Korean-American born and raised in Iowa

Current Student at The University of Iowa with a double major in Psychology and English and Creative Writing

Iowa City West High School Alum

cho3104026@gmail.com -- put me on email chain pls

Quick Overview

This is my first year judging at the collegiate level.

I will always try my best to understand your arguments and figure out how everything works.

I'm down to vote for any argument

Unfortunately, I was never the best with the technical side of debate. I was always a big picture person who favored truth over tech. Thus, I probably need more explanation than the average judge when it comes to T and Framework debates.

I like to read evidence whenever I can, but I'll value my flow and what's being said over whatever I read in your evidence.

I have a solid foundational understanding of most critical arguments in debate, but I wont be too familiar with any topic specific evidence about anti-trust laws.

I'm not great when it comes to Theory debates. IE: Condo Bad, Vague Alts Bad, etc. I'm willing to vote for them, but there needs to be substantial proof of in round abuse and an impact.

email chain/email for comments: drewgartner1@gmail.com

Debate background:

Iowa City High: '11-'15
University of Iowa: '15

Coaching: Iowa City High '15-'18. '21- present

Important disclaimer: I have done nearly 0 research on this topic, and will likely not understand your acronyms without explanation. Please do not assume that I have a shared knowledge of the topic, and take time to explain things.

Important Disclaimer Addendum: My comfortability with full mega-speed has lowered, especially in the realm of analytics. I would like your analytics to be slower, so I can really get it all down. Taking a few year break from debate really impacted my full spread comprehension.

I debated Policy all through high school and did some college policy as well. I mainly work with novices, now. Topic specific acronyms, let me know what they mean I won't know. Don't start your speeches full speed, start at 80% and work up to full speed.

I think most debates can/should be decided without reading evidence. This means it is the debaters' burden to tell me what the evidence says, and the implication of the evidence. This also means that I reward story telling/writing my ballot. I have no sympathy for debaters who ask about "well, what about this evidence that says x" after I give a decision. I will not be embarrassed to vote against an argument that I feel i do not understand. It is your job to tell me about that evidence and why it matters, not my job to read it and implicate it on the debate.

General Philosophy: I come from a team where our primary focus was "traditional policy debate" meaning we liked to read heg, environment affs, et.c. Our main neg strat was the DA and a CP, and that is the type of debate I prefer. I did do a lot of cap debating, and a fair amount of security debating, too. My knowledge of critical theory is very limited and I probably require a huge amount of work on the more "out there" ks to vote for you. That being said, I do believe a dropped argument is a true argument. I will vote on dropped arguments if they are dropped and explained. As a caveat, debaters tend to have bad flows and claim everything was dropped, when the reality is that they probably did not. Please do not use the term "functionally conceded" in front of me, that term makes no sense. Either they have dropped something or they have not.

Specifics:

Disadvantages- Probably my favorite part of debate is the top level interactions with case and good DA O/Ws and Case O/Ws and turns debates. These are probably where the majority of my decision calculus comes from. Obviously, you need to win risk/chance of your disadvantage being true, but good impact calc and turns debates are very convincing.

Counter Plans- there tend to be a lot of cheating counter plans, and as a 2a I am probably sympathetic to reasonable theory arguments and perm do the counterplan. That being said, most counter plan theory should be a reason to reject the argument, it will be extremely difficult to win that it should be a reason to reject the team

Ks- like I said above, i am mostly versed in cap and security. If you want to read too much beyond basic Ks, I am most likely not your type of judge. Floating PIKs are probably bad, don't let the negative get away with them.

"non traditional debate/ performance"- also not very versed in it. I am more than likely not the type of judge for this, but i will not reject any arguments out right. I am pretty sympathetic to FW arguments. However, if you are a "non traditional team" and you get stuck with me as a judge, don't lose faith, I can be persuaded. I enjoy critical affirmatives that actually engage the topic, not just reject debate outright, and plan texts are preferable.

T- I don't know much about this topic, so all the topic specifics should be slower and well explained. I think that most debaters try to go too fast in their final rebuttals on T, which leads to a lot of judgement calls. To remedy this, go slower in your final rebuttal, and you will be rewarded.

Theory- Most things are reasons to reject the argument not the team. I will probably not vote on dropped perm theory, even if you claimed it was a reason to reject the team.

Speech Docs/ Email chains

I would prefer if all debates were done with email chain. Please add me to the email chain at drewgartner1@gmail.com
I can tell when you are wasting time and/or stealing prep. DON'T. it's annoying, wastes everybody's time, and will undoubtedly lose you speaker points. technical issues do happen, yes, but they should be resolved quickly and efficiently. I would prefer every speech to start as nearly as immediately after prep or CX as possible. We don't want to be the last round done.

Speaker Points

It's very easy to impress me, using technical skill and clarity.
I am okay with speed, but will yell clear once or twice before the speaks begin to get docked. Nobody likes kids who are fast but incoherent, going slower is in your best interest.
Being nice/reducing all hostility is very preferable. If you have made it this far and are still reading, I will likely increase speaker points if you work "jambalaya of awesomeness" into one of your speeches, especially if you are original and make me laugh rather than just saying it to say it. I have a relatively low threshold for docking speaks due to hostility. Being assertive and being aggressive are much different, know the difference. I probably will not say anything if you are being overly rude/rude at all, but it will significantly hurt your speaker points, but will not affect the decision calculus.

In the same way I feel qualified to judge Dancing with the Stars every week on tv, I feel qualified to judge policy debate. ;-) I have never danced and I've never debated.  I'm a tiny step above a "mom judge" given I've watched a large number of varsity policy debates and attended weekly novice practices for about 2 1/2 years now. 

I try to keep a clean flow but often lose some of the nuances of technical arguments so clearly marked voters are essential and make me more comfortable voting for you. 

I come from West Des Moines Valley so most of my exposure to varsity debate is kritikal debate of most every way, shape, and form - baurdrillard to afro pess to queer nihlism - I've seen them all :-) But I don't necessarily understand all arguments so keep in mind that it needs to be well explained.  

I like to see you really understand your arguments and are not just reading prewritten blocks. I love a lively cx. I absolutely expect everyone to be respectful and kind. I want everyone to win but unfortunately that's not how debate works. 

Public forum specific: Generally I'm a claim/warrant/impact judge. I judge mainly on the flow but I appreciate good analysis as well as evidence. I like to see that you understand your arguments and aren't just reading. I really enjoy a lively cx. I'm open to about any argument. 

 I like to see the debate collapsed to 1-4 arguments. It is the debaters responsibility to clearly explain what you think the voters are. F/W arguments that seem petty and pointless annoy me but I'll vote on it if it's a winning argument. 

Signposting is required. I can flow and handle speed as long as you are clear.  

Experience:

I debated for Iowa City West high for four years and qualified to the TOC with four bids last year. I'm currently a freshman @University of Minnesota but I'm not debating. I'm currently coaching Edina High School, beginning this year.

T/L:

• Put me on the email chain: chiragjain2000@hotmail.com
• Hardcore policy debater, so anything policy is WONDERFUL for me
• Tech over truth -- but if the other team drops something you have to mention it and expand upon the argument and explain it. But small dumb one liner theory arguments are an exception --- the opposing side better explain why the arg was so tiny and useless that a late answer is justified.
• Speak fast but not too fast --- I have to be able to understand nearly all words, and flow them --- if I fall behind on flowing because of a lack of clarity or because you're too fast on analytics/theory/topicality, its on you
• If you're running anything kritikal other than capitalism or security: slow down, cut all jargon, explain everything in a VERY detailed manner that makes intuitive sense, and hope for the best lol

DAs:

• Framing contentions are never the way I expect them to be --- both sides have a lot of internal links and there's a decent chance that you link equally to the Kessler/Connetta/Yudkowsky card. Any arguments about BIAS however make sense to me --- if you isolate a bunch of different biases I have, and then put that with some really good impact defense and a bunch of COMPLEMENTARY jabs at the internal link chain of a DA then you have me pretty well on your side against the DA.
• Cards like Olsen, Cohn, etc about how there's NO risk of big impacts or that things like the aff are ALWAYS deprioritized so this time we just gotta make up for it, then get em outta here
• I love disads, especially agenda politics disads
• Cards have to be highlighted well --- I don't want some trash cards that don't say what they mean --- that's a speaker point reduction
• Pls do turns case analysis

CP

• I also love counterplans. I love process counterplans but if you're aff go for theory lol (I have a high bar for that though, it better be a good 2AR) but not much of a bias either way on the theory question for that. Agent counterplans, consult counterplans, all of that stuff is good with me. Advantage Counterplans + Impact Turn strategy is like the best thing ever.
• Please do a good job explaining why you solve each advantage and actually answer all the solvency deficits
• No judge kick unless you tell me to

T

• To be honest I LOVE topicality but also most teams do a terrible job running it
• I'm gonna flow straight down and hope for the best --- make sure you get everything important at the top of an argument and make it easy to flow for the judge
• Eh T LPR is iffy but ill vote on it any day just debate well
• Your evidence is important hella
• Please show me the model of debate you produce and make good 2NR/2AR framing arguments --- show me what sort of core controversies we lose in one or another model of debate

Ks

• I explained this earlier but…not a fan…
• If you're running neolib/cap or security I'll likely have a higher level of understanding for your argument but…the odds I vote for you in face of a decent aff answer….low :(
• Pretty much other than those I think I think alternatives are often not feasible and the aff in the interim is a good idea (Delgado 9 where u @, read this card, +.1 speaks)

K Affs/FW

• I'm not the right judge for you if you run a K aff
• I voted for it once. It was a sad day. FW hack right here, please debate framework well and do line by line better than the team that runs a k aff --- you can do it! @the neg
• My ballot means nothing more than saying who debated better in the round
• Run good case arguments @the neg
• SSD is so true
• Clash = best impact

Theory:

• I always wanted this in judge paradigms so here we are
• Please give me good framing arguments in terms of your model of debate and what sort of things it includes/what they exclude out that is important
• Condo: Its good lol throw in 8 counterplans idrc, 2As can be efficient
• Process CP Theory: Aff leaning but I have a higher bar for a good 2AR on Process CP theory
• 50 States: Aff leaning
• Agent CPs: Neg leaning but I think you can win perm do cp if you're vague enough
• International Fiat: On this topic its stupid --- aff leaning --- but also I'd love seeing some International counterplans

Speaks:

• The way you present yourselves matters so much --- silence between speeches unless you're talking to the other team or me --- communication between partners is sketchy, I don't wanna know that you're on FB Messenger, quick speech-flashes but if its taking time I want it to be obvious that you aren't stealing prep, dropping flows everywhere and a bunch of messy stuff is going to lose you speaks
• +.1 for reading Delgado 9 when its relevant
• -.1 for sending Google Doc links because online word is a thing
• -.3 for playing music before the round because its obnoxious and disrespectful sometimes
• +.1 for sending a good policy debate meme in every speech doc (+.1 total)
• -.1 for sending a bad policy debate meme (-.1 per bad meme)
• +.3 for an I-Law aff
• If you're still flowing upto 15 seconds after the speech just to get the arguments down that’s fine imo --- if you're still going beyond that is a -.1 for every 10 seconds because you've gotta be cheating
• If I perceive stealing prep, automatic -.5 --- make it clear you're not stealing prep (not verbally lol, in your actions)
• Anything offensive (racist, sexist, offensive to a marginalized group, mean, rude, etc) = Automatic 0s, we stop the round, and you lose

Email: pranavk1016@gmail.com (add me to the chain)

Experience: Debated policy at Iowa City West for 4 years as ICW TK. Qualified for the TOC twice and broke at the TOC once.

Short version: I will try to minimize any preconceived notions and solely rely on in-round analysis so run what you are best at. Although I would rather listen to cp + da debates, I am open to well-executed kritik debates. If you are going to win a kritik debate in front of me, assume that I have no knowledge of your theory(because I probably don't) and give concrete examples to prove your point. Finally, clarity & efficiency>>>>>speed.

General:

I prefer arguments based on concrete examples, data, and logic. I can be convinced otherwise in a debate if a team challenges this mindset.

Look up at me during the round. It should be pretty easy to tell whether I am understanding and following your argument.

Evidence comparison is extremely important in deciding debates. In close debates, leaving evidence comparison to me will bring in my subjective judgments so frame your opponents evidence during the speech. If you are going insert a rehighlighting of a card during a speech that you want me to look at you must read it. You cannot just say that the rehighlighted card is in the speech doc and move on. On that note, please highlight your evidence properly. This means full sentences with all of the warrants that you extend in the debate. I will not read past the highlighting if I call for evidence.

Tech>truth in most cases. in most cases, I will stick to my flow and prevent any intervention. For me to evaluate an argument, it must have a claim and a warrant. Additionally, telling me the implication of arguments will tremendously help you.

Mark cards clearly during your speech. If I ask for evidence at the end, make sure to give me the marked version.

Last Updated: 11/13/2020

Email: patricia.l.leon27@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/Them/Their(s)

About Me: My name is Patricia Leon, alum and former assistant debate coach for Maine East high school. I debated in high school, received my B.S. in Environmental Sciences from Northeastern Illinois University, and am now a first year M.S. student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

General summary of my judging:
-I prefer big picture over small technical issues. I can't stress this enough: framing (top level especially) is super important to me and provides more concrete reasons for me to vote for you. This is especially important for me in rebuttals. Key questions you should ask yourself and explain to win me over: What arguments are you winning? How does this help you win the debate? What does this mean for your opponent's arguments(that is, why should I prefer them less and why are their arguments insufficient)? Please also try to slow down a bit in rebuttals so I can flow these crucial moments properly.

-I generally believe that debate is an educational activity and should be valued as such. Recently I have been finding myself less and less likely to view fairness as an impact as a result. If you are going for arguments that frame fairness as a prior question, please try to have a coherent explanation as to why this is net better role for my ballot and why this subsumes their educational/indicts to your educational model claims. Going for other impacts would also be a good move if FW is truly your only option.

-I enjoy all kinds of arguments, but for more complex ones I will need more explanation before I can feel comfortable voting for you. I am familiar with the topic, so I know the common terms and court cases. If you are running an uncommon aff, just don't act like I automatically understand your specific terms and acronyms.

-I am actively trying my best to understand your arguments and strategy, and to accurately determine who won the round. By the end of the round, you should have really made it clear to me why I should vote for you. If I am still left confused once the round ends, it will be harder to do so.

-Evidence comparison. Please do this! This year's topic in particular I have seen a flood of evidence from debaters, yet no explanation or clash regarding the evidence. Absent comparison, I'm left to make these decisions myself, which can end up hurting you in the end. See a flaw in their evidence? Point it out, and explain why your evidence is better.

Cross-x: Cross-x should be where you poke holes in the other team's arguments, not for asking pointless questions because you are forced to. If you are the one asking the questions in cross-x, you should have taken at least 3 minutes before the speech ends to prepare your questions. Being prepared in cross-x will not only clarify issues in the round you did not understand, but will(or should) signal to me, the judge, where you are going with your strategy.

Kritikal debate: I enjoy K arguments a lot. I have decent knowledge of generics(cap, security), Feminism kritiks(K's of western/white fem), Queer Theory (Edelman, Halberstam, Puar), and general understanding kritiks relating Race, Ableism, etc. BUT- I have found that when debaters go for arguments under the spheres of postmodernism, poststructuralism, and existentialism (think Nietzsche, Deleuze, Bataille, Baudrillard, etc.), their speeches are filled with incoherent arguments. If these are your preferred K stuff, then I am not the best judge for y'all. If you wish to go for these arguments in front of me, PLEASE go in depth on explanation and go beyond unnecessary jargon.

Buzz words or excessive jargon are annoying and should not be used in place of actually explaining your argument. So please- explain your argument concisely and precisely. This makes it significantly easier for all of us to be on the same page and avoid confusing cross-x.

Policy debate: Be sure to have proper overviews that explain them more clearly to me. For affs- the 1ac tags should be coherent enough to help me understand your aff. I find it more compelling when counterplans/disad's are specific to the affirmative and are explained in depth.
Impact defense is certainly necessary for case, but internal link turns also make for great case arguments. Impact turns are interesting, but usually have low-quality evidence/warrants (don't go for those terrible warming good cards in front of a scientist...).

Framework vs K aff's: I'd rather the neg engage with the substance of the affirmative, but big picture framing, impacting out arguments, and overall in depth explanations from either side will help me the most in any of these scenarios.

Topicality: I have a high standard for this. You absolutely need standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. Focusing on even one standard like limits or ground could help you out. Affirmatives should focus on impacting their offense. If your argument has multiple interpretations, be sure to make clear what you are going for (all or some of the interpretations). Re-reading your 2AC block will not help you get my ballot.

Theory: Topicality comes before condo. 50 state uniform fiat, multiplank are probably good. 1 or 2 condo is fine, 3 condo is probably pushing it, 4+ is bad.


Any other questions: just ask me in round!
If you ever want to email me any questions or resources (I'm a college student so I have access to various sites and articles that you may not), send me an email at patricia.l.leon27@gmail.com !

Speechdrop.net is strictly superior to email chains for in-round file sharing, but feel free to contact me via Kalen.pop@gmail.com

I've been involved in policy debate since 2012 and a coach since 2018, currently Head Coach at Iowa City Liberty High School. By day, I'm employed as a sentient Politics DA. (Journalist with a major in political science.)

TLDR: I'll vote on anything you can make me understand. I love DA/CP/Case debates, I'm not a bad judge for the Kritik, but I've been told I'm not a great judge for it either. Speed reading is fine in the abstract, but I do hold debaters to a higher standard of clarity than I think many other judges to. Speed-reading through your analytics will guarantee I miss something.

Detailed Paradigm: everything below this line is background on my opinions, NOT a hard and fast rule about how you should debate in front of me. I do everything in my power to be cool about it, check bias at the door, etc.

Speed Reading: is fine. But don't spread analytics, please. 250 WPM on analytical arguments is really pushing it. I know that some judges can flow that fast, but I am not one of them: my handwriting sucks and is capped at like, normal tagline pace. Otherwise, you're free to go as fast as I can comprehend. I'll yell "CLEAR!" if I can't.

Policy stuff: Yeah of course I'll vote on disads and counterplans and case arguments and topicality. Are there people who don't?

CP theory: Listen, I'll vote on it, but I won't like it. I strongly advise that theory-loving 2As give warranted voters in the speech, and that 1ARs do actual line-by-line rather than pre-written monologues.

Kritiks: are pretty rad, whether they're read as part of a 12-off 1NC or a 1-off, no case strat. I want to be clear, though: I REALLY NEED to understand what you're saying to vote for you with confidence. I find a lot of very talented K debaters just assume that I know what "biopolitical assemblages of ontological Being" or whatever means. I do not.

K affs: are fine. I myself usually stuck to policy stuff when I debated, but I'll hear it out. You should probably have a good reason not to be topical, though. Some people have told me I'm a bad judge for K affs, others have told me I was the most insightful judge at the tournament. (More have told me I was a bad judge for it though, for what it's worth.)

Other debate formats:

PF: PF is traditionally about being persuasive, whereas policy is about being right. If you can do both I'll be impressed and probably give you a 30. Otherwise, I feel like I have a more or less firm grasp on your activity, but I certainly don't have all of its norms memorized.

LD: I have no idea how your activity works and at this point I'm too afraid to ask. Whoever successfully teaches me LD debate will get an automatic 30. Please dumb your Ks down for me, I'm a policy hack.

Congress: Listen, I did one congress round in high school and left it with 0 understanding of how it's supposed to work. If I'm in the back of your room, it means tabroom made a mistake. Because of my background in policy debate, I imagine I'll be biased in favor of better arguments rather than better decorum.

My kids keep making fun of me for my paradigm being too long so I decided to make a shorter updated version, but I'll leave the old stuff on the bottom for posterity. All the stuff I say in the old essay is still true unless it contradicts something written up here. Updated 12/22/2019. (Update 2: Apparently even in my short version I’m super verbose so I’ll give you a super cliff notes as well).

Uber-Cliffnotes:

-Put me on the email chain but I flow off your speech.

-Warrants are super important, and I won’t vote on arguments without them.

-More impact comparison, no matter what kind of debate you do.

-Everything is fine, and I’m a lot better judge for neg FW than I used to be.

-Go for theory and T more.

-Don’t be shifty or mean.

-Zero risk is possible and defense can be terminal, but it often isn’t.

Paradigm, Short(er) Edition:

-Email is maxtp26@gmail.com. Put me on the email chain please, though I won't read along outside of curiosity etc. reasons. I flow based on the words I hear, not what's in your document. This means clarity is of utmost importance. I'll say clear up to three times, but if I don't hear an argument the onus is on you. My hearing is also apparently not as good as it once was so this is crucial. It also means if you want me to flow a rehighlighting, you have to actually read the important stuff.

-I'll vote on anything (with the exceptions of racism good, etc.) as long as it's warranted and impacted out. However, arguments do consist of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If your argument doesn't contain a warrant I won't vote on it and I'll give the other team pretty much infinite leeway on answering it in later speeches. My threshold for blippiness is going up and, from recent panel results, is probably higher than your average judge's. When in doubt, explain.

-While I think I've developed a reputation as a K judge and coach, I'm definitely getting more middle of the road the more I judge, and I think my record in recent framework rounds is near 50-50 or even slightly favoring the team reading framework. I find fairness is usually least persuasive when gone for as an impact of its own, and most persuasive as an internal link to other impacts. The arguments I find most compelling when going for neg framework have to do with the educational value of beginning with the USFG as a starting point or of switching sides as pedagogy. Impact comparison is paramount in these debates and I usually vote for the team who does the most of it.

-Because it bears repeating, impact comparison is paramount. I find one of the most common post-round comments I give to be "there could have been more impact work," whether it's a T debate, FW debate, or DA/case. I would always err on the side of more.

-I love tricky and creative arguments but if your strategy relies on shiftiness and deceit I'm probably not the judge for you. This means if your cxes consist of a lot of "we don't have to answer that" or other forms of question dodging I will be greatly displeased. A good rule of thumb to follow: if truthfully answering questions about your argument hurts you strategically, you probably just shouldn't make that argument.

-I find it funny when judges say "I have a general predisposition against violence" or stuff like that then go on to vote on heg good in half their rounds. I too am predisposed against violence but if your argument includes advocating for violent revolution or whatever to me that's no different (and probably more morally defensible) than advocating for US empire. It's almost like certain forms of violence are naturalized and camouflaged to maintain the supremacy of whiteness and the global liberal order... That said I'll vote on heg good too and will try my best to counteract my personal bias against such.

-Affs should be reading and going for way more theory and negs should be going for way more T (at least in front of me). I find teams these days are getting away with the most ridiculously abusive counterplans and affs because everyone's too scared to go for theory against them.

-Most of all, have fun! Debate as an educational space is great and important but I'd rather have enjoyable debates bereft of educational value than educational debates that everyone hates. You only have 4-8 years on average to enjoy this strange and wonderful activity, and I want everyone to make the most of it and not just look back on their debate careers with ressentiment.

Old Stuff:

Quick LD cheat sheet for Apple Valley:

-I judge/coach policy mainly but judge a couple LD tournaments a year, and have judged multiple bid rounds, RRs, etc. in LD

-Anything goes: tricks, Ks, value/criterion, LARP, whatever. As a former philosophy major, I'm pretty familiar with all major moral theories that get used in phil debates and I judge a lot of K debates in policy so I shouldn't have a problem with whatever you read

-Depth>breadth in terms of argument development. I'm more likely to vote on well-developed arguments that are answered than dropped blips, although I will vote on the dropped blips occasionally as well.

-The one thing I ask is that you SLOW DOWN ON THEORY, maybe by about 20-30%. Any other argument you're fine going full-speed but my tiny policy brain can't flow LD theory at 300 wpm so if you want me to flow your arguments, slow down a bit.

-I'm not gonna disclose speaks, sorry. I get this is seemingly a norm in circuit LD so maybe I just need to adjust the way I think about this but it makes me fairly uncomfortable do so.

What do I need to know?

I'm the varsity policy coach for West Des Moines Valley for my 3rd (non-consecutive) year now, and in the past I debated for Des Moines Roosevelt and the University of Iowa. I just graduated from Grinnell College with a degree in Philosophy and Gender Studies. Over my first two years of coaching I ended up judging 70 or so rounds a year, mostly at bid-level tournaments.

Do what you want, within the reasonable guidelines of not being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and so on. I believe that debate is an activity for the debaters, and while I consider my role as judge to be that of an educator, the educational model I follow is one which is substantially less horizontal than traditional ones, in that I think my job as judge is to learn from you, as well as hopefully encourage and strengthen your competitive abilities.

There aren't any arguments outside of the parameters established earlier that I either won't or haven't voted on, and I'm down to hear whatever you enjoy most and are best at. What I find most disappointing while judging is when I see competitors who seem actively disengaged from the round for whatever reason, and as such I think I should facilitate enjoyment of the round by encouraging you to read and do whatever makes you happy.

With that said, here are my thoughts and presuppositions about specific arguments. All of them can be changed and I will always prefer arguments made within the debate to my thoughts outside of that round, but these are my "defaults" that I will revert to absent arguments to the contrary:

Top Level Stuff:

- Tech over truth but tech is guided by and generally adheres to the "truth," whatever that may be. In other words, I'll evaluate the round based off the flow and the arguments made in round, but determining which argument wins in a technical debate is something which is limited by, or at least shaped by, the truth of those arguments. "Global warming causes extinction" and "Global warming prevents an ice age, which causes extinction" are both viable arguments in a debate round, but the former is going to be easier to win because it is more in line with reality.

- On that note, dropped arguments are true arguments but an argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an implication (impact). If you say that your opponent dropped X arg so you win the debate, that may be true, but you still need to explain why X arg wins you the debate. One of the things that is most frequently missing from high school policy rounds is the impacting of conceded arguments, and this often presents major difficulties to my ability to evaluate the debate, especially in messy rounds where both teams drop arguments all over the flow. If you want an easy way to win (and get good speaker points) make sure you are explaining not only that your opponent has dropped your arguments, but also what it means that they have dropped your arguments. All of the above is of course true in the case of contested arguments as well, but I find the implication debate appears a lot more naturally in those circumstances.

- Do as much as you can get away with. Again, everything here is just my personal bias or default, and just because I say I don't like or disagree with an argument doesn't mean you shouldn't make it or read it.

DA/Advantage Debate

- "Zero risk" is certainly possible but often unlikely. What I mean by this is that if the neg says "The plan leads to an increase in hair loss, and warming causes extinction" and the aff says "No link--no warranted reason the aff leads to hair loss and no internal link between hair loss and warming," I'm not going to decide that since the aff only made defensive arguments that there's "only a risk" of the DA occurring. Smart defensive arguments (including and sometimes especially analytics) can take out entire disads and advantages, but if they're not terminal I am going to be more susceptible to "only a risk" logic.

- I love a good impact turn debate (who doesn't?) and find they're often the most strategic option given that your opponents' evidence about their aff or DA or whatever is often (and probably even should be) better than your cards to answer it.

- Impact comparison is obviously crucial but it seems a lot of debaters forget the comparison part of the phrase. If your overview is just "our impact is big, fast, and probable" you've done the first step, now explain why your impact is bigger, faster, and more probable. Even more astute debaters will attempt to evaluate which of those metrics they are most likely to be winning, and then make arguments as to why I should prefer that one; e.g. "magnitude before timeframe" and so on.

- Most politics theory arguments are, in fact, garbage, but I will happily assign zero risk to the disad if they're conceded. Just because it's a bad argument doesn't mean you shouldn't have to answer it (which is a metric that is, in general, true for how I evaluate debates).

CPs

- My personal bias is that most process counterplans, consult, and so on, are generally cheating because they are A. usually marginally competitive at best and B. steal a lot of aff ground. If you're aff you should almost certainly be reading theory against these arguments, and if you're neg you should be prepared to defend them. All that said, I think "cheating" counterplans are usually a great strategic choice because they steal aff ground and because most aff teams aren't prepared to extend theory in the face of your 15-point 1NR block, so if you have them, it's probably wise to read them. Again, do as much as you can get away with.

- I generally really like PICs on the other hand, with the obvious caveat that the more well-researched and specific to the aff they are the better.

- The common thread between these two presuppositions is that I generally believe the best counterplans are those with a specific solvency advocate that distinguishes them from the aff. What the bar for this solvency advocate is is a matter of debate, but the more contextualized to the aff your cp is the less likely you are to lose it to theory.

- I'll judge kick for you, but only if you tell me to and the aff doesn't tell me you can't. The "logical policymaker" in me thinks the squo should always be an option, but the "debate is a game" person tells me this is bad for the aff, so just make an argument why I should/shouldn't do so if the aff ends up being worse than the CP

"THE K"

- The link debate is probably the most important here since you'll usually be winning that your thing is *~bad~* and the debate will usually come down to whether the aff actually does that thing or not and thus gets access to a perm. That said, if you're reading a big stick policy aff you should probably just bite the bullet and go for the impact turn if there's no chance you can win a link turn.

- In KvK debates I don't really find myself having a default when it comes down to whether "method debates" mean the aff gets a perm or not. I guess I don't really see why the fact that we're talking about methods means that those methods don't have to be competitive, but if we're not viewing the aff as a test of the resolution's truth value maybe that changes. Either way, simply asserting that "method debates means no perms" probably isn't sufficient and I like when these debates get in depth

- Similarly, the zaniness of your perm arguments should probably be proportional to the zaniness of the 1AC&1NC, and the same for perm answers. Creative perms that are based in your literature have often been effective in front of me, and the neg should rely on similar creativeness in answering them. In other words, why limit yourself to "perm do both" when you could tell me the perm is a radical cooption of their method which makes you the true symbolic terrorists, or something?

"K Affs"/"New Debate"/FW

- The teams I coach mostly read critical arguments, affs without plan texts, and stuff like that, I went to college to study gender theory and philosophy, and a large portion of the rounds I've judged in the past have been K rounds, so I think I've (deservedly) cultivated a bit of a prior reputation as a K hack. However, I've noticed in more recent times that perhaps I'm swinging a bit back toward the middle of the road in these debates, or at least that at the end of rounds I often find myself asking: "why didn't this team go for framework?" because the kritikal team has mishandled or neglected parts of that debate, yet the opposing team ends up going for something else. I have voted on framework in the past, I expect I will continue to do so in the future, and if it is the best option for you in any given debate you should choose it.

- I think the biggest shift in my thinking here is that over time I have stopped subconsciously viewing my vote of any given individual debate as implying that I have somehow committed some ideological boon/transgression, and instead believe that the most educational approach to facilitating debates as a judge involves me allowing debaters to challenge any and all aspects of their opponents arguments. While I believe each debate round is important as a unique pedagogical moment, I am somewhat less convinced that the results of that debate will change the world or even the (horrible and oppressive) structures of debate, and thus I believe that if a team is not capable of beating framework or topicality on its own merits, I shouldn't vote for them just because it helps the movement or is supposed to improve debate, because it probably won't.

- If you are the "K team" in this debate, you should make sure you answer args like "it's about the best model of debate/competing interps" if you're just going for arguments that boil down to "our aff is good." If it's "not what you do but what you justify," you need to ensure that you have either an adequate description of what you justify and why it's good, or an answer to the above argument.

- I'm finding myself (slightly) more compelled by "do it on the neg" style arguments against affs that just say the resolution is bad. If you are reading such an aff you probably want a defense of why you being even forced to defend the resolution in a pedagogical space is bad, not just reasons the resolution as a question is bad.

- TVAs are good and important but often not the game-ender FW teams think they are. If the aff says "state bad" then you give a big list of state actions, this still does not (on its own) mean that the state is good, and thus doesn't necessarily disprove any part of the aff's claim. If you impact out how exactly that TVA solves, preferably even with evidence, you're in a much better place. Basically, you need to actually have a warranted reason the TVA solves, not just the phrase "we have a topical version of the aff!!!"

Other random things:

My "role of the ballot" is to, as the cliche goes, determine who did the better debating, but that doesn't mean there can't be other "RoBs" within the debate. Generally I interpret these as frameworks or criteria for evaluating the different arguments and impacts within the round, so a phrase like "the role of the ballot is to vote for the team who best performatively and methodologically challenges queerphobia" would mean, to me, basically, that I evaluate arguments according to whichever team best meets such a criteria, not that my ballot serves some literal other purpose than choosing the best debater. However, this does mean that if you answer such an RoB with the phrase "the role of the ballot is to choose the team who does the better debating" I'm not sure you're being responsive to what that phrase is actually saying.

Any number of conditional options is allowed as long as you can justify you get that many, and any number of conditional options is not allowed as long you can win the opponent doesn't get that many. I don't think there's any magic number above which condo suddenly does or doesn't become okay, and as with everything I think this is a debate best left to the debaters. Despite my reputation I actually really enjoy big debates with lots of different arguments and you should always look to get away with as much as the other team will let you in any given debate.

Excessive rudeness is obviously never appreciated. I know debate can get heated sometimes and that's fine but if you get to the point of insulting the other team, your partner, etc. Jokes are always good as long as they aren't at the expense of other people, and so you should always be careful about accidentally hurting someone.

Call me Max, or judge if you absolutely feel uncomfortable with that (though being referred to as judge makes me feel weird), and put me on the email chain if you remember (my email is maxtp26@gmail.com).

As I've alluded to a couple times earlier, I believe that one of the reasons why debate is such an amazing activity (and it truly can be!) is because of the relatively non-horizontal nature of it compared to other educational activities, and I really want to facilitate that environment. Obviously as the person holding the sheet of paper or connected to the tabroom ballot I have a certain degree of power, but again, debate is for you (the debaters). So, as I keep reiterating, do what makes you most happy and comfortable within the debate space. Me asking anything otherwise would just be an attempt to stroke my ego as a judge and reassert my power within the room. I'm not going to stop you from doing anything as long as it does not hurt other people (which words can most certainly do, as we should all know) or cause me to be responsible for activities which would violate my contract as a coach. Read "trolly" arguments if you so desire, sit or stand to speak, go to the bathroom or get a drink of water when you need to, chat with people as long as it isn't disrupting or delaying the debate, or "dance with a chair if that's what the muse tells you to do." Do what you enjoy and I will enjoy it too.

 Edit 0 6… Darrell Smith
West Des Moines Iowa

Updated January 2017 for Iowa City West

Myself: I am a third year debater with plenty of experience in policy, and also a tad of experience in the K. Shortest Version: Just ask me questions and I will answer... But if you want more details read the paradigm :-).

Short Version: I will evaluate almost any argument that has a warrant, impact, voter etc. I will weight impacts as I am told during the debate, and evaluate all args based on the round. However, I will not evaluate an arg that is incomplete or that lacks any type of evidence, reasoning, impact, etc. In terms of speaking, I am fine with spreading/speed, but BE CLEAR. If you are not clear I will say clear once per speech, and no more. If you are not clear I will not hear what you say and will not evaluate it. I also love direct clash over things such as impacts, theory, and order of analysis. Finally, make sure everything you want to to vote on is summarized and extended in the 2AR/2NR. I will listed in the other speeches, BUT IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT ALL YOUR IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS THAT YOU WANT ME TO VOTE ON GET THERE. If a winning argument is thoroughly explained in the 1AR but not the 2AR, it will make me sad :-(. Please make sure to extend your most important points to the final rebuttal.

Long version: I generally default to utilitarianism, and will vote on it when not given a reason not to. Additionally, any other framework must be or have an alternative to the aff, not just a rejection. Say, for example, that the aff reads a standard util aff. The neg reads a lot of reasons as to why trying to save the most lives is not the best form of government, but fails to give an alternative. Because there is no alternative framework I will have to fall back on util, even if it is false.

General information:
1) I prefer direct clash. Running DAs instead of responding to case might be something that some can do, but direct clash, or even weighing the DA vs the AFF is an important step. I want direct analysis as to why your case is better than your opponents. If you have good reasoning as to why your case is specifically better than your opponents then I will boost your speaks.
2) Be clear, if you are unsure if you are clear or not err on the side of clarity. I do not want to listen to a murmur or a undecipherable mess. Clarity is imperative
3) I do not take prep for flashing/emailing, etc. if you are flashing, etc, please also give me a copy of your files. Otherwise, keep flash time to a minimum
4) I do allow tag teaming. You may ask a question or answer a few even if it is not your CX, but don’t monopolize someone else’s CX or it will be reflected in your speaks
5) I don’t study US-China relations in my free time. If you are running a space aff, BIT, Taiwan, explain it. Just because I know what these are doesn’t mean that I’m going to assume you do. Explain everything you read. Basically, never assume I know what you are talking about. Explain WHY your case is important, what it means, what its impacts are, etc.
6) I expect you to be polite. If you are rude, overly aggressive, that is not good speaking, and I will detract points.
7) The 2AR/2NR is one of the most important speeches in the round. If anything is dropped, I won't evaluate it. During the 2nd rebuttal I expect a good overview of your case and why it is better than the other team's, along with the reasoning why your case is better.
8) Blocks are fine and a great way to be prepared, so kudos to you. However, please also be aware of what you are reading and how it affects the round.
9) I try to be as fair as possible. If you have any questions that you need specified or simply my personal preferences as to arguments, feel free to ask :-).
10) I will try my best to evaluate all things equally, but know that I despise generic politics and elections disads, and that subpar topicality args get on my nerves. I will still try to evaluate it fairly, but given a close debate without an obvious winner I will tend to default to the aff.

Specific arguments:

Topicality:
Personally I believe this is an overused argument. Too often I will hear teams read this against obviously topical plans and end up only reading it in the block to screw with the 1AR. I will always vote for T above the rest of the flow unless told otherwise. If a "fairness/theory comes first" arg is read, I will look to it. I view topicality as a test of whether the aff is fair, predictable, etc. Whatever standards you read, make sure your interp matches them. If you are running a predictability standard, then I expect your interpretation to also be predictable and reasonable. If you want to run a obscure T, feel free but have matching and appropriate standards and interps. Finally, if you are running a stupid T shell that's only purpose is to waste time, then it will reflect in your speaks. I expect a T shell to be well written with a clear interpretation, violation, standards, and voters.

Just a few things
1) I default to reasonability. If you think reasonability is bad, argue it and I will listen. When running a T arg, I expect each argument to be well made with a clear winner. Basically, make me understand, without a doubt, why you won T.
2) If your aff meets a T interpretation, point it out and I will listen. There is no failed T shell more than the one which has no violation
3) If an aff is clearly untopical, I expect the aff to be able to defend it. If the aff is obviously topical, I expect them to be able to say why they are in response to T
4) Pretty much, I will try to be as unbiased as I can when evaluating T, but it is one of my lesser enjoyed arguments.
5) However, if a good T is made with clear points then you can expect your speaks to go up.

Inherency:

This is probably the most simple argument to evaluate. Inherency comes first before advantages, disadvantages, etc. If an aff is inherent, then they have no uniqueness and I can't vote for them based on advantages. If a aff is not inherent, then they have uniqueness. Inherency is one of those few arguments where I believe that evidence can actually be more important than good argumentation. If a team has sound evidence for why an aff is inherent and the aff can't invalidate it, then I will weigh it. 3 points

1) If a plan is clearly already being done in its entirety then it is inherent. In this case the aff loses their plan uniqueness and impacts
2) If a plan is not being done, but something similar is being done, the aff is not inherent, but I might still buy into some "this disproves the affs claims".
3) If a plan is meant to increase already existing engagement, I expect the neg to argue why the increased engagement is useless, etc, not the squo.


Solvency

I weigh and view this very similar to inherency. If you can prove your aff will actually work I give you our impacts. If the neg can invalidate your solvency I won't evaluate your impacts. If solvency is debated and there is a 50% chance that your aff won't solve or that the aff will only solve 50% of the impacts, I will weigh your case less than if it was a 70% chance to solve.

1) I view solvency on a sliding scale. For me to vote on presumption and presumption only requires a complete invalidation of the aff. Basically, you would need the aff to drop any neg solvency attacks or for the neg to do a really good job debating solvency
2) If I am given additional reasons to vote on presumption (say good policy making, etc) then I will listen
3) If there is a 1% chance the aff will solve and there is no reason not to at least try the aff, then I will vote for the affirmative team

DAs:

DAs are a good, versatile argument. If you have a good argument with good impacts, go for it. AFF, if you want to try to argue impacts with a DA, feel free, I will weigh the impact defense when weighing the aff vs the DA. However, I personally think the most important, and what should be the most well thought out part of a DA should be the link. If you have a vague link, be ready to defend/explain it!!! If your link is BS/vague, or just badly presented then I will be forced to drop the DA from my evaluation of the round. I hold the link to a DA to a very high standard. In my opinion, DAs often don't have good links. If you are running a politics/elections DA and you don't have a clearly explained link or story as to why the aff would trigger the impacts then I can't vote on the DA. A few points:

1) I love link debate. AFF, if the neg reads a DA, go the link. Find any reason why the link is bad and completely invalidate the DA. Neg, defend your link. Without it your DA is simply a few cards with no context to the round.
2) Make sure to weigh the impacts of the DA against that of the AFF. This is very important and is essential to winning the round.
3) If you run a politics/elections DA and political capital is your link, you better have a decent explanation as to why the plan would actually reflect poorly. If your only arg is "anything done no matter what it is will reflect poorly on republicans" then I will not be impressed. Please explain your link debate.

CPs:

CPs... these can be great or horrible arguments, based on their presentation. I will vote on a counter plan provided that any theory is out of the way. In my mind a great counterplan is one with a clear, laid out plan and that has unique advantages. If a counterplan simply says "the prez should do the plan instead of congress" and has no benefit I won't vote on it. Also, if you want to run a education benefit to the CP, please do. Finally, I love it when a team can effectively explain why a different actor can do a plan better from a simple effectiveness/solvency standpoint. Few points:

1) There a great number of things that will determine if I even evaluate a CP. To name a few, I will always evaluate fairness, education, CP theory, conditionality, etc before the CP. After that I will evaluate the solvency and advantages of the CP and the AFF, and then choose the better choice.
2) I love weighing the counterplan against the plan. If this is done effectively/clearly, I will award bonus speaks.

Ks:

Ks are one of my lesser liked arguments, simply because of their great diversity and the amount of people who read Ks despite not understanding them. I will evaluate a K if it is effectively explained and made sense of. If a team can sum it up in their own words and make is especially clear (or even obvious) what the K is then I will boost your speaks. Also, as one final point, from a K perspective I am somewhat staid. For example, if you try to tell me that human extinction is good because it reduces suffering, I will not be particularly happy with it. If it is argued correctly and the other team doesn't have a good defense, then I will vote for it, but if it is a close tie, then I will choose life. (Personally, I love life, and might be somewhat biased to Ks that represent that (think security)).

Theory:

I LOVE THEORY. I CANNOT SAY THIS ENOUGH. However, most theory blocks are a collection of maybe 10 sentence points. That's fine for a constructive, but I want more during rebuttals. If you focus on a few points a thoroughly explain them, it will make me happy and I will boost your speaks.

1) Please, explain your theory and why it is a voting issue. If this is dropped it will make me sad :-(. But, if you do a good job, then I will be happy... Yaay
2) Please please please do some weighing analysis and explain to me why theory should come first, or as to why your theory precludes other theory in the round.... I will love this arg and it will make me happy.


Impact Calculus:

I love impact calculus. It is probably my favorite part of the round and it is the part I will pay the most attention to. I want to hear the teams in the round describe why their impacts are bigger, badder, meaner (sorry) than the other teams. Sure, evidence analysis is extremely important, but once your case is explained I want to hear why your arguments are more valid and why they are more important and significant.

Iowa City West '18

Dartmouth '22

email: ethan.trepka@gmail.com

I have probably put off this long enough. I am a former debater at Iowa City West High School, I debated from 2012-2016. I have been judging since 2016 and have judged a varying extent on each topic since I stopped competing.

My argumentation style was flexible but my roots are in more policy based argumentation and that is what I keep up to date with as a result of following the news. That being said, I am versed in many styles of kritikal argumentation and have read or defended against most. With that noted, if you believe that I am not familiar or just to be safe, make sure to always explain your argumentation on a deeper level than just tag lines. Often historical examples are the best way to break down a kritik that explains to me an objective event to look at.

I am fine with whatever type of affirmative you would like to read. I am not familiar with the 2020-21 topic as I am not actively coaching so make sure to explain to me any acronyms or more specific topic information that I may be lacking. If you are reading a K aff again I believe historical examples are a compelling way to communicate your defense against framework.

I dislike voting on theory but I am willing to do so if it is impacted out to me correctly. I'd say among all types of argumentation this is the one I would like to vote on the least.

Topicality: If you choose to go for this in your 2NR I would like a well impacted and explained narrative for why the affirmative is 1. not topical 2. what this means in terms of the round/ground lost 3. why this is bad for debate. Just make sure you aren't just extending a ton of cards instead of making argumentation, those should be your groundwork in T arguments. Your 2NR should not consist of you rereading your blocks from the 1nc or from the neg block.

I feel as though I have covered the most important things relating to me as a judge. If you have any further questions feel free to reach out to me at colin-waldron at uiowa.edu

masonlwang32@gmail.com

Predispositions

More flexible, went for policy and K strats tho mostly neolib/case specific Ks. With a critical strategy, make your links specific - I like rewarding good research. I lean a bit aff on theory for extremely generic or questionable counterplans cuz these debates are less fun.

Important Stuff

Dropped arguments are only true to the degree to which they have met their burden of proof. The validity of an argument that was poorly constructed in the first place doesn't increase to 100% after the other team says nothing.

Slow at writing and flowing, slow down on T

Clash is important - a lack of depth on certain points is fine as long as the argument is understood, don't like rearticulation

Some examples of this:

1--When teams don't really listen to or attempt to understand cross-x questions and give and explanation of something else

2--when the neg makes an argument like "no impact to econ decline", the aff says "we're not econ decline", and the negative reads their pre-written extension that has five reasons for why econ decline doesn't cause war, then answers the aff argument.

3--impact calc that isn't comparative. what's the point of giving an overview if it doesn't tell me about the round

K links that are like "the affs neg state action relegitimizes the aff's ability to determine which state actions are bad" isn't persuasive on its own - needs to be coupled with historical context or examples

I won't presume that a counterplan solves a part of the case unless given a solvency argument. (doesn't have to be evidence, can be inferred from the text if it's obvious enough)

Speed and Flowing

I have a low standard for beating dropped arguments that were almost impossible to flow in the first place.

Make our tags clear enough to understand in the time that you say them. I am not your judge if your strategy involves reading 2 paragraph tags and expecting me to read them carefully in order to understand your argument. I flow in lines and not paragraphs

Speaker Points

Content > delivery for points, like creative strategies. Also I think some teams are deterred from reading new/creative arguments because they're afraid they won't be able to be as smooth on them. I liked watching Jeffrey Ding, he was awesome, he basically went like 1 wpm.

don't delay the round

I debated for ICW and got 4 bids + won Dowling + Caucus. Debate is fun to think about or entertaining to watch, so make it one of those two

major speaks boost if you get me out of the round as quickly and easily as possible. no need for overkill, just make it clean. If it's a super easy to understand why you're winning and I don't have to put a lot of effort into thinking about it then major speaks boost.

Every minute of prep not used is +.1 speaks for the team not using it, same w/ speech time