow your arguments. I will say "clear" if I can't understand you. I will only say it twice. After the 2nd time I will only flow what I can understand.

I don't like messy debates (just like everyone else). I like a good line by line.

I don't take prep time for flashing evidence unless it starts taking way longer than it should.

K

I'm fine with Ks, even if they're squirrelly. That being said, if you plan to run a K, make sure you make it understandable. If it's messy and confusing then don't expect me to evaluate it. Explain it like I'm five. I'm a history major, not a philosophy major. If you don't, I will tend to default to policy.

That being said, if I understand it I'm down for whatever you want to run.

T

I love Topicality and so I have high expectations for it.

I won't vote on it if you don't show abuse, even if the other team drops the argument completely.

CP and DA

I can dig it.

Framework

Again, if I understand it I'll run with it. I love being told how to weigh the round.

CX

I prefer closed CX. I want to know what you know, not what your partner knows.

With that being said, for NCX I want only closed CX.

For VCX I'll allow open but if one partner is answering too much then I will close it.

Other

If you have questions please ask them! It won't hurt my feelings and it can only help you!

You can also email me at rhyswaters7497@yahoo.com

tl:dr

I'm down with anything but if I don't understand it, I don't flow it.

I did debate policy debate for four years, primarily on the nat circuit. I was a 2A and pretty much solely a K debater. I don't have much experience with the criminal justice topic. Pronouns: she/her

TL;DR: Run whatever you want; I will evaluate any arguments you make, but I will not do the work for you. You should go with whatever strategy you think you can execute best. That being said, I am probably a better judge for K-oriented teams than teams that run 7 off every neg round and love getting super techy, especially since I've been a bit removed from the debate world for a minute, although I won't hesitate to vote up FW, a DA, or a policy aff if it's the most compelling arg in the round.

Here are my personal thoughts regarding specific arguments:

T: I hold T to a high standard. Generic T shells with no insight as to why the aff is uniquely bad will not convince me. You will also need to articulate and win impacts to the T as well as why it should be an a priori issue. A 2NR on T will need to be legitimately convincing. I've noticed that a lot of teams are now trying to combine T and FW into one argument, which is basically a huge headache to listen to; either make them two separate arguments or pick one. I default to competing interps.

CPs: I don't usually have a problem with multiple CPs as long as doesn't get too wild (7 conditional CPs is probably not legit). You need to have a clearly articulated net benefit as well as an explanation of whatever aff solvency there is. If you are aff, I need an explanation of why the perm functions as well as solvency deficits/net benefits to the perm. Super complex CP theory is annoying to me because I've never really done that type of debate, I can still follow it but make sure you slow down. PICs are usually fine as long as there's a clear reason they're distinct from the aff.

DAs: Sure. Having reasons why the DA turns the case is strongly suggested.

Theory: Being primarily a K debater, I'm biased against uber conservative theory (like Ks bad, etc). You need to prove in-round abuse, you're not likely to win the round on potential abuse with me as a judge. You are also probably not going to win the round on a minor theory arg. All theory args should have a clear structure; you can make a vagueness bad arg or whatever but if you don't impact it out I'm not voting on it. Your arguments should be specific to the round and the violation at hand.

Ks: I love Ks, and I'm familiar with all of the common authors used in debate rounds. That being said, don't assume I know your lit base. The link debate is very important to me as well as the framing of the kritik; do not assume I know how you want me to weigh certain arguments or that I know how you want me to view the aff. Also, if you're going to run a K, please know what you're talking about. There is nothing more frustrating than when someone reads a K with absolutely no knowledge of the subject or what the K does. Don't do it. That being said, I love judging K vs. policy or K vs. K debates and seeing teams do cool new things with critically based argumentation, provided that it's executed well.

K affs: I'm down with K affs, but you need to have clear reasons as to why your advocacy is uniquely important and can effectively resolve whatever harms you isolate. Again, don't assume I know your lit base. I was a 2A who almost exclusively ran K affs so I can def get behind this style of debate. If you have me as a judge, it's probably better if your aff does a thing, but I don't need a plan text/advocacy statement.

Framework: If you are running framework against a K aff, I will hold it to a high standard and you will need to be able to articulate impacts/reasons why their advocacy is uniquely bad for debate. Again, I was a 2A who ran K affs for all of high school, so I would appreciate hearing new and/or less generic framework args instead of the same shells your team has been reading for years. I love a good TVA.

Speaks: 28 is average. My speaks will almost always range between 27-29.5. If you are completely apathetic about the debate (e.g. hardly using your speech time or clearly not making an effort) I will go lower than that. If you say anything seriously offensive/problematic I will give you the lowest speaks possible.

Arguments I Really Hate: Obnoxious troll arguments and racism/sexism/ableism/etc good arguments. I'll flow the arguments, but know that it will kill your speaker points and I will have a conversation with you and your coach after the round. There will be a very low threshold for the other team with these arguments.

Other: Speed is great, but be clear on tags, and slow down on your theory blocks if you read them. If I can't understand you, I cannot evaluate the arguments you make, and I won't hesitate to shout out "clear" during your speech if it comes to that. Profanity doesn't bother me as long as you don't say anything that's actually problematic, but if you say a slur you can't reclaim during the round and it's brought to my attention I will automatically vote you down. Don't be disrespectful to your opponents, your partner, or me. Don't post-round me either. Open CX is fine as long as you don't overwhelm your partner. I don't take prep for flashing evidence. Yes, I want to be on the email chain, and you can email me if you have any questions: amandawatson1119@gmail.com