Experience:

I debated 4 years at Highland High School (UT) in Policy (2010-2014). After high school, I judged for and worked with various Utah teams for about 5 years.

I haven't worked with any teams for the last couple of years, so keep in mind that I am a little rusty. Be sure to speak clearly and annunciate your words. If you start your speeches a little slower and increase speed throughout, it will help me keep up - especially for the first couple of speeches. I also won't be super well versed in newer critical arguments, nor will I have any topic-specific background knowledge, so be sure to explain your args well - don't assume I immediately know anything.

Everything Important:

I tended to go for kritikal arguments when I debated, but I have grown to really like policy args. Run whatever you are comfortable with. I'm not against voting for any arguments in particular as long as they are run well. Don't run something you aren't comfortable with or can't explain just because you think I would be more likely to vote on it.

Part of what makes debate a particularly useful activity is that it teaches you to alter how you present your arguments based on who you are speaking to. While I try to be as objective as possible, I am not a blank slate, and no other judge really is either. Please read as much of my paradigm as you can, ask me questions before round, etc. - try to get to know your judge and learn to tailor your arguments accordingly. That being said, note that everything I outline here is simply what I typically like as a judge. The debate is yours, and I recognize that my job isn't to insert my own theories about what "good debate" is on you. I do, however, think it's good for you to know my general leanings so you can make some more informed decisions about what I might find persuasive or not.

The most important thing for any round is that you explain your arguments well. I tend to be truth over tech, meaning a well explained argument goes a lot further than anything else. This means even if the aff drops T, for example, I'm not going to vote on T if the neg doesn't explain why the argument is important.

Some more specific stuff:

K AFFS: I'm fine with kritikal affirmatives as long as there is still some engagement with the topic. Meaning, I need to see a clear reason why the aff was run on this specific topic. Also make sure to explain your aff well. Don't expect me to already know who your authors are or what they are saying.

NEGATIVES GOING AGAINST K AFFS: My chances of voting on T or Theory go way up on K affs. Pay attention to the plan text, what the aff is actually doing, and if they significantly engage with the topic. If their plan could theoretically solve any harm, or their aff could be run on any topic as is, then point it out!

KRITIKS: Like I've said, I'm fine with K's. You should be providing specific links, meaning I need to know how the aff specifically contributes to the harms of the K. As always, explain your arguments. Again, don't just assume I am familiar with any of your authors. I prefer teams leveraging K's as one argument in their neg strat rather than going one-off K. This is mostly because I find teams have a hard time defending this strategy well. If you prefer/feel comfortable doing this, then do, just be aware that you should be articulating why this one issue is so important that it is the only argument you present in the debate.

DA's/CP's: I think the DA/CP strat was super underutilized when I was judging (this may have shifted in the last few years). I prefer unique DA scenarios compared to generic DA's. Like with any argument, articulating your DA in the context of each debate goes a long way with me. Be sure to tell me why you are running this specific DA against this specific aff.

THEORY/Your Baudrillard K: I have a really hard time connecting with HS high theory debate. As someone currently outside of the debate circuit, I can't provide the analysis needed to properly or fairly evaluate these args. Traditional theory args are fine.

Please reach out with any questions:

email: k.brad130@gmail.com

(pls include me in any email chains)

Make it clear throughout the rebuttals why you should win the debate. Make the ballot easy for me with things like well explained impact calc, etc! Easy to win T in front of me. Like arguments like T, cps, impact turns, DAs. Don't like k affs, theory, or kritiks. I'm ok with speed, but would prefer the speeches to be clear even if there are less arguments because this leads to better explanation.

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

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

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

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

updated 2019 glenbrooks

I'm rusty and new to the arms sales topic - please don't assume I know all the affs and acronyms (cx is a good time to slow down and clarify what the heck you're talking about). I'd suggest to be mindful of this when screaming your caselist on T at me. When you make those comparisons, especially if the other team presents their own caselist too, tidbits of context can really help me see what's what.

Who I am

Isidore Newman '17

Northwestern '21

add me to the email chain: kevinfitzmorris2021@u.northwestern.edu

Topicality

• One of my favorite debates if it's done well and both sides are organized.
• Clash and fairness are impacts - still have to tell me why though and flesh them out properly
• On reasonability, this is less of a preference and more objectively the only way this argument makes any sense, but at least when you're extending it contextualize it to the counter-interp.

CPs

• Good counterplans will have a solvency advocate and be specific. I'd like to say just run whatever and let the theory play out and just win it, but historically I've been more neg on conditionality and pics good. I like to think it's because they're just better arguments, but there's probably some sort of inherent bias going on there, too.

DAs

• Good args. Zero risk is real, but debatable. Tell me why there *must* be a risk and why that's important

Ks

• If you're the 2N that loves the one-off K I'm not the best for you. Not because I hate Ks, but because I have very little experience running them in that manner and therefore a lot of the nuance can be lost on me in very close debates (which isn't likely to go well for you). I think alts should at least consider doing something and be defended and that links should be specific and include at least good story about the aff. (Strategic and in depth K debating is good?)
• I definitely prefer topical, plan-based affs. T vs. K affs is pretty good in front of me, but nothing is worse than when it's executed poorly. K affs that at least have a strong grounding in the topic have a much better time convincing me than the run Nietzsche as an aff for x year because why not aff.

Theory

• Run it, if it's well-extended then I can be persuaded.
• Only "reject the team" I can think of is Conditionality, but if you have a good argument for something else then I'll listen. (Conditionality is probably good though).
• *Conditionality doesn't necessarily mean judge kick - if you want me to kick something for you, make it very clear and tell me why that should be a thing a judge does. I hate recreating debates in ways they didn't actually play out - you have to tell me what the world in which I kick it for you looks like.*

Closing Remarks (ballot forming/speed/flowing)

I'll pretty much listen to whatever you have to say barring language or arguments that are entirely inappropriate (like racism good or bigoted language). I will be frustrated if you don't compare your arguments and make me wade through the debate. I will default to looking for the route of least resistance; that is, the ballot that means I intervene the least. This is usually best achieved by telling me how to look at the round and why, why you win within that framework, why you win even if you don't win within that framework, why you win within your opponents' framework, etc. Many teams take this as a chance to be super repetitive. On the contrary, the more concise you are on each of these points, the better. This conciseness can be achieved with smart evidence and warrant comparison, considering the implication of arguments across flows and leveraging those implications in your favor, and word economy among other important fundamental tools to this event.

Speed is arguments flowed per time unit, not words per minute.

Please flow. I pay attention to what you're doing, and usually it's pretty clear who does and does not know what's happening. Speaks are awarded accordingly.

TL:DR, I'm a progressive flow judge (in the debate sense), that believes all events should be educational above all else.

Quickly about me; I competed in PF, extemp, OO, and congress in high school for all 4 years. I competed in college CX and extemp for 2 years, as well as coached almost every other event for those 2 years as well. Since then, I have judged at a tournament at least once a year for like the past 8 or so years. Overall, I'm a very technical focused judged across the board and I tend to lean towards more progressive debate and presentation styles, as well as what is more nationally competitive than what is Wyoming Competitive.

Debates: I'm a flow heavy judge. I can handle just about any kind of argument in any format. So run your Ks, your Ts, etc. and you can even run them in LD if you want and feel free to speed, as long as it's clear. If it gets too hard to understand I will just say "CLEAR" while you're speaking. Don't stop, just adjust. I like clean line by lines with clear tagging and a good spread of arguments. I also feel underviews are important, they help make debate a bit more accessible. Dropped points do matter to an extent, but tell me why that matters. In CX, I feel like solvency is an important issue along with having a good fleshed out impact scenario. In LD, I prefer a good value criterion debate since it frames all other arguments in the round. In PF, I do believe it's a bit more of a conversational debate than CX, so really focus on summarizing the debate, but that doesn't mean you can't have CX elements like speed and being heavy on the evidence.

I.Es: Same deal, I'm a fairly technical judge, but have a big appreciation to pieces having purpose and being educational. So I appreciate good structure, but I also value innovative takes on existing structures, especially if it's connected to piece. Topic selection to me is highly important. Your topic should matter, or at least, you should be able to explain why your topic matters, especially in prepared speech events like OO and Info (much less so in ext and imp, though some analysis on this is still appreciated). In general, everything should happen for a reason. So your VA in info should have a reason for being what it is, your hand gestures should have intent, and when you move or pace.

Interps: I will probably be one of your stricter technical judges. For me, piece selection and how it's cut matters a little bit less than how that piece is presented. A badly cut piece that has incredible blocking, interaction with setting, pops, vocal and facial control will likely score better than the inverse. Also your blocking should serve a variety of purposes ranging from world building, story telling, and characterizations.

I have been judging debate for the last 10 years. I like straight up policy debate - I consider myself a "policy maker" type judge. I do NOT understand kritiks and do not recommend you run them. I do vote on topicality if there is actual abuse in the round, and I do not mind if it is run strategically by the negative. I do not mind speed through the warrants of your cards, however slow down on your tag lines because I do flow your debate and judge off of my flows. My philosophy is that constructive speeches and cross examinations are for the teams to share evidence. Rebuttal speeches are for you to make sure I understood what arguments have come through and win your side the round. Make sure you impact calc out the round for me in your final rebuttal speeches and give me voters. Most of the time I followed the round, however make sure I did not miss something you find an important voting point. I do not time flashing as long as it is reasonable - do not stall during flashing in order for your partner to prep.

Abe Griffiths

Highland High School 2012-2016

University of Utah '20

Please add me to your email chain: 10abesg@gmail.com

I debated competitively in policy debate on the national circuit for four years in highschool. I am equipped to judge your debates fairly with knowledge of the structure of policy debate, but without any explicit knowledge on the education topic.

I was primarily a K debater and read kritikal arguments on the aff and on the neg. That being said, I debated in a circuit that was primarily policy-oriented and have experience with both 'types' of argumentation and can educate you on how to execute them well.

You should feel comfortable reading whatever you want in front of me, and I will make flow-oriented decisions about how to evaluate those arguments.

Here are some plagiarized details on how I view debate and my role as the judge:

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

General broader preferences:
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when the email is sent.

Coms Judge! I don't have a problem with speed as long as you are understandable. what you are saying is as important as how you are saying it.  I am not a fan of the ridiculous or unrealistic. You can't Fiat your whole case!  I have been judging CX for 3 years.

I am an old-school debater (circa 2009) and 3rd year law student.  I appreciate legal and economic arguments that are reasonable and accurate -and greek philosophy.  I don't know when LD became policy, but I was trained in "traditional" LD.  It pains me to call it "traditional" because the value debate is the essence of LD, which has been thoroughly obscured and adulterated by the vast majority of students I have watched this year thus far.  Abraham Lincoln would be rolling in his grave.  That being said, I do understand a good portion of the policy lingo.  However, I do NOT tolderate policy paced speed.  LD fast is okay.  If your mother would have to ask, "What on earth did you just say? Should I call the priest?" then it is too fast.  If you go policy fast, you do so at your own risk - I may not hear the entirety of your argument.  I will entertain critical arguments if you EXPLAIN them and they have strong LINKS.  On a critical aff, links must be so strong that I don't mind ignoring the resolution because I am utterly entranced by your links.  Further, they must have IMPACTS.  Also, don't ask me to "look inside myself" or "change my perspective" in your K.  I do not buy T if the Aff is topical using a reasonable person standard.  I will buy T if Aff runs a K.

-Mr. W. Hayes Johnson

Amber Jones

University of Nevada, Las Vegas | Foothill High School

I have been on UNLV's policy debate team for two years.

I have four years of experience in public forum from high school.

Please include me on the email chain

Email: jonesa22@unlv.nevada.edu

Quick Version:
I am willing to evaluate any arguments that you make, as long as you explain and execute it well. There is no need to change your arguments to something you think I like or will vote on, just give me the best debate you can, using your best arguments, and you will be fine. This is my first year judging policy so my paradigm is still a work in progress.

Long Version:
I will attempt to be as neutral as possible and evaluate the arguments presented in the debate independent of my own opinions. Keep in mind that debate is facilitated by fiat, the mutual agreement that we will discuss whether or not the plan should be done.

Negative strategy – I believe in preserving maximum strategic and theoretical flexibility for negative teams. Contradicting arguments early on in the debate are fine as long as it is narrowed down in the negative block and the 2NR is consistent. Though too many contradicting arguments (3+) will make me more sympathetic to the affirmative.


Affirmative strategy - A good 1AR should attempt to make the 2NR's job difficult by reading plenty of evidence, covering, and always using offense. For the 1AR and 2AR I think it is important to EXTEND WARRANTS inside your evidence. You should explain the importance/relevance/ implications of the evidence as well. Just saying “extend our Johnson ’12 card,” does not count as extending the evidence!

Aff- I am open to critical affirmatives that have a relationship to the topic. I have a difficult time voting on an affirmative without a relationship to the topic (as articulated in the round). I will not vote on T/FW just because it was read, it is the burden of the negative to prove to me why that affirmative is not topical or why it shouldn't be run in debate.

Negative critical arguments: I am willing to vote on critical arguments, as long as it is well explained and has specific links to the aff. Your Kritik should have an alt and impact that is explained by the negative, I am highly unlikely to vote negative if you do not extend the alt. I am not familiar with all critical arguments, but I have had experience with a wide variety. Good alt explanation can resolve any lack of knowledge I have. The affirmative should always permutate critical arguments, and explain how the permutation functions.


CPs— I am fine with counterplans, but prefer they have some sort of solvency advocate as well as a net benefit. The text of the CP (and all perms) should be written out, and I hold them to as high a standard as I do the affirmative plan.

Disadvantages- Needs to be as specific as possible to the aff and the link story should make sense. Make sure to explain how the aff links to the disad and how it triggers the impact.

Topicality- All for it, I feel that it is a very strategic argument to be made in debate. Needs to be well articulated with both sides submitting competing interpretations. T arguments should be extremely structured and organized to make it easier for me to see why this is a voting issue.

Speaker Points- You should be clear and able to explain your arguments well. I enjoy jokes and clever analogies that are relevant to the round and arguments being made.

Few other things-

1. Do not steal prep!!!! I do not take time for sending out the document, but when the team that took prep calls time, everyone else should pause until the speech is handed over and begins.
2. Only one person should be speaking per speech, unless it is a performative necessity or an accessibility issue in which case that should be made clear during the debate.
3. Flow! If you are not flowing I notice and it probably reflects in the quality of your speeches, in particular the line by line debate.
4. Debate should be fun; it is a game so be nice and courteous to everyone involved.

If you would like something explained further, please feel free to ask me some questions before the round.

Hey everyone,

I like good debate. I debated policy at the TOC in high school and for a few years at Northwestern University. In high school, I mostly debated the K, and in college I debated more straight up. I'm fine with speed and most arguments. These days, I don't judge as frequently, so I'm never deep in the topic literature or the most trendy arguments, so don't assume I know all your acronyms and lingo. However, you probably won't surprise me.

One pet peeve - excessive amounts of down time/stolen prep relating to computer issues. Get your act right. If you take too long, you'll lose speaker points, some tech emergencies withstanding.

General tips for persuading me

-Specificity is best. Make your links specific, cite and clash with your opponents evidence, and explain your arguments as they apply in this round - not the overview you pasted into a speech doc.

-I prefer depth over shallow, blippy arguments. I can keep up and will vote on dropped theory, but I would much rather see a good debate than cheap shot tactics.

-Impact all your arguments. Debaters do good with this on DAs, but not so well on topicality/theory standards, or author/evidence indicts, or weighing links and link turns.

-Focus on the nexus questions. You rebuttals should focus on the most important arguments of the round, not whichever arguments you like best or are winning on. Too often debaters misallocate time and leave crucial aspects of the debate undecided, without much clash or ink on them. Cross-x is also a good time to flesh out nexus questions, but don't forget to make the argument in an actual speech as well.

-Most importantly, don't be a *#@$. Aggressive questioning is fine; being rude is not. Attack arguments, not people. If you know the round is a crushing victory, make it quick and clean, fun, educational for the opponents, or maybe all three.

taylordlayton@gmail.com

Email chain: little.pdx@gmail.com

Affiliations

Current: OES (Oregon Episcopal School) 7 years

Past:

- Cornell assistant coach

- UW debater

- Interlake debater (long time ago)

TL;DR

1. Open to any argument.

2. Debate is a game. You get to set the rules, except for speech times, speech order, and prep time.

3. Tech > truth. I am deeply suspicious of truth claims in debate. I endeavor to be flow centric in my judging.

4. Don't steal prep.

5. Debate is a scholarly activity. Sharp use of excellent ev is compelling to me.

6. If I seem grumpy, it just means I'm engaged and interested.

Comments on specific lines of argument:

T

The general rule is that T is great, subject to the exceptions below in the "Substantive arguments" section. Innovative interps or well carded args on T are refreshing.

Theory other than T

I vote for and against theory args.

- Condo / dispo: make no assumptions about the number of neg positions a team gets. Default to dispo (its ok to kick). Need justification for condo (its ok to contradict). Willing to change these defaults.

- Framework / T USFG: sure, but you will be more successful if you also engage substantively with the aff even if you don't ultimately go for those args in the 2NR.

- ASPEC, OSPEC, etc: if they are meaningful arguments, no problem voting for them.

- Novel or resurrected theory: explain it, win it, and the ballot is yours.

CP/Disad

Straight forward. A couple of pet peeves:

- "Perm do both" is not an argument. Perms need an explanation of how they function and why they disprove competition.

- "Perms are severance and VI" is not an argument. As a default, perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, barring an actual shift by the aff.

K

Mild preference for Ks grounded in the topic or with meaningful links to the aff. Links of omission are usually not persuasive.

~*~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.

Debated policy in highschool for 2 years, and competed in the college circuit for one year at UNLV.

While find straight up arguments to be more persuasive, i'm willing to listen and vote on the K as well, as long as there is a clear, thoroughly explained alt. Having a net ben to your K works wonders. I will not flow through arguments for you, please extend and clearly sign post, it will benefit you greatly with me.

I tend to vote on:

-Dropped/mishandled voters

-Dropped/mishandled theory

-Impact calc

I will not be offended if you want to spend some time in your rebuttal writing my ballot for me. Please tell me why you win the debate, make it obnoxiously clear to me who i'm going to vote for.

Let's have fun! :>

I debated policy for West High school and went on to coach for them, as well as becoming the dedicated policy coach at East High school. When I was in high school I was a k, framework, and theory debater. As long as an argument follows the proper structure, I don't care how crazy it is, go for it. Explain it well, however, I like to know what I'm getting when I sign a ballot. As for speed, if you sound like a garbage disposal chewing up a glass, I will just stop flowing.

If you have any specific questions feel more than free to ask them for the round, but I am lazy and don't feel like writing 20 paragraphs on what arguments I like.

Personal Summary:

Assistant debate coach @ Damien HS in La Verne, California. Debated policy at UNLV. Had some accomplishments.

General Overview -

*Tech > Truth* Its the only way for bad 2AC add-ons to survive. I give 1ARs leeway, but not too much. If an argument is obviously asinine, then you should be able to refute it even without cards. Favorite debates are Impact Turn debates and Soft Left Affs v Disad/CP debates. However, when extending a dropped argument don't just say "they dropped XYZ argument" and move on. This is terrible :( You need to explain why that matters in the debate, otherwise, it'll be hard for me to evaluate that argument properly.

*I like a good policy v policy debate* where each side goes in-depth on certain arguments, however I dislike when teams throw a thousand cards around but don't explain any of them. I also like K v policy debates, they are some of the most interesting debates. K v K debates are a toss up, sometimes they are cool, other times they're not. I don't like it when teams say buzzwords and don't explain them. I have knowledge about the Set Col/Security/Marx lit, but other than that, I am aware that the lit exists but never read it myself (i.e. DnG)

*Have fun* Be adventurous! Go for arguments that are interesting (but that you are prepared to go for). Debate gets boring after reading the same thing a millionth time. Experiment! Read that barely topical aff! Read that hot-off-the-press CP (without or a without a solvency advocate). Make jokes if you can/want.

*Speed* I am fine with speed, but when you are reading analytics, SLOW DOWN! I can understand what you are saying, but my hand can only write so fast! This is a big issue on T when 2A's read multiple distinct analytical arguments but read them as if they were cards.

Detailed (more or less) View of Debate:

DA: Enjoy them. A well thought out story is awesome! Generics are fine, but please contextualize or I will be more likely to discount your evidence. Impact calc is important, especially turns case that make sense. I am a HUGE fan of politics DA's. Especially ones that are unique (i.e. specific senator like UNLV's Rubio DA).

CP: Enjoy them too. Interesting CP's are awesome! CPs with a billion planks are cool too (but honestly might lean Aff on theory for some atrocious CP's i.e. Consult CP's/Delay CP's.). Its okay if you CP doesn't have a solvency advocate.

T: Ok. Not the best judge honestly, but understand it enough to adjudicate fairly. T is about a vision of the topic, so even if your interp is limiting, could it be universally assumed by other teams i.e. if I saw the topic, is this a definition that would produce fruitful debates?

FW: Solid. These debates get boring, but I have been in tons of them so I understand what you need to win and how you are going to lose. Choose either fairness or education/advocacy/whatever flavor in the 2NR. I am solid either way. The cold debaters who say debate is a game and nothing matters will win just as much as the debaters who say debate is a training ground and policy education is good. HOWEVER, even though I understand FW, it DOES NOT mean I will auto vote for you.

Make sure to impact out your T arguments. Tell me why fairness/education etc. matters! Don't just say that being topical causes movements or reduces dogmatism, you need the next step as to why movements are good or why dogmatism is bad. Otherwise it would be very hard for me to vote on framework. Having a TVA that actually solves some portion of the aff is very effective in neutralizing aff offense, but it needs to have a line or two as to why it actually solves/accesses their lit base. Don't be afraid to go all in on fairness.

K: Enjoy them, either side of the debate. They can sometimes be the most cool arguments in debate, but also can be the worst arguments. You do you. Links need to not be generic. You have to clearly articulate the story and why the K matters. I will vote on extinction outweighs, but I also know what the policy teams needs to win to beat the k and if they don't I'll easily vote on the K. K aff's are cool too. Seriously, I hate speeches on K's that end up being super generic. I am a fan of security and set col, but if your speech sounds like it could have been delivered in any other debate regardless of the aff, you will have a hard time getting my ballot regardless of what happens.

C-X: You can be aggressive but don't be mean. Answer questions, I will give you low speaks if you are dodgy; However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. C-X gets you high speaker points, use it to defeat your opponent.

Theory: Boo! Not the best judge for this, lean Aff on a lot of things such as Consult CP's bad, Delay CP's bad, Floating PIK's bad. Yes I will vote on Condo. BUT PLEASE DON'T MAKE THE DEBATE ABOUT THEORY. I understand if its your only way out, but for the love of god, don't please. If you do have to go for theory, please make it into a coherent story i.e. tell me why Consult CP's would be net worse for debate than if we were to allow them.

Any questions, send me an email briandebateunlv@gmail.com Please include me on the email chain.