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 did policy debate during high school and judged both policy and LD for several years during college.  I haven't judged for 20 years, however, so I will make a reasonable tabula rasa judge if I can understand your speed and jargon.  I hear LD has changed a lot while I've been away.  I will judge the way you argue clearly that I should. 

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

Judging Philosophy 

Debate is fun and educational, I strongly believe the learning is much more important than just simply winning a round.  I’m a high tech person in financial industry dealing a lot with sales and lawyers. Usually, I choose winner as the one has more potential to be a successful salesperson or attorney in future based on the following three elements:

• Framework and Theory: I’m a lay LD judge so I prefer you emailing me the documents prior to the debate. I do give credits for those producing high quality works.
• Arguments: I like arguments with clear and consistent evidence in CX and rebuttals. Don’t forget I’m a ‘dummy’ to your resolutions. So please tell me why your framework is better than your opponent’s or if your opponent drops something to your case argument.
• Presentation Skills: respectful, professional, and fun.

 Speak Points: 27 – OK;  28- Good;  29 - Very Good

Edit in progress! It will reflect the fact that I have not coached policy in a few years. Still a fan, but I'm rusty on what all the cool kids are doing these days.

Policy:

I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.

I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.

If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.

A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -

I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.

PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.

Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.

I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.

IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.

Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.

And have fun.

Lincoln Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.

If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.

As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.

Public Forum:

I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!

More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, and never show contempt.

Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partners' speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I see two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.

Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.

I am okay with paraphrased evidence, but make sure to represent the facts and perspectives of your sources accurately. If I ask for a card after the round, I want to see the paragraph before the portion (highlighted) read, the paragraph after, and of course, the evidence itself, with all non-read portions viewable as well. Do not send or show me a 30-page journal article.

I prefer that you begin to narrow the debate in your summary speech, and then highlight voters in your final focus. Maybe that's obvious?

Anyone, good luck, have fun.

Matt DeLateur

Update 1/14/2023: I find the trend of cards (especially in CX) not being cut into full sentences extremely confusing, both theoretically and practically. I continue to reemphasize -- strategic vision and crystallization are drastically underrated. I don't understand why most CX debates only have substantial clash happening in the 1nr and beyond. Most advantage scenarios and disads I hear these days are mostly based on equivocations of language "we help some program that marginally involves AI" --> "runaway AI mech robots on the battlefield goes nuclear" --> "we solve nuke war". A trained leopard seal being offered a meagre amount of sardines could probably articulate why this is terrible logic. I fail to understand why the response I frequently see in situations like this not to point out fundamental leaps in logic, but to read equally badly warranted and tagged cards in a giant block, doing no line-by-line comparison of warrants. Anyway, I'm an old man, who will radically reward you for debating in a way that shows you are listening to your opponent, asking whether they have warrants and whether those warrants make sense.

CHSSA STATE UPDATE 4/24/2021: Please debate at maximum a medium speed, or run the risk of me not following anything you're saying. I think the state tournament should not be a circuit tournament -- you can still go fast, but if I stop understanding what you're saying, due to lack of clarity or explanation, I stop flowing. Strategic tips: if an opponent's link chain is bad, I will give you a lot of credit for pointing that out -- terminal defense on crappy link chains is a thing imo.

UPDATE 10/14/2017: In terms of circuit debate, I am a broken man. LD has left all sense of reason behind and now exists in an abject of state of meaningless noise. I started competing and coaching LD debate because normative ethical philosophy deserves rigorous intellectual engagement. But, though I understand there are other ways to debate, their execution in LD debate makes me want to do anything else but listen. Please, for the future, strike me if you want to read policy back-files and stupid link-chain disads or if you think debating the k without reading a framework is somehow responsive. Also, theory-hacks, please strike me. If you know how to spell philosophy and can articulate why LD is different than policy, I'm your judge. Otherwise, I reluctantly will be physically present in your round but may be more than a little emotionally and spiritually disturbed. Your humble servant, Matt DeLateur.

I debated LD for 4 years in high school and currently coach LD for Bellarmine College Preparatory. I'm open to all argumentation; speed is not an issue. The ultimate guideline behind my decision-making is that I will minimize intervention on the flow as much as possible.

Style Preferences:

Delivery: Speed is not a problem. Clarity is underrated--pauses before and after author names and during theory or analytics are good.

Speaks: Technical skill, strategy, delivery, clarity, and creativity all contribute to speaker points. My speaker points are probably higher than average.

In my view, speaker points are my way to act as an educator without being coercive with the ballot. That means if you run a topic specific plan, counter-plan, cogent D/As, innovative arguments, debate stock arguments in a positional and interesting way (or even-uninterestingly), topic specific or non-topic specific Ks, etc., you need not worry about your argumentative choices influencing your speaker points. If you choose to run any of the following things: hidden a-prioris, generic potential abuse theory shells (this is an arbitrary bright-line--use your gut--if you're running the shell simply to be strategic rather than because there is abuse, you and I probably know it), new 1AR advocacies, or anything else which I feel comfortable saying would significantly diminish the educational potential of the debate round, I reserve the right to influence the shape of the debate community using speaks.

If this seems unfair/mean to you or if any of the things I listed above that I don't like compose crucial parts of your strategy, please strike me. Otherwise, I like to think that if we agree on the above discussion of what creates an educational activity, we'll get along just fine.

LD Argumentative Preferences:

Framework: Most LD rounds and every LD resolution breaks down to competing value frameworks. As such, the easiest way to access my ballot is to either a) be very interactive and clash directly with the internal warrants of your opponent's differing system for evaluating what is important in the round, then establish yourself as the sole person with offense to the standard or b) concede the framework but uphold your burden to be comparative through really good weighing. Weighing and offense are key. I will evaluate truth-testing if it is argued for, but I default comparative worlds.
Edit 11/5/13: Recent framework debates are narrowing towards two frameworks that are meant to preclude "all other standards" for a bunch of varying reasons. Those reasons may be completely sound and valid. However, a poor debater will simply extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first. A skilled debater will rather extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first, but also compare the competing claims to priority that the other debater has made for their preclusive standard. I find debaters making this analysis is very productive insofar as it minimizes my intervention. Choosing between two standards that claim to "come first" without any comparison proves relatively difficult for a judge to remain neutral.

A-prioris: I don't necessarily find these arguments inherently bad in themselves. For me to vote on them, you need to 1) Win Truth-testing, or impact the implication of the a-priori to a comparative world 2) Win the a-priori. However, for me not to tank your speaks, you need to 1) clearly impact any a-prioris in your constructive speech, meaning that argument must be labeled as an independent reason to vote for you 2) Be absolutely clear and cogent if questioned about the implication/function of these arguments in cross-examination. Failure to do either of the above conditions will not cause me to vote against you, but I will exercise my subjective control over speaks as I see fit. If you meet the above two, I have absolutely no problem voting on these arguments.

Kritiks: I'm well versed in critical literature and by the end of my time in high school I was primarily a critical debater. Feel free to run anything you want. Be sure to understand your case though--nothing is worse than someone completely bastardizing an argument because they a) didn't cut it b) didn't understand it

Theory: I find theory uninteresting. That being said, it isn't my role to tell you how you spend your weekends. I will listen to any theory argument. I default competing interpretations. My thinking on RVIs has changed a touch, I tend to think that if the debater who initiates theory chooses to make theory drop the debater, theory should be an RVI. If theory is drop the argument, theory is not an RVI. If you make this argument, I will be very receptive to it.

Being blatantly offensive (rape good, racism good, patriarchy good) will earn 0 speaker points and a loss. Debate should be an inclusive and safe environment.

I debated for four years throughout high school. I have a background in LD, PF, and Policy, thus I can follow whatever you decide to throw at me.

What I look for:

• Strong framework -at the least have definitions and a weighing mechanism for the round.
• Clash - don't just ignore your opponents case.
• Evidence to back up argumentation.
• Articulate your point -you can go as fast as you want as long as I can understand you. 
• Cross ex questions/answers will not factor into my decision unless they are brought up during speeches.
• Be civil. 

What I dislike:

• Attacking your opponent as a person or otherwise acting like a jerk. 

Of note:

• I allow flux prep.
• Low-point wins are possible.

Green Valley High School- Nevada

            2 Years Lincoln Douglas

            2 Years Public Forum

Lincoln Douglas

I did LD for two years of my high school career.

Speed: I do not mind speed but please be clear, If I cannot understand you; I will not flow you.

Framework: Highly important, state points clearly.

Cross-X: I do not flow cross-x, but I do pay attention to what happens. That is time for you to figure out and exploit weaknesses in your opponent’s case. If something important pops up during that time, tell me during your speeches.

Other things: One thing that I judge the most off of is the warrants offered during the round. Give me concrete and clear reasons why you either won an argument or the round (if you feel the need to say it).

I do allow flex prep, but do not abuse it.

Do not attack your opponent as a person, that’s just being a jerk. Clash with your opponent should be clear, civil, and well warranted.

Actually follow/adjust to a paradigm. That's why they are there.

Any other questions, feel free to ask me.

Have fun!

I did policy for 2 years. tldr: I'm straightforward as a judge and don't have any outlandish standards I will hold you to.

You are fine reading whatever you are the most comfortable with in front of me. I think that there can be value in most any type of debate and will do my best to properly adjudicate who won no matter what style the debaters may choose, whether that be through policy arguments or kritikal arguments. I don't think there are any teams that shouldn't pref me based off of the arguments they prefer to read.

If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me an email.

Email chain: donaldtfagan[at]gmail[dot]com

Other things:

I am likely to type the entirety of the debate in an Excel sheet.

I lean Tech > Truth

No new 2AR args. If I can't find the arg in the 1AR, I'm not voting on it.

If you're unclear, I will call clear a reasonable amount of times. If you're still unclear after that, I will stop flowing until you clear up. Slowing down a bit on analytics and making a distinction once you reach tags/authors also doesn't hurt.

I think dropped arguments are true arguments, but make sure your extensions still contain properly warranted analysis. If your argument is incomplete/undeveloped/low quality or very blippy, don't expect me to vote on it.

I like line by line line.

Generic engagement with the kritik is not preferred.

Framework/Topicality against the K:

Go for it. I need you to articulate why your fairness/predictability/limits/education/etc. matters and why your model of debate is better at producing these things. I think that fairness can be an impact, but I also think it is strategic to use fairness as an internal link to education. You still obviously must win a reason why fairness is good and why it is more important than what the aff is claiming is important.

K Affs:

Sure. Just make sure there's sufficient explanation of your arguments and that your articulations are clear - don't make rampant assertions without warrants or assume I know what you're talking about even if it seems apparent that I'm familiar with your literature.

Ks:

Go for it. Make sure your links are contextualized to the affirmative. Also, same thing goes for explanation as described in the K aff portion above.

DAs/Advantages:

Make sure to use impact calc. I'd like for there to be comparative analysis between the impacts and a well developed, logical story. That means strong work on the link and internal link levels of your DA.

CPs:

Make sure counterplans are competitive. I'd prefer to only hear cp theory args when there is an obvious or reasonable obfuscation of aff ground.

Speaks:

I will be about normal with speaks in most cases. Formalities aren't important to me, but if you do something egregious such as deciding to read blatantly racist/sexist/similar args or are excessively terrible in some other way I will give you low speaks and likely drop you as well. I probably won't be flowing cross-ex, but it will influence your speaks.

29.5+ - One of the best speakers I expect to see all year.

29.0-29.4 - Among the better debaters at this tourney, had an impressive debate with no glaring errors.

28.7-28.9 - You were proficient/pretty good.

28.0-28.6 - You still need some work to get to the next level.

Significantly below 28.0 - something went horribly wrong.

Bumps - make me laugh and I'll have a better subconscious perception of you and probably give you a slight bump in speaks. However, if you're not funny don't try to be because if I'm forced to cringe it's an uncomfortable situation for everybody.

Theory:

Conditionality - I probably lean neg on the question of conditionality. However, if you legitimately feel that there has been a violation of your ability to properly compete with the negative then I may feel the same way and will treat your args like any other. If the neg is only reading one conditional argument or something of the sort, I am unlikely to consider that a significant violation of aff ground.

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.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fink%2C+Ryan

Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

General:

I have no preference between traditional and progressive LD; just run your strongest case. Nothing you run will go over my head.

I rarely vote on Disclosure Theory, feel free to run it, but know that you do so at your own risk.

Speaks:

I usually give around a 27, but it can vary. I have never given a 30, so try to be my first.

Good Trump Impression: +1 point

Bad Trump Impresstion:- 2 points

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.

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.

Kris Kaya

kkaya23@stanford.edu

Peninsula ’16

Stanford ’20

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

*** Updated for Minneapple 2020

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

Important Things

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I coach at Eagle High School in Idaho.  Our team participates in CX, LD and PF.  I hold no preferences regarding the style of LD ran in the round.  However, I do possess certain preferences about debate in general as well as what I expect for specific styles of LD.

In all rounds, clarity is crucial.  I do not oppose introducing lots of arguments, but I need to comprehend what a debater is advocating.  Articulation—especially on tags—is essential.  Regardless of the number of arguments introduced in the round, I expect debaters to sign post and respond line-by-line on the flow.  The only exception to this falls in rebuttals when I expect clear voters for why I should prefer one position over another; I still want debaters to address significant points from the line-by-line as they summarize the flow.  I strongly dislike interventionists who make arguments on the ballot for the debaters to make their RFD; even more disconcerting are rounds in which the debaters force me to become an interventionist because they do not provide impact calculus.  If I spend a lot of time filling out the ballot after the round, I probably am deciding how I should weigh the impacts while attempting to intervene as little as possible.

With traditional LD, I do not like cases which give the appearance of a value/criterion approach but actually provide a plan (criterion) and solvency (value).  If debaters prefer policy style cases they should run them rather than masking them in a traditional case.  I expect the criterion to provide a weighing mechanism to analyze which of two values/actions/positions proves superior.  Thus, debaters should weigh all arguments introduced in the round and provide me with impact calculus so that I know which of the two positions I should prefer.  If topicality becomes an issue, I expect the negative to follow a CX approach (counter interpretation, violation, standards and voters).

I do not hold preconceived notions on the structure to which a progressive case should adhere, but I do expect debaters to demonstrate a strong understanding of them (especially during cross-examination).  Any critical cases or kritiks need a clear link to the resolution and a clear story so I can actually follow your position.  (I realize that a plethora of pressing issues prove worthy of discussion, but I come to the round expecting to actually learn about the topic.)  I tend to vote more on post fiat implications and impacts—because it permits me to weigh both debaters’ arguments—but understand that some circumstances call for pre-fiat or theory implications.  I will vote on such kritiks or theory arguments, but I will hold them to a very high standard if it means that by accepting them I must exclude weighing both debaters’ impacts to reach my decision.

I welcome questions before the round for clarification.

Debated for WDM Valley (graduated 2013) and worked at NSD, VBI, and CDI (2013,2014).

The last time I judged regularly was the 2014-15 school year, and I’ve judged at a few tournaments since then. I’m not sure what the argument trends are now so my views might be outdated, but I was typically comfortable evaluating framework and theory. I am least comfortable evaluating critical arguments and policy debates.

For theory- I don’t evaluate violations I can’t verify (such as something happening out of round), new 2AR theory, theory on arguments you force your opponent to defend, and have a very low threshold for responses to ridiculous theory (something like NSDA rules for WiFi or flashing)

Let me know if you have any questions!

Competition Experience:

Competed in Public Forum for 4 years and Lincoln Douglas in college for 1 year.

Flay Judge

Public Forum

I have not done any prep on the Sept/Oct topic so anything that you read will be new to me.

I am strongly against bringing spreading into the realm of public forum. I am fine with moderate speed. I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.

I do not flow crossfire. Any concessions made during cross need to be brought up in the next speech.

First summary needs to extend defense. Please be sure to extend whatever voters here if you plan on extending them in final focus. Any unextended voters in summery are not guaranteed to be evaluated in final focus. Also, I am not going to do work for you. Please make sure that if you are dropping any arguments or making extensions that you tell here where and when its going to happen.

I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable.

Truth > Tech. I want quantifiable, weighable, terminal impacts. Please make my life easier and don't read cards without warrants and don't ready hypothetical impact scenarios with no concrete warranting behind the impacts.

Hello y'all!

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

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD:

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

Policy:

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

Parli:

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

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

Public Forum:

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

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

*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.

Hey, I debated at Damien for four years went to the TOC a couple times and now go to USC

Some thoughts:
Aff:
Affirmatives should defend the hypothetical enactment of a topical plan. Middle of the road or big stick, doesn't matter to me. 

Neg:
Read what you want as long as it engages the affirmative in a meaningful manner. This necessarily excludes decontextualized criticisms 
T/Theory:
My default is competing interpretations, but interpretations should be reasonable.

Reject the argument not the team, except for conditionality.

DA:
DA's other than politics are awesome, but I went for politics a fair amount in high school.

CP:
I prefer cp's to compete functionally/textually, but it is possible for a team to persuade me otherwise 
PIC's are awesome.
Advantage CP's are awesome.
International fiat tows a fine line. Could be persuaded it's good or bad.

Process Cp's and consult cp's tow the line even more

K:
I am not biased against these per se but they are by far the hardest argument to execute, absent dropped silver bullets i.e. root cause, ontology first, or floating pik's.
Framework should be impacted.
Links should be responsive to the content of the 1AC.
Impacts should be based off of such links, not the overall knowledge/material/methodological structure you are criticizing. K's should not be an excuse to sidestep conventional impact comparison.
Alternatives should either be explained to solve such links or explained within a framework that makes alternative solvency irrelevant.

Judge:
Explanation over evidence. If you ask me to read a card after the round which has warrants not explained in the debate, those warrants are irrelevant.
Tech and truth. Technical concessions matter, but there can be larger truths which belittle the weight of such concessions. Control framing to control the debate.
Rebuttals. Make choices. Go for what you are ahead on, and explain why what you are ahead on is more important than what you are behind on using even if statements.
Prep time ends after you are done writing the speech.

Debate's a game have fun! 

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.

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

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.

~*~Short Version~*~

Room rules: no stabbing, no fire, and no leaving without cause during a speech. Besides that, I don't just have no preferences, but actually prefer that you do whatever makes the most comfortable. Sit, stand, lie down while speaking. Tag-team in cross.Please time yourself.

Please give roadmaps, just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time." I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence - this entails referring back to your citations in speeches besides the first one you read them) judge who is also a big fan of unusual and philosophical positions. I default to condo good, reasonability, no RVIs, perms are aff ground, AFC bad, tag-teaming and flex-prep ok. Share evidence via speechdrop.

Contact me at zane@zanepmiller.com

~*~Long Version~*~

For lay debaters, the short version should be sufficient. I am a very flow- and evidence-focused judge, and I guarantee I can follow any pace of speech you're interested in (so long as the arguments themselves are cogent). For policy and technical/progressive debaters, read on.

I debated for 4 years at Centennial High School in Idaho, graduated in 2015. I qualified to the NSDA tournament 3 times and had been in multiple bid rounds (six my senior year). Won the Whitman tournament my senior year. I debated policy locally my senior year and did 2 and 1/2 years of policy at UNLV, and have been judging and/or coaching since (currently at Bishop Kelly High School in Idaho). I primarily read critical arguments late in my career and semantic, linguistic, ontological and epistemological positions remain my favorite, though I'm perfectly comfortable with down and dirty policymaking debates.

I have default opinions about procedural questions, but I hate using them. If the barest suggestion of a warrant for an alternative position is presented, I'll go with it (though I might not be happy about it, if the quality of said warrant is low). My defaults are listed in the short version; in general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not. Many teams get surprised by the extent to which this is true, because I allow, and even enjoy, arguments many other judges might consider underhanded or even "abusive"; for example, the much-maligned 'tricks' archetype of LD AC was a favorite of mine in my senior year of high school, and I believe it remains under-developed and under-explored by other competitors.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations - I just really hate lazy cards), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks from me, there are three ways to get it: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

Rosemary Muldoon

Lincoln/Douglas Debate Paradigm

Salpointe Catholic High School

My name is Rosemary Muldoon and I am a judge for Salpointe Catholic High School in Tucson, Arizona.  My daughter has competed on Lincoln/Douglas Debate for the past two years, and I have judged for the 2015 - 2016 School Year.  For my professional career I am a Realtor and Associate Broker.  While this isn’t debate it has given me the experiences of understanding argument and the art of negotiation.

What you should know about me as a judge

While this year is the first year I have judged, I have been involved in many pre-elim rounds and outrounds on the Arizona Circuit.  I have judged at four tournaments, judging an average of six debates at each tournament.  I understand the process of Lincoln/Douglas Debate and how it’s done.

Progressive Debate vs. Traditional Debate

I prefer traditional debate but am open to progressive argumentation when it’s really well explained.  If you are choosing to run cases that include theory, counterplans, kritiks, Disadvantages, etc, understand you have the burden of making them super clear to me if you want me to evaluate them.  The safest route is to have a Lincoln/Douglas Debate that debates framework and contentions.  That the type of debate that I prefer to hear.  Regardless of what kind of debate you choose to have I highly encourage all debaters to have voter issues in their last speech.  Explain to me where you believe you are winning on the debate.  If I agree that you are ahead there, you’ll likely get my vote.

Speed

You can read at a moderate speed.  I am not interested in hearing a debater ‘spread’ their argument.  Read quickly, but not more than a little quicker than conversational speed.

Flow

I flow the debate but only take down taglines and authors.  After that I’m listening to the card and writing down anything from it I hear that I feel is significant.  The best way to help my flow is signpost before the speech and during the speech.  Tell me exactly where I should be putting things.  The more work you do for me, the easier it is to get my vote.

My Ballot

My ballot comes from the flow and the impacts that come behind it.  Again, the best way to help with this is to make a big deal out of voter issues.  The best debaters take the debate out of my hands and make it clear as day what happened in round.  Where debaters get frustrated is when they don’t extrapolate what happened in the debate, leaving their judge to do the thinking for them.

I am the assistant debate coach for Layton High School. My background has primarily involved policy debate in high school and college. However, our students have moved into LD and PF so I find myself judging and supporting those events more. I usually judge more than a hundred rounds of debate each year spread out between the various debate events. I have switched to OneNote for flowing. If you provide your contact information (specifically email addresses) I will send you my flows after I have concluded the ballot. You are then welcome to discuss my flows and decision at anytime.


Jump/Email Chain
I expect to be included in all jumps and email chains. You can email me cxjudge@hotmail.com. As a rule of thumb, I usually do not review evidence until the end of the round and I use my flow as a filter to what I think you introduced into the debate. As of 1/2017 my preference is to use pocket box or something similar that just allows everyone to download the file after upload.

Timing
I expect you to keep track of your time so that I do not have to call out time remaining during a speech. I will do it if asked by a student and I will not hold it against you, but I do find it distracting from the speech. With that said, I track all time in the debate. Consider it the "official" time for the round. I work from my official time... that means when my time shows your speech is done, I stop flowing regardless if you keep talking for another 10 seconds. I usually allow students to answer CX questions put to them during the actual time of cross examination, even if this means the answer takes another 10 seconds or so in the round for a proper answer.

Speaks
I used to not care much and would routinely just award everyone 30's. However, I learned the folly of my ways after repeated conversations with tabrooms. Nowadays, everyone starts at 28 and can go up or down from there depending upon their performance. I think of a speaker's capabilities in the following categories: organization, clash, delivery (speed, clarity, tone - i.e. not yelling), argument development, technical skill, strategy and creativity. If you need a lengthy explanation of these categories there is probably something missing in your experience to the event. I am happy to briefly explain this to any competitor if they believe it will help their performance during the round I evaluate.

Prep Time
Traditionally, I have been very lax and generous with prep time. However, I find myself getting more annoyed with prep time abuse. With paper it used to be simple, stand up when you are ready to speak and the prep time ends. Now it seems that participants do things they do not consider prep (saving the file to a jump drive, emailing the file, organizing their flows, changing the order of the speech document, etc.). I am sympathetic to the technical challenges of paperless debate, but I have also experienced efficient rounds where everything moved incredibly smooth (especially when something like pocket box was used). I'd like more of that and less of the rounds that take an extra 15-20 minutes for "technical challenges" related to jump drives or slow emails. For the last few tournaments, I have maintained a more relaxed approach to prep time, I just nuke speaks if it appears to me like you are abusing prep time.

Nuisance Items
Actually not sure what to label this section, so think of this as things I do not like.

1. I do not like poorly developed arguments. For example, "Perm do both" is absolutely meaningless without some warranting and articulation as to how that would actually work. I consider these types of blips as non-arguments. I am pretty up front and vocal about this and still debaters just go into default mode and make tons of these arguments... they are then surprised when I give them no weight. From my perspective, "Perm do both" is removed from consideration when the neg responds with "No don't do both". Both statements provide exactly the same amount of articulation and null out to a non-argument on my flows. This is by way of example, there are tons of these found on your speech documents. You will know it when you make a pointed argument that ends when you finish the tagline. Do the work to explain your argument or don't waste the flow.
2. Evidence Mumbling or Abuse. Like many judges I prefer that you breathe between tags/authors/evidence so I can hear the natural break of your speech. I also listen to evidence and flow what I consider to be important points made by your evidence. If you mumble your evidence, power tag it, take it out of context, etc. I consider it invalid and it may cost you my ballot.
3. Speech Document Abuse. This is a recent trend I have seen on the circuit and I will definitely get punitive to stop this. Here the debater loads a speech document with 40-50 pages of cards. They then proceed to skip all over the speech document expecting everyone to know/understand where they are. obviously this applies to my category of organization (see above). Further, I have seen this approach used to win debates where evidence is considered by the judge after the round EVEN THOUGH it was not read in the round. I should be able to open your speech document and follow along with your speech if I am so inclined. Finally, having a few extra cards in the speech document is NOT abuse. I expect you to have a little extra evidence if you have the time to further your arguments. There really is no fine line here as I have heard some complain, you will definitely know the difference of what I am referring to when you open a speech document that is double or triple the size of a normal speech document.

Background / Experience
I debated (CX/Policy) 4 years at West Jordan High School. After High School, I debated NDT at Weber State. As I mention to all teams that ask my paradigm, I am old school tabula rasa and open to just about anything (except truly offensive/abusive behavior/material). I have yet to encounter a person I could not flow in terms of speed. Clarity obviously matters and if I cannot understand you I will say something like "Clear". You can basically go as fast as you can speak, so long as you are clear. Also, reading analyticals (or non-evidence tags) at supersonic speeds are pretty hard to catch, I would suggest that you explain those types of tags/arguments.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
During high school I competed in LD when I was not doing policy debate. For me, the best way to win my ballot is to make sure you frame any criteria and value into context with the main arguments you feel like you are winning. I also caution competitors that ignoring value and criteria is risky on my flow because it looks as if you concede that and I will interpret arguments based upon the conceded value/criteria of your opponent. That presents a serious uphill obstacle to winning your argument. As my experience is primarily policy based, I can flow anything that LD debates present.

• Theory - I like well developed theory arguments
• Kritiks - I believe I have a pretty good understanding of most critical arguments. However, that does not mean that I will fill in the blanks for you if you do not fully develop your advocacy.
• Critical Aff - I am ok with as long as it is well developed and provides a mechanism for your opponent to participate.
• Framework - I understand FW args from both Policy and LD style debates. What I have encountered the most is participants who do not understand the blocks they are reading.
• Topicality - I have a great understanding of "T" and all of its standards/voters/impacts. I'd suggest not reading T if the Aff has not read a plan.
• Disclosure - I could care less if there arguments are in the wiki or not. With that said, disclosure does take a bite out of fairness impacts (I am not saying I will not consider fairness, but if something has been in the wiki for 2 months, it's going to weigh against claims of fairness).
• Flex Time - As long as everyone agrees to it I am fine with it.
• 1AR Flexibility - I like many judges understand the time constraints on a 1AR. I am willing to give them lots of leeway on covering all arguments made by the NC. However, I still expect enough argumentation to be made that allows the negative rebuttal to understand the "gist" of the aff argument. In effect, it puts the neg "on notice" as to what the aff is arguing. This is not an excuse for blip arguments though. Remember grouping and combining arguments is your friend during this speech.

Order of importance / Round Evaluation
So this is a somewhat problematic area to write about. The first thing to say is that each round is unique and evaluation is therefore unique. I may have a process I usually follow to determine the "winner" of the round but that does not mean I am grounded in any specific approach. That means everything is debatable and subject to the participants within any given round. Outside of this, I (like nearly every judge I have worked with) look for the easiest place to write a ballot. So, if you drop some kind of voter on the flow I may use that as an excuse to write the ballot and get out of doing a lot of evaluation to determine which arguments win over others. With that said things usually look like this

Level 1: Framework -> Theory -> Value/Criteria
Level 2: Kritik -> AC/NC -> Counterplans -> DAs

Another way to think about my approach is to consider the theoretical aspects of how I should evaluate the substantive aspects of the advocacies made during the round. Also, the levels are more important then where the categories are listed above, but I usually find that FW leads me to understand theory and Val/Crit arguments. Usually a K precedes the aff case, etc.


POLICY DEBATE
I am very relaxed and flexible with regards to Cross-Ex, prep time (stopping when the jump drive is out), speakers keeping their own time, etc. I really like the debate to be controlled by the debaters with me as an observer rendering a final decision. With that said, if it seems like you are abusing prep time or other round mechanics I may voice my concern and your speaks will reflect my questions about your behavior.

With the philosophy of letting the debaters decide how the round rolls, I am open to any judging paradigm, all theory and weighted arguments. In my hay-day my partner and I were theory hounds. Kritik's did not exist, but if they did we have would have run them. We loved counter plans, T, counter-warrants, Justification and just about anything else you can imagine. If those arguments are done well, the debate is a real pleasure to observe. I constantly hear varsity debaters make claims regarding dropped arguments. If you do not direct the flow yourself, do not tell me that the other team dropped/conceded an argument. Without directing the flow, you really have no idea where I put arguments. Frankly, I am surprised by the number of varsity competitors I observe that fail to actually direct the flow. In yonder years, this was really the only way you could make a claim that an opponent dropped an argument and why a judge should consider it on the ballot.

For 2AR/2NR, spend 20-30 seconds summarizing the key positions and voters and explain why you win. It's weird to me how many final rebuttals miss this very important aspect of debate. Always tell the judge in the last few seconds why you are winning the debate. If you leave it up to the judge entirely, you may not get the result you hope for. Keep in mind, I vote off my flow and will not do work for either team in terms of advancing/understanding arguments. I figure that if you don't want to take the time to explain your argument, why should I take the time to build it up on the ballot or my flow.

One more thing... during my heyday, particularly in college, we actually flowed evidence warrants as well as taglines. I am funny that way, I still do that. You would be amazed how much I get on my flows in high school rounds. To that end, DO NOT mumble your evidence to me otherwise I do not consider it introduced in the debate and therefore will not consider it when rendering my decision. If I do not have your warrant, I do not consider it. Also, if I catch you power-tagging, clipping or any other patently abusive behavior you can expect a loss and very low speaks.




If you have any other questions, just ask before the round. Also, you are welcome to approach me after rounds and I will give you as much feedback as I can recall.

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

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.

(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.

The most important thing is clarity and communication skills. I look for strong evidence with a strong link to your contentions. I like analytical analysis to go with your evidence. I do not like critical arguments or any jargon. Please be respectful and enjoy your round. 

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

I'm not impressed by sophistry.

Table of Contents

General Info

LD Paradigm

PF Paradigm

World Schools Paradigm

General Dislikes/Notes

Theory Issues

General Info

Started Judging: 2008

Started Coaching: 2010

Events Coached: LD, PF, Policy, Extemp, World Schools

Delivery: I don't want emails, flash drives, or printed copies. This is a speaking event and I plan to judge your argument based on your delivery of your case and rebuttals. I can handle fast talking, but no longer try to keep up with spreading. There is no educational merit, and many downsides, to encouraging students to speak at vastly accelerated paces.

Cross (excluding World Schools): I expect debaters to be polite during cross, but do not consider interruptions to be impolite. I understand cross time is limited and if you have the information you want and wish to move on to another question I understand.

RFD - If the tournament allows it, I will be happy to give my decision and discuss as long as competitors want/tournament time allows. If the tournament doesn't allow it, I will not disclose. If you try to get me to disclose at a tournament that doesn't allow disclosure I will take points away from you.

Lincoln-Douglas

Overview: LD is a moral debate that is meant to look at the underlying value of an issue. I favor a broad based approach that looks at the totality of the resolution vs. cases that over-focus on single examples or instances.

Values: I expect both debaters to have a value/standard/etc that clarifies the moral principle they are pushing for. Broadly speaking, I recognize values as automatic principles that don't need additional defense. If you tell me the most important moral issue is ensuring liberty/equality/artistic expression/self-actualization, I'll accept it as good. Having a sentence or two to explain the value/why you think it is important can be very helpful, but I don't need a long defense of the concept.

It is very hard, though not impossible, to disprove a value during a debate. Generally I expect to see the debate be about whether each side actually accomplishes the value they have outlined, not whether the value is morally good (the latter question becomes very hard for any person to judge without bringing their personal feelings into the debate).

Burden: Each side in LD has an equal burden. There is no Aff presumption that they get to set the terms, nor is there any Aff burden that they have to prove more than the Neg.

Flow: While I expect debaters to argue on the flow structure, I'm more looking to the upholding of the central principle (value) then whether debaters covered every contention.

Plans: I don't want to hear a plan and they usually don't make sense within the context of LD. That said, there are two very different types of plans that come up.

Broad explanations: Presume the motion: 'The US should end fossil fuel subsidies.' If the plan was that that US would end all payments to fossil fuel companies over the next five years, that would be fine. That's a common sense interpretation of what the motion is asking. I consider that more of an observation on the burdens of the resolution.

Narrow Plans: Taking the above motion, if the plan was 'the US will end payments to coal companies', to me that would be a bad plan. The Aff in this instance is trying to unfairly narrow the debate. The resolution's burden was end fossil fuel subsidies, not to end one type of fossil fuel subsidies. In such an example if the Neg said the Aff hadn't upheld the resolution, I'd almost certainly agree.

Both sides in a debate have an obligation to argue the entirety of the motion. Single, narrow examples on either side that don't relate to a broader principle are not enough to prove your side correct or the opponent's side incorrect.

Public Forum

PF is meant to be delivered to a general audience, not to people experienced with debate. Thus I will judge it as who did better communicating to a general audience. Please keep debate jargon to a minimum.

Final Focus is meant to narrow down the debate and explain the most important issues. It should be between 1 and 3 points. A final focus should not try to explain every single contention.

World Schools

Scoring - My ultimate decision will be based on the final score. Even if I feel like a certain team won, if the points say otherwise, I decide on the points. Unless I hear differently at judge instructions my scoring standard is -

68 - 70: A fine speech. This was either a performance that was neither particularly good nor bad, or had some really good moments mixed with some really bad moments.

64 - 67: A speech below standard. This range doesn't say that a speaker gave a bad speech, just that the speech was either underwhelming or had some problems.

71 - 75: A great speech. The speaker hit good points, spoke well, used their time well, etc.

Above a 75 is reserved for truly amazing speeches. On a level of "I ran out of the room to tell other people how amazing it was".

Below 64 is reserved for a speech with serious mistakes. The most likely is a speech that is off topic/framework and thus suffers on the content and strategy score.

What I'm looking for in each area:

Content - Logic, analysis, explanation, and evidence. Good content should be backed up by logic and explanation, but also thoroughly explained for how it helps your side. Just stating an opinion, even of an expert, on an issue isn't enough; it needs to be explained and tied to the overall argument.

Style - This is scored just like an oratory. I look for things like eye contact, understandable speed, clarity, emphasis through tone/volume changes or pauses to call emphasis to key points, and emotion and interest. Humor and/or emotional intensity may gain points if appropriate for the motion.

Strategy - Was the speech well put together? Was time well spent on the key issue, or where minor portions of the debate given too much attention? Did the speaker belabor arguments he/she had already won?

POIs - I expect a speaker to take between two and three POIs during his/her speech. These should be spread throughout the speech. If the first two are taken, and all others ignored, I will not count that as taking a good number of POIs.

If only one POI is taken I will give a slight penalty. If zero POIs are taken that will get a major penalty.

Taking excessive POIs will hurt the strategy score. The only exception to this is if the speaker is winning (improving their side) when taking POIs - in that case continuing to take POIs is acceptable.

If a team is not trying to ask their opponent POIs, or asking very infrequently, then obviously the requirement to take two to three disappears.

POIs should be no longer than 15 seconds. That is the absolute max amount of time I think you have a right to take from an opponent. The speaker has the right to cut the POI off at any point and answer/continue.

Barraging - I think it is reasonable to stand 12 to 15 times during an opponent's speech (this is for the entire opposing team). Even going up to 20 could be acceptable. More than that though and you are taking away from the opponent's right to give a speech. For online WSD this should be cut in half.

I will take away/reward to 2 points per speaker based on quality of POIs. A bad POI is one that the opponent is able to use to strengthen their own case or just a waste of time. A good POI strengthens the case of the deliverer or points to a weakness in the opponent's argument.

Framework/Terms of Debate - The prop has the right to set the framework for the debate. I define framework as an explanation of what the motion means, what, if any, specific burdens exist, what, if any, things are trying to be achieved, and what, if any, mechanism is being used (if any of those are not being done, because they don't need to be, you don't need to tell me, I'll understand). This framework should be fair and reasonable.

Fair - Does it give both teams an equal chance to win. If you try to define the debate in a way that substantially benefits your team, even if all your definitions are correct/unchallenged, you will lose.

Reasonable - Was this framework something that a person would consider the motion to mean upon hearing it? This framework should be based more on a common understanding of the words, not strict dictionary definitions.

Example - If the motion was 'THBT the death penalty is a just punishment for heinous crimes' and the prop tried to argue that they only had to show a single example, that would be a bad framework. It's not fair to the opposition and no person who was asked that motion would think they were being asked about a single hypothetical instance. If the proposition defined it as 'only in cases of premeditated murder' or 'for war crimes or crimes against humanity', either of those would most likely be fair.

Challenging Framework - If you believe the framework is unfair/abusive/unreasonable, you may challenge it. If you want to make a slight adjustment/clarification/addition you may also do that, but here I am focusing on a challenge to the entire framework proposed.

Alternative - You must offer an alternative framework. This must conform to the above standards of fair and reasonable.

First Thing - The challenge to the framework must be the first thing in the speech. If the prop disagrees with the opposition framework, it must be the first thing in their speech (and so on until there is an agreement on framework or we're out of debate).

Debate under that Framework - You must debate under the framework proposed at the beginning of the speech. You may not debate under both frameworks. If you believe you can debate under the proposition framework then that is what you should have been doing.

I don't like framework debate. If the proposition framework is fair and reasonable and the opposition challenges it, the opposition will probably lose. Likewise if the proposition proposes an unfair framework, they will likely lose.

Other Issues:

When a speaker finishes, the next speaker should promptly proceed to wherever speeches are being given. There is no prep time. You may organize your materials, but you should not be having a conversation with your teammates. Once you get to the speaking position please confirm that I am ready for you to begin.

General Dislikes (All Debates)

If a team falsifies their evidence I will always vote them down. I do not care about the level of impact it had on the debate or whether the mistake was done via maliciousness or negligence. I see falsification as any of the following:

-Creating a piece of evidence

-Changing the wording of the evidence to alter meaning

-Cutting the evidence in a way to leave out arguments that might hurt your case.

I will also punish misinterpretations of the evidence, though the degree of penalty is determined by the level of misinterpretation. I see this as situations where the speaker makes substantial errors about the quality of the source, who paraphrases the evidence in a manner that is not accurate, or misunderstands the point the author was making.

Things I commonly see that I dislike

"My opponent did not attack X contention, therefore they must agree." This isn't true. If an opponent hasn't gotten to an argument in the time allowed for them to make their initial arguments, they can not offer any new evidence, but that doesn't mean they agree. The fact that they have their own case means they have principles that disagree with you and they can always argue why their side is more important. Also, many times people will claim their opponent hasn't attacked a certain contention when I have on my flow that they have.

"If I can prove just a 1% chance of this impact, I should win this debate." This is a profoundly silly line of argument.

"My evidence says I'm right" "Well, my evidence says I'm right", "What my opponent is forgetting is that my evidence says I'm right". I commonly see debates that just become a circle of the debaters going back to the evidence they read that backed their side and inherently presuming their evidence is superior to their opponents. During evidence clashes someone has to explain why their evidence is superior: more topical, better source, more logical, etc.

If you have an important piece of evidence, please explain the validity of the source if the name doesn't explain it (major news organizations, magazines, politicians, college institutions, could have an explanation, but don't need one per se). If I just hear 'According to Williams in 2017', I have no idea who Williams is. I'll evaluate whatever you say as if you'd delivered it without a source if you don't explain why the source matters.

"My evidence is more recent so you must prefer it." In certain cases recency is important, but it has to be explained why.

Theory

Theory issues are a check for fairness. Ideally, theory should never come up in a "good" debate, but they do need to exist.

I define theory as arguments that in some way deal with your opponent(s) having violated the structure of what a "good" debate should be. Examples: they are off topic, their delivery is inappropriate, they aren't providing their evidence, etc. Issues that don't have anything to do with the core resolution/motion, but based off how they are dealing with it.

To me, if you run theory you are basically accusing your opponents of cheating/being abusive. This is the most important issue in debate, but one that should only be run if you believe it to be true. If you run a theory argument that is itself abusive (ex: topicality against an obvious topical argument), I will hold it against you.

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.

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)
Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, platforms, and interp.
Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute

General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high
Speed - 6ish -7 ish, if you are ridiculously clear
Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear and beyond egregious.
Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques, but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context or the philosopher, as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.
Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. What drives me crazy is, what appears to be, the assumption that framework is a done-deal. That there is only one way to view framework, is faulty and counter-intuitive. It is the job of both teams to advocate, not just their framework, but the logic behind their framework.
Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.

Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy

Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. In my mind, this is not just as issue that will affect speaker points but potentially the round.) 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically, different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".

I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.

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.

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.

Chaminade CP, Class of 2016

USC, Class of 2020

I did LD and policy for 4 years in high school, and I’m a first year out.  I’m generally more comfortable with the progressive LD style (policy style) to the more traditional LD style, so if you’re one of those debaters who really likes analytic philosophy, you should probably strike me.

LD:

Plans\DAs:

They’re good.  You really can’t go wrong here.

CPs

The CP has to be mutually exclusive with the Aff in order for the Neg to get fiat.  In other words, no fiat for advantage counterplans.  

Theory:

I default to reasonability with no RVIs, but you can convince me otherwise.  If you win competing interps, I’ll automatically allow RVIs.  

Kritiks:  

I ran a lot of Ks in high school, so I’m pretty comfortable with them.  However, don’t use this as an excuse to avoid analysis of the literature. If you just read a block of cards without analysis, I’ll likely drop you and it won’t reflect well on your speaks. ROB on a Kritik will almost always come before theory and pretty much any other argument in the debate.  The K needs to explain how the epistemology of the aff is destructive, and the alternative needs to clearly solve for that.  If the solvency of the alt is not clearly articulated in round, I won’t vote on the K.  Because I hold Ks to a higher standard, I also have higher expectations for them, so if you’re one of those people who’s new to K debate is running a K for the first time, I’m probably not the judge for you.  

Framework:

Like I mentioned above, I’m not super into analytic philosophy, but if you want to run it, I’ll do my best to evaluate it.  When I debated, a lot of people in LD would run ROB arguments for cases that clearly weren’t Ks or K affs.  A ROB means that as the judge, I have an obligation to vote for your argument because it challenges a destructive epistemic or discursive norm being produced in debate.  Having an impact that is in some way social justice related does not merit a ROB.  You can certainly make arguments as to why your impact would come first, but that would be evaluated the same as any other framework.  In other words, you need to explain how there is some sort of negative or oppressive education being produced in debate right now, and that me voting for your case is necessary to solve it.  For example:

If you propose a plan that encourages reparations and argue for a ROB to combat racism, that is an incorrect use of the ROB because you haven’t explained how debate is racist or how the me signing the ballot for you will help reduce racism.

If you run a K in which you say the aff’s mindset is racist and destructive because their policy assumes certain things about x racial group, and argue for a ROB  to combat racism, that is a correct use.  

If you use a ROB for a framework where it doesn’t belong, I will likely disregard your framework--and don’t expect higher than a 25 as far as speaks are concerned.

A good rule of thumb, if your case is advocating for some sort of policy, a ROB likely does not apply.  

If you have any questions about this, I’ll be happy to answer it before the round.

Identity politics\non-topical affs

Go for it.  

Tricks, triggers etc. are all fine.  

Speaks:

I’ll average around a 28.5.  Clearly reading your tags will help your speaks.  

CX:

You can use it for flex prep if you want.  CX is binding.

Policy:

Pretty much all the same stuff applies except you get fiat for any CP you want.  Also I will always go for reasonability on T.

Competed in, judged, and coached LD for 20 years.  As far as I'm concerned, "progressive" LD doesn't exist.  Analysis beats a card every time, the primary focus of the round should be on value, and policy shenanigans like Ks and CPs should be left in policy where they belong.  I'll happily flow words spoken at a normal pace, but if you're spreading, I can't follow it, it doesn't go on the flow, and I judge on the flow.  To win on the value, you must prove that your V/C uphold the resolution best, and all frameworks should bear that in mind.

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

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.

As a coms judge I am looking for a classic/traditional debate where you are supporting or negating the resolution with your value criterion. I appreciate respectful clash and will attempt to flow. I am okay with moderate speed. I understand that LD is morals based but I am looking for empirical impacts weighed under your value and criterion.