I do not time speeches, always time yourself because it's better to have it in front of you, rather than stopping in the middle of your speech to ask how much time you left.

I want to be able to understand and flow your arguments; speed reading is fine as long as you can articulate your arguments clearly. If I cannot understand you, I'm not flowing.

Otherwise, just don't curse in speeches or cross ex, and be polite. Debate is more fun when everyone is polite. Don't expect high speaker points if you do either.

Polytechnic School '14

Harvard College '18

Last Updated: February 2017

I believe judges should adjudicate debates based on the arguments presented, and I strive to judge in such a way that my preferences and predispositions make the minimum possible impact on my decision. No judge is a genuine tabula rasa, but I'm not interested in telling you what arguments to make or how to make them. Do what you do best and I'll adjudicate the debate as fairly and neutrally as I can.

As a debater, I primarily approach debate from a critical perspective. This does NOT mean that I will likely vote for the K, or even that I want to adjudicate K debates. It only means that I am well-versed in both sides of that literature, and am likely to render an intelligent decision in debates where a K is introduced. I enjoy well-researched and well-executed debating of all varieties, and as a judge I vote for both framework and critique arguments with regularity.

I'm a big fan of quality evidence. I typically let debaters decide what cards to show me after the debate, but I'll only look at evidence on key points of controversy and only when I need to do so in order to sufficiently evaluate the debate.

I will consult with tournament administrators about any instances of cheating and punish ethics violations with a loss and the minimum speaker points allowed by the tournament. Please just don't do it.

If you have any questions, please email me - paulmbanks at gmail.

I did policy debate at Harvard for several years, ending in 2016. I study the history of science. I don't know much about this year's high school topic. I have debated on both sides of the 'topicality/framework' debate in college and I went for a diverse set of arguments on the negative. 

I have few strong predispositions; all of them can be changed with an argument. The only non-negotiable is that I'll protect the 2NR. I read very few cards when deciding most debates and they rarely figure prominently in my decision. I think a lot about the debate as it is progressing.  I always take several minutes after I decide to think about my decision and try to argue with myself against it, using every argument in the likely-losing team's final rebuttal.  

Impacting arguments is the most important thing to do. I don't like having to fill in the blanks and sort out what it means for me to, say, adopt some particular perspective when judging a debate. If I should be a policymaker, what should I prioritize? Often teams assume that winning one argument (such as "the judge should be a policymaker") implies another thing (such as "the judge should only care about geopolitical consequences").  That explains how I think about "dropped arguments" and "concessions" as well.  I'm very good for teams that understand which claims the other team is winning and construct a coherent ballot assuming those claims are somewhat true.

I will not follow along with speech documents. I care about evidence and expertise, but only insofar as it's in your speeches.

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character based on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

Policymaker circa early 2000's. I like to vote for the team with the more competitive policy option. 

I don't vote on high theory and I dislike K affs and framework debates.

Condo is fine, as long as you don't go for 2 conditional advocacies in the rebuttals. 

Fiat is our friend. 

John Block: block.john.b@gmail.com please add me to email chain, thanks

LRCH ’09

Missouri state State ‘12

Last Updated: March 2024

General:

I am currently completing my final year of pediatrics residency so I have been out of the judging game to some extent so be aware that acronyms/the latest K lit I may not be up to date with. That being said I assist LRCH and judge practice debates/listen to practices. I believe that my job is to be a reactionary presence in the room. I do have my own opinions which I’ll get to in a bit but I should be receptive to basically anything you are doing. Being nice goes a long way. Make my job easy. If you can write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR I would be happy for you to do so. Even if statements are phenomenal, no one will win 100% of the arguments, recognize and embrace that.

Digital debate will be an adjustment to all. I have watched some debates but they were conducted over Zoom so I will be new to this software interface so please be patient if and when glitches arise.

You don’t need evidence for an argument, although it helps.

Specifics: T/Framework-I am not exclusively a policymaker. I’m just a person evaluating a discussion of ideas. That being said I went for Framework quite regularly in college and have voted on it multiple times. Be interactive with the other side, don’t just read blocks at each other. TVA’s are important and so are aff visions of the topic that are navigable to the negative team.

Theory: bad theory arguments are just that, bad. If you want to go for theory great but I am pretty easily swayed by reject the argument not the team. If you want to read consult/conditions style arguments I can get on board pretty easily. If you want to read multiple CPs without solvency advocates to simply skew the 2AC’s time I’m less on your side.

Case Debates-crucial to a good round. You can make my threshold to vote negative significantly lower if you have good case args, these don’t have to be supported by evidence but again it helps. Ev analysis has gotten somewhat lost in my opinion over the years. Read the text/read who this person is, discuss why one piece of evidence should be prioritized (does it assume the other team’s ev? Is it newer? Is it better analysis etc?)

DA’s-PTX is fun, elections is an exciting time to be reading it. Otherwise topic DA’s are great too. Don’t forget to have specific links to the aff and a good internal link. Similarly, don’t forget to identify flaws in the internal link chain or why your aff is different than what the link evidence assumes/why it would be perceived differently.

CP’s: having a solvency advocate is good but not necessary. I read a lot of hyperspecific CP’s in my day but also think a lot of it can become esoteric. If you have a great counterplan to read go for it, if you have a generic CP, go for it. Delay is questionable from a theory level but I’ll certainly listen to it.

K’s-Guide me through the K and what it means for the hypothetical world of the aff vs the hypothetical world of the alternative. Explain what specifically the aff does, specifically what the 1AC said or the assumptions that went into it. I may not be hip to the latest high theory K’s but I hear of some of them by proximity to debate even if I haven’t sat in the back of rounds in recent times.

K Affs: Most of what I wrote in the K area applies here. I think I am slightly K leaning as far as my threshold for voting on T or F/W so keep that in mind. What is the ballot and why does it matter for whatever the aff is. I am a bigger fan of embracing the K side of the aff and not as crazy about “soft-left” affs as I have been in the past.

CX-don’t just use it for prep. A good CX can end a debate round early on. This may be difficult with virtual debate and people just trying to talk over each other.

Cheating: If I suspect it I will report it. I will often read along and will likely do this even more because hearing specifics of spreading may be more difficult virtually.

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

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

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

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

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

Harvard '19

UCLA Law '24

Coaching for Harker at Berkeley 2024

SLOW DOWN AND CLEARLY ENUNCIATE -- I WILL NOT FOLLOW SPEEC DOCS DURING SPEECHES. I CAN'T HEAR GOOD AND I WILL ONLY TELL YOU TO SLOW DOWN TWICE, AFTERWARDS UR ON UR OWN.

TLDR: I am personally more familiar answering the K than reading it. 2NR should tell me if they want me to judge kick, 2AR should tell me if they don't want me to. I did policy debate for eight years and coached it for longer. I have judged LD only a few times -- bear that in mind if you are going to go for some niche LD theory argument.

Online Debate: Plsss get affirmative visual or verbal confirmation from me and your two opponents that they are ready before speaking. I will pause time if there's a tech issue in a speech or CX. Be extra mindful of not interrupting too much during CX.

Debater Comfort and Safety: If anyone in the room is making you feel uncomfortable during, before, or after the debate please let me know and we can figure out together how to proceed. I feel zero qualms kicking out spectators who make students feel uncomfortable or speaking to the appropriate coaches/tab about a safety issue in round. If your opponents ask for accommodations, please honor them. Debate is adversarial but I believe it is still important to be somewhat kind; there is a thin line between "sassy and competitive" (good, fun) and "mean-spirited and cruel" (bad, not fun). We are likely complete strangers, so be mindful of your power and how you may come accross, especially when debating younger students. No explicit threats of violence towards individuals in the room or at the tournament. I'm just trying to judge a debate round, don't put me or your opponents in a weird position, please.

End of Round Speeches: I will default to good evidence comparison in speeches, and will only call for cards to verify your analysis. Forgoing terminal impact defense is less important if you have other defense, such as internal link defense or link defense etc.

Framework You need to have external offense and to extend case defense or answer aff solvency to win this argument in front of me. I judge this like a DA/case debate, which means both the aff and neg team need to compare impact calculus and solvency mechanisms. I do not feel strongly about any set of framework impacts so long as they are well explained. For the aff: I was on the neg side of framework debates more often than not as a debater, so I have thought more about the neg's impacts than your 1AC's most likely. This means you need to do more judge-direction in your speeches. The aff has to clearly explain the 1AC impact and/or offense against framework, why its bigger than the neg's offense, and if relevant, why TVA/SSD cannot solve it.

Ks: Buzzwords do not amount to a persuasive argument. Effectively using the language of your authors is different from saying buzzwords and hoping they do all the explanation. Purposefully confusing the other team isn't an effective strategy if you don't eventually explain it clearly to me. Links and root cause arguments should be clearly articulated, delineated, and contextualized to the affirmative's evidence, language, or plan. Explain what your framework interpretation means for how I decide the debate. I really dislike negative blocks that completely disregard the 2AC order and don't do any line-by-line, unless that style is explicitly related to your arguments (but im still probably not the best for that). I like when aff offense is about the plan text and aff advantages. Reps Ks: I don't feel like perf-con is a deal-breaker BUT you have to do way more work to distinguish the neg's rhetoric from the aff's if you do this and the perm is very winnable.

DAs The politics DA has been bad lately. Maybe you will come up with a smart version of it and I will like it, or maybe your opponent will be really bad at answering, but I will not just assume bad politics cards are better than they actually are just because the debate community really likes the politics DA. Many politics DAs can be defeated by smart analytics and evidence comparison. Intrinsicness/perm on politics doesn't do much for me.

Theory/T I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other about the abusiveness of the states cp, XO, courts CP. I think conditionality is probably good, if you go for conditionality bad in the 2AR and execute well I will understand. The executing team should do a good job explaining why I should reject the argument and not the team, and provide a clear counter interpretation. I am more than happy to vote for theory. I'm more aff leaning on Process/Consult CP theory, but this still requires good affirmative execution. Do impact calculus.

I used to read these in High School all the time, I hated it when it was too long. So I will try to make this short and descriptive.

About me: I am born and raised in Newark NJ, the biggest inner city in New Jersey. I grew up with K debate and hated it. Slowly K debate grew on me. I do also enjoy policymaking, but I hate politicians. I think good ideas should be discussed and debate helps us explore those ideas. I think debate becomes problematic once we rely on vague explanations and lying to win.

Debated in middle school for 3 years and debated for Technology High School for 4 years. I debated in college for about 2 years, and I judge on and off. I have about a decade of involvement in the Debate space.

I enjoy critiques but I also incorporated theory in practice through political organizing for 3 years. I have strong opinions of armchair Marxists and intellectuals who are counter-revolutionary.

I think Debate is a mess, and I wonder if it is helpful when it is so detached from reality. Regardless if it is a critique or a policy action. Both worlds have their limitations. Debate is good because it teaches us things, but I think that education goes backward eventually.

I currently work as a Medical Case Manager for a non-profit.

Preferences

Please just run what you believe in, as long as you debate well, I will vote for it. Don't try to run a k just because I like them. If you cannot run it well, especially with my big opinions, I will NOT vote on it....

Theory: I will not vote on Theory unless there are voters. I do not enjoy theory, but I will vote on it IF you can use the round as an example of abuse. I need empirical evidence while you are debating.

I hate vague alternatives. But I also don't think vague and hypothetical policymaking will change anything.

I like specifics but do not run ASPEC.

Answer your arguments. If you don't answer them I will have to vote on it if they explain it well.

Finally, Analysis analysis analysis! You can tell me to vote on something but I need a detailed reason.

I will never vote on an ethics challenge.

I will not vote aff on presumption, that makes no sense. Aff changes the status quo. Aff passes a policy. Negative advocates for the SQ if there is no K or CP.

I am a doctoral candidate at University of California, Irvine

Performance is inevitable, debate is a performative activity. I do not try to determine the boundaries of the language game ya'll are playing. So run run whatever you want, I am there as a critic to listen and evaluate the debate. The impact calculation necessary to evaluate who did the better debating is determined and argued over by the debaters themselves. This is a bit of what I would mean by "write my ballot..." 

Jackie Chen

Debated 4 years at Westwood HS (TX), 2 years at Dartmouth College

Updated 1/13/2019

I have pretty extensive debate experience at the college level (national tournaments and NDT), but I haven't been actively involved for a few years. I have judged at a fair number of tournaments in the past, but have not seen any rounds on this topic. So, try not to assume much background knowledge - take the time to explain any acronyms or details of a given policy. In college, I mostly made policy arguments (defended a plan, usually went for disads/counterplans/case).

Teams that emphasize explanation of a logical, coherent argument will do well with me. A persuasive, well thought out story is going to make a bigger impact than 4 or 5 technicalities. That said, balance is key - you should not be grouping the entire flow and giving me a 4 minute overview.

Topicality - I find reasonability to be pretty persuasive. Negatives should argue competing interpretations in the context of limits rather than ground. I generally feel that the aff should defend some kind of substantive change from the status quo related to engagement with China. I don't think you necessarily have to defend the USFG, as long as you have a well warranted and specific reason why the topical version of the aff doesn't solve.

Kritiks - If an argument doesn't make sense to me, I am not likely to vote for it. By the end of the 2NR, I should be able to articulate the thesis of the K and how it engages with the aff. I am pretty comfortable with the Cap K/Security K/variations of these, but have generally been unimpressed with arguments like Baudrillard.

Counterplans - I like the CP+DA strategy a lot; process/consult/delay/etc CPs not so much. PICs that are super specific to the aff are great, but I find there are often problems with competition based on exactly what the aff chooses to defend from the plan text. Good explanations of the permutation often tip the question of theoretical competition in favor of the aff.

Theory - Most violations are reasons to reject the argument, rather than the team (except for conditionality). I have a high threshold on voting against a team solely for things like 'severance perms' or 'PICs bad'. I find impact comparison to be more persuasive than line-by-line tech on theory issues.

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know:do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They givepoorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debateand try to find themost creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that,when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparisonis under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school.If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge onimpact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff.The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I amtowards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points givehighly organizedandstructuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, andemphasize key momentsin their speeches.
• Just like most judges,the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview anddo as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them.I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained.The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NCfor me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefercase-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kickthe CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possiblebut difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think thatI lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here.Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judgeintervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast,being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher pointsand never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards.It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

Here is my email for the email chain:

Williamc0402@gmail.com

Here is my short biography for you to know who I am:
Hi, my name is William. I finished a PhD in German at NYU. My focus was on literature, critical theory, and to some extent black studies.
As for debate experience, I used to debate for CUNY debate in college for 4 years, reading critical arguments in the Northeast. I won a handful of regional tournaments and broke at CEDA. I also coach for Brooklyn Technical High School (sometimes we sign up at Brooklyn Independent). I have been coaching there for 8 years and have had my debaters make it far in national tournaments as well as qualify for the TOC a bunch. Because I work with Brooklyn Tech (a UDL school), I am also connected to the NYCUDL.

Here is the start of my paradigm:
As everyone else says, rule of thumb: DO WHAT YOU’RE GOOD AT
Whether your go-to strat is to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks, a straight up disad/cp, or a one-off K; I will be more than happy to judge your round…
given that you:

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have some trouble adjudicating what you’ve said.
2) Properly explain your positions—don’t make an assumption that I know you the abbreviations you use, the specific DA scenario you're going for (perhaps fill me in on the internal link chains), or the K jargon you're using. Help me out!
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles between your own positions compared to those of the other team.

4) Frame things— tell me how I should prioritize impacts otherwise I will default to util (see section at the bottom)
5) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
6) Write the ballot for me in your 2nr/2ar, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Prioritize your best offense and tell me why that offense is critical to evaluating the round—force me to evaluate the debate through a prism that has you winning

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations and util unless an alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round are introduced

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise

3) I will avoid looking at evidence unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate though my own experience debating and coaching revolves around mostly K debate.

Elizabeth (Eli) Cordoves
Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart '16
Harvard University '20

I believe debate is an incredibly valuable and life-transforming activity. For this reason, I take every round very seriously – and I think you should, too. This means respect your opponents, and each other. It’s ok to be assertive, but there’s a big difference between being confident and being rude.

In the words of my debate coach, Dana Randall: “I believe debate is a unique academic activity. I believe the merits of switch side debate and the in round clash this activity affords mean that it is usually a greater source of education for students then most of their academic courses. I believe that in order to fully realize the merits of this activity debaters should engage in discussions that stem from the resolution. The affirmative team should have a stable advocacy which defends the direction of the topic. Debaters should disclose previously read positions fully. Teams should place the full citation to arguments they have read on the wiki as soon as is possible. Disclosure enhances pre-round preparation, accessibility, the ability engage an opponent's argument, and raises the standard of what qualifies as evidence.”

I have been a 2N my entire debate career – most of my 2NRs have been the politics DA, a topic DA, process CPs, and topicality. My favorite types of debates to watch are ones where the negative has prepared a specific strategy and is well-versed in the technicalities of the 1AC.

Do not steal prep – this is my ultimate pet peeve and your speaker points will reflect that.

DAs:
I love these – please run them. As much as I love a smart counterplan in the 2NR along with it, I think the best neg teams can go for the squo and question the 1AC’s logic. For example – why does a collapse of one industry in the US mean the entire economy declines? Why does that mean global nuclear war? Deficits in the 1AC’s internal links are often underutilized by the negative on the case in favor of generic impact defense.

Not a fan of politics theory arguments. If the DA's so bad, beat it on substance, not on "the neg dropped intrisicness".
Make sure to use your DA to turn the case at the impact and internal link level. This means impact calc is essential.

Topicality:
I will usually default to competing interpretations – which is why I think topicality debates should be framed as two “counterplans” each with respective net-benefits (education, fairness, etc). Saying “depth over breadth” isn’t an argument – one of the hardest parts about going for T (and answering it), is making sure not to only explain the “link” but also implicate this in terms of terminal impacts (What does lack of education mean for debate? Why is that important? What impact outweighs the other, and why?)

Counterplans:
These counterplans are usually good:

• PICs
• Advantage
• States

These counterplans are susceptible to theory:

• International Fiat
• Consult, conditions, recommend
• Word PICs

I can be convinced either way. I will reward you for specific counterplans that are well-researched and prepared.

Theory:
Conditionality is the only reason to reject the team (usually)
That being said, two conditional options is usually a good limit
Theory should be impacted if you’re going for it – buzzwords aren’t enough for me to vote for your argument unless you explain it.

Kritiks:
I’m not your best judge for these – do not read a K in front of me if your only goal is to confuse the other team and win because of that.
I’m not very well-versed in this literature, but will keep up with topic specific Ks and generics. 
If you decide to go for the K, please make sure to explain your arguments very clearly to me. This means being very explicit in CX about what the alt does. I will not vote on something if I don’t understand what it means. I am not familiar with "K-tricks", so do not expect me to recognize your argument and vote on it absent a clear explanation.
I do not want to judge high theory and philosophy.
Links of omission are not links.
Floating PIKs are bad.
Weighing the aff is good - it is difficult for me to ever believe a framework which holds the affirmative to a perfect standard (in terms of epistemology, representations, etc) is one that is fair.
Death is bad - I will not vote for arguments that claim death is good.
Fiat is good - obviously voting aff doesn't usually cause change outside the round, but the notion of fiat allows for intellectually stimulating debates about the costs and benefits of public policy.
A 2AR that says the aff outweighs and the alt doesn’t solve is very persuasive to me, especially if combined with the permutation. That being said, I am sympathetic to new 1AR/2AR arguments if an argument in the 1NC or block is not developed.
For more info, please see the link below.

K Affs:
http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sternberg%2C+Jordana

Good luck, have fun, and debate with heart J feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

Hi debaters!

First things first, have fun with debate. A judge once said to me "make debate work for you, not the other way around." That has stuck with me throughout my years of being a part of the debate community and it made my time debating incredibly rewarding.

A little about me as a debater - I mostly ran policy with some sort of feminist spin on it. So what does that mean for you? NOTHING. Run what you want, but be passionate about it. I enter a debate round as a blank slate and will not make arguments for you. You get the chance to teach me about a subject you love, so take advantage of it.

A few things I look for...

- Please be polite to your opponents and your partner. There is a difference between being assertive and aggressive.

- I have no problem with spreading as long as you are clear enough for me to flow. If I cannot understand you, I won't flow the cards.

- IMPACT CALC! This is one of the most important parts of the round and too often people gloss over it... Don't do that! You have to opportunity to tell me why you win, so take that opportunity!

- Most of all, have fun and learn something in the round!

Debated 1 Year at Harvard College

Debated 4 Years at Shawnee Mission East

I prefer to be on email chains. Please use the email address dastjerdi.ali@gmail.com .

I am most interested in and have spent the most time debating policy based issues. That being said, I will vote for anything that I understand and (as far as the arguments presented in the round go) are persuasive.  

As far as the role of the affirmative and negative are concerned, I’ll reference Bret Bricker’s paradigm – “The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.”

Cards Vs. Analytics – Debate is about communication, and I have a very hard time voting for teams that just rely on inundating their opponents with cards. Cards provide credibility to the arguments you make, they don’t make arguments for you. I will not read cards after the debate that have not received a thorough explanation and analysis inside of the round. I think smart analytical arguments easily trump garbage cards.

Argument specific Preferences:

Topicality- I am persuaded easily by a well-executed topicality argument. I believe topicality should be evaluated under competing interpretations. I think that reasonability as a reason to cut the aff a break is unpersuasive. I am persuaded by reasonability arguments that make a more specific argument about the predictability, precision, or practicality of the negative’s interpretation.

Kritiks- You will likely have hard time convincing me that I should divorce myself from some conception of rationality or pragmatism. I think the aversion of unnecessary death is a good thing. Besides that, be specific and engage with the affirmative and you will be rewarded.

Counterplans: I am fairly willing to listen to any type of counterplan. I have minimal proclivities on theory besides conditionality is good.

Presumption- I will vote neg on presumption. I am very willing to reward strong case debate against a poorly constructed aff. 

Theory- I evaluate theory the same way I do topicality. I am not a fan of “cheap shots”, but if a theory argument is presented as a reason to reject a team and includes some level of reasoning as to why, the lack of response to it does warrant a ballot for the other team.

Tell me what you advocate.

tell me why it is not being done

tell me why it needs to be done

tell me why it is the best thing we should do

If you're not enunciating your words I probably can't understand you so my flows are going to be incomplete. I like to flow by ear and if I have to ask you for the doc afterwards...you're in a bad spot argument wise. Kind of ominous but I'll always try my best. Anywhos, I'll go for anything; the debate space is yours. I don't have much experience with performative debates but if you make the link or your stance clear you should be fine. I really like K's and I hate the politics DA :) Theory debates are also the bane of my existence but if you must do what you gotta do. Lastly, I like it when you make it easy for me to judge and sum up all your arguments so make sure you got that in your rebuttals.

I participated in Open division high school debate for 2 years and college debate for one semester. I am most familiar with policy debate. I have since been judging Policy Debate for the last 3 years. 

My judging style is could be described as Tabula Rasa, however on Kritique and Debate Theory arguments, I require that these be well developed, or they are easily defeated with Topicality and Fairness counter arguments.  If you do run a Kritik, I encourage you to know the philosophy to some depth.  There have been a number of rounds where I have had to begrudgingly vote for a K, even though it was clear that the team running it was not well versed in, say Nihilism.  As a Tabula Rasa judge, it is up to you to properly define the framework within which the round should be judged.

I prefer a few, well reasoned arguments that are carried, developed, and built upon throughout the round.  Most rounds typically come down to the rebuttals, where the debaters tell me the important issues, how, and why I should vote in their favor.  I like to have a clear, concise summary of the issues you believe are important, and where you stand.

Roadmaps and sign posts are a key component, and especially necessary if you spread.  Spreading should be done in a way that still conveys your arguments and logic. While communication skill is important, I will weigh issues more heavily in a decision. 

As taken from Hemanth’s philosophy: “ The most important thing to me is that you are clear and intentional about laying out the big picture. It will help a lot for you to very explicitly say 1) what you're winning and 2) how that interacts with the other team's important arguments in a way that adds up to a ballot. I think the essential skill that the best debaters have is the ability to do this eloquently, concisely, and with the right strategic instincts.”

And about me: I debated for harvard in college and do not coach. As a debater, I went for a diverse set of arguments and don’t have a preference for what you do. Please don’t assume I have any topic specific knowledge going into the debate.

Debate Experience: Debated for three years in high school, coached four years in college.

General: I'm pretty tab. The debaters should choose whatever arguments they're most comfortable with/is most strategic for the round. 2NR/AR decisions should be made based on the flow, not what you think I want to hear. Comfortable with speed; go as fast as you'd like while still being clear.

Aff: Again, pretty comfortable with anything. I wasn't a performative debater in high school, but I'll vote on a k aff. See below for more on how I evaluate k affs vs. framework. Make sure that the advocacy statement is clear, especially for more nuanced high theory Ks.

Neg: The best thing you can do in front of me is have a substantive internal link debate with proper impact calculus. I'm not very persuaded by teams that skip to extinction scenarios without actually debating the logic chain that leads there. Good internal link take-outs, case debate, and framing arguments are key. I'll vote on theory on either side (perm theory, condo/multicondo, t, etc.) if you run in properly and can defend your interps.

Topicality: You should be doing as much impact calc on T as you are on a DA. I'm more than happy to vote on procedural issues; this is a game, and debating the rules of the game is as legitimate as the substance. That being said, just throwing out words like fairness and education won't do that much for you. T is an argument that needs substantial time in the block to become a viable 2NR strategy. Don't go for T and five other args - it's not something you can win with 45 seconds at the stop of the block/2NR.

Dis-ads: Again, internal link chains and impact calc. Make sure to kick out properly.

Counterplans: Make sure to be clear on CP solvency mechanisms. Don't just yell 50 states CP and expect that I understand how that would work given the specific aff advocacy. Clearly lay out the net benefit to the CP (internal or external). Again, impact calc is important. Tell me how the risk of a solvency deficit compares to the risk of the DA link, and why that should matter to my decision.

Kritiks: Just like the K aff stuff above, explain the K and do the same kind of impact calc you would do on a DA or FW flow. It should be clear to my how I'm evaluating the K. For example, is this a Cap K where I might be weighing the impacts of the aff vs. the neg world, or should I be evaluating speech acts before plan implementation? Usually a FW debate at the top of the flow is helpful. Clear link chains are preferred. I'm much more persuaded by Ks that have a specific link to plan functionality rather than topic-generic links. If the K is covering dense high theory (I'm thinking about some Baudrillard, a Hegel K, anything that mentions D&G), walk me through the background.

K affs: K affs are fine, but so is a good FW debate. If you're going to run a performative K, make sure to link the performance to voters. I'm generally not persuaded by a minute-long musical intro that never gets brought up again throughout the debate. Neg, if you're going to run a FW arg please set it up like you would a T debate. I need interps and clear voters. I know they're not running a topical plan. You need to defend your interpretation of debate, why your interp is best for the debate space (fairness, education, etc.), and how the knowledge or fairness that you gain from running topical affs compares against the education that they're bringing into the round.

Above all, please show respect to everyone in the room. The fastest way to lose speaker points with me is to be inconsiderate to your opponent. I'm more than comfortable with low point wins if I think you're not treating your opponent (or partner) with dignity.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Eid%2C+Dody

First of all, I am not the debate coach at Berkeley.  Sorry for the dissapointment :( (for those of you that don't get that, look up the name of the Berk debate coach).  This paradigm is going to be a little disorganized because my thoughts on debate are a little disorganized, but it should still be helpful.

Background/general stuff:  I debated for 3 years of Nat Circuit Policy in High School, and I'm currently doing APDA Parli at Tufts.  I had plenty of experience with speed, progressive debate, and all that stuff.  I was also a 2A in high school, so keep that in mind. Overall, I'd consider myself to be a pretty Tabs judge, although I do have some biases (which I try to supress) that I'll talk about a little below.  Fair warning: I don't have much experience with this year's topic, so try to keep the topic-specific jargon to a minimum: or at least explain it to me.  Although I'm fine with speed, try to preserve clarity.  You get a lot more points down on the flow if you speak 20% slower and 50% clearer. I will default to a policymaker framework unless someone tells me different.

Try to be courteous in your rounds.  It'll reflect in your speaker points, and being rude just makes debate a worse experience for everyone.

As a general rule, I prefer tech over truth, and I'd rather hear an overused arguement done well than some fancy new K that you obviously don't understand.  However, if you have some obscure K that you fully understand, feel free to use it! Additionally, impact calc should be in every speech after the 1NC.  

DA's: Obviously these are a good thing to use.  You should have specific links, or barring that, you should be able to contextualize your generic link in the context of the aff in the neg block.  Try to have a clear brink and IL chain in your DA's, the neg block should have an overview that explains why it turns case.  DA's are better when paired with Counterplans, however I'm totally down with you taking DA and case into the 2NR.  Case specific DA's are awesome, although I understand they're a high research burden.

Case:  I think case debate is incredibly undervalued in squo policy.  Having a bunch of case defense makes it 100x harder for the aff to outweigh your K/DA, and in my opinion is the most fun part of the debate.  

CP's: Overall Counterplans are a good thing, provided they're mutually exclusive.  I'm fine with Actor counterplans, I <3 advantage counterplans, and some process stuff like XO is good (although the aff can certainly make theory args against it).  I'm a not a fan of consult/condition/delay counterplans, but it's up to the aff to prove to me that they're not theoretically legit, but neg be warned that I am more sympathetic to aff theory args on those types of CP's.

Kritiks: I'm sure this is the only part most of you care about anyways.  Kritiks on the negare good things to run, and in high school I primarily ran Security (and Cap of course), and I also dabbled in Anthro, Baud, and DnG.  I'm not familiar with some of the more obscure authors like Lacan and Bateilles, and tbh I'm not even super familiar with DnG.  If you're running a Kritik, pass the grandmother test.  Don't rely on me to be a philosophy expert (hint: I'm not) who already understands your hyper-dense jargon.  Clear and concise 2NC overviews are absolutely essential to expertly running a K, and contextualizing your link to the 1AC (whether it be to the plan or the 1AC performance) is critical.  I want an explanation of what your alt does, what my ballot means, and why I should be ignoring the traditional policy framework.  Although I love K's, there are few things more painful than a bad K round, so please try to understand the literature before running a K.

I am not as big a fan of K affs, although I will listen to them.  I'm disgusted how many judges nowadays won't even listen to Framework as an arguement, and am definitely sympathetic to neg framework claims.  However, running framework isn't an instant win for neg vs. K aff, so it is still entirely possible to win with a K aff, especially if it pertains to the resolution (the farther away from the rez it is the more symapthetic I'll be towards neg FW claims).  However, I will hold the aff to a high threshold for explaining to me just exactly what your aff and 1AC performance does.

Performance debate: I know this is contrary to the direction debate is headed, but I'm not a big fan of performance debate.  If you're dedicated to performance, I'm going to need a clear explanation of why debate is a critical forum for you to express your performance, and why the speicifc format of policy debate is a good one with which to be pursuing your project.  What does my ballot do, and why is a performance debate better than a policy one.

T/Theory: I'm not the biggest fan of these debates, but they are a neccesary part of debate, and I'm totally okay for using them, even if it's just a timesuck.  RVI's are dumb except in extenuating circumstances (like 10 T shells).  2 conditoinal advocacies is good, 3 is fine but is pushing it, and 4 or more I'll be very sympathetic to a condo claim.  Make sure you SLOW DOWN when going through T/Theory standards.  If i can't flow it, you've lost all that neat analysis.  In-round abuse is always better than theoretical abuse, but both can win.  I default to reasonability, but can be persuaded by competing interps.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.  Good luck and remember to have some fun!

Nicholas Fiori

Hunter College/The New School

Policy Debate Coach

Years judging: 13

Feel free to run whatever you want in front of me. I believe that judging is about evaluating the arguments made in the round while recognizing the impossibility of strict objectivity. Adjudication inevitably involves filtering the round through one's ethical lens and orientation towards debate and the world at large. Debate can only stay relevant and generative by responding to challenges leveraged against it by debaters and coaches. These challenges require my radical openness and fair, thoughtful consideration of the arguments made in the debate.

I will evaluate my flow and then call for relevant cards.

If you think an argument is a round winner it should be in your final rebuttal, do not assume I will evaluate an argument implicitly extended in a piece of evidence. Extension of specific warrants, not just tags and cites, is preferable. I am not the best at flowing author names so make sure evidence is referenced in some other way as well.

I will try to list my predispositions below. If you believe the debate or an argument should be evaluated differently make that part of the debate and I will adjust my calculus accordingly.

Framework: I enter the debate assuming that the affirmative should have a plan/advocacy/political position from which contestation can be grounded. I default to whatever framework is presented, explicitly or implicitly, by the affirmative. The negative gets whatever the aff doesn’t do and should argue why the aff is a bad idea and/or offer a competing policy/alternative advocacy/political program.

If you believe the debate should have an alternative framework, the outcome of the debate over that framework will ultimately determine my lens for evaluating the round.

Topicality: I will default to evaluate topicality based on competing interpretations if no other lens for evaluation is presented in the debate. Topicality arguments that are divorced from a discussion of the actual debate season are increasingly unpersuasive.

Theory: When logical, my default on theory is that it is a reason to reject the argument not the team. If you think it is a voting issue, say that and give me a good reason. Slow down on individual arguments. If a theory argument is dropped but he offending team, extended properly, and actually applies to something the other team has done in the debate, it will most likely determine the way I vote. However, dropped theory arguments that do not actually respond to something the other team has done in the round will automatically determine by ballot.

Impact Evaluation: I think offense/defense is mostly inevitable and that the arguments in the debate either fall into that matrix or change how they are evaluated. However, that does not mean I do not believe that a team cannot win zero risk of a scenario. My threshold is relatively high, but I find 100% defense argument increasingly persuasive.

If you disagree with any of my own pre-dispositions, you should make that part of the debate. The above is merely for you to understand where I start from as a judge, not where I end up when I go about deciding the round.

I debated in NPDA parliamentary for 4 years in college. I have been judging for the Boston Debate League for over a year now.

On performance, I award speaker points equally weighed on verbal and non-verbal presentation, and cross examinaition question quality and strategy. The exception to ths is speed--speed is fine.

On positions, I have thick calluses for theory and procedural arguments, both surrounding the role of the ballot and why they are voting issues.

Weigh impacts (probability, scope, magnitude, time-frame, etc.) in-round and be as articulate with every argument as is reasonable given the time allotted. My job as the objective arbiter is easy when each point is argued to conclusion.

Lexington High School Class of 2017

Cornell University Class of 2021

General

I am ok with anything and spreading is fine. However, you still need to do the work in proving that you are correct about your argumentation and your opponents are not. It is very important to get in the habit of having direct clash and pulling from the warranted analysis in your evidence. A good way of doing this would be being strategic in how you construct your final speeches. As always, you should not go for everything, which is why being strategic is important. Explaining why your impacts should be prioritized over your opponents is an ethos booster and it makes evaluating the round easier. The focus speeches should literally write my ballot/they should explain flaws in your opponents' strategy/argumentation and how that justifies me voting for you. It is important to narrow down the debate. Also, I do not count flashing evidence/putting speech docs on flash drives as prep. In terms of cross-ex, it is always good to be polite. I think you can be assertive without coming off as aggressive or mean-spirited. I prefer open cross-ex, but you should not be speaking for your partner when they are supposed to be answering questions. That can dock your speaks. And, as always, be ethical in your argumentation and in the way you treat your opponents/me/other judges/yourself/your partner, aka no slurs/offensive rhetoric of any kind, be polite, no clipping, stealing prep, etc.

Background: Interlake HS '16

Other things:

- All arguments are fine. I had a more critical background when I debated.

- If you choose to run a kritikal aff or a kritik on the neg, note that I will not give you the thesis of your kritik for granted. I will reward knowledge and coherent explanation.

- Buzzwords are not warrants

Rowland Hall ‘16

Harvard ‘20

Rounds on Arms Sales Topic: 0 (I was a lab leader at a policy camp this past summer, so I'm familiar with the basics of this topic); I'm a very cool and chill judge in my humble opinion. Just finished watching Tiger King, so I appreciate any references.

Here are my thoughts about various debate arguments in the words of Taylor Swift’s “Look What You Made Me Do.” I will provide you with lyrics (poetry really) and then explanations about my debate thoughts relating to the song. Ask me if you have any questions (Taylor Swift related or otherwise)!

“Look what you made me do” – this lyric accurately sums up my feelings about judging – I will vote however you tell me to vote – Please make smart well-warranted arguments supported by evidence, and I will happily vote for you. I will vote on almost any argument (as long as it is not morally problematic), so don’t worry about me. That being said, here are my preferences:

Topicality:

“I don't trust nobody and nobody trusts me” – I don’t trust any aff to be topical (joking!). I really like T, but I don’t have a lot of experience with the education topic, so keep that in mind. I like competing interpretations but can be persuaded to vote on reasonability. I think small topics can be great but so can big topics. Paint a picture for me of the world of your interp like how Taylor Swift describes how she is rising up from the dead to come for her enemies. Evidence comparison is undervalued in T debates.

DA’s:

“You said the gun was mine” – Debaters often leave so much up to judges in these debates, which is often frustrating to all parties. Please compare your impacts to the aff’s. Turns case arguments that operate on multiple levels are very persuasive to me.

Case:

“The world moves on, another day, another drama, drama
But not for me, not for me, all I think about is karma” – I think that big silly impacts (drama) can easily be defeated with smart analytics (karma). I like logical internal link presses and find them very persuasive.

K:

“I don't like your kingdom keys

They once belonged to me” – I went for the security K, settler colonialism K, ableism K, Death K, and probably some more. However, don’t assume I know your K lit. I enjoy K debates when links are highly contextual to the aff. Otherwise, K debates can be quite frustrating and harder to win if the aff can win that the neg hasn’t proven the aff is a bad idea. I can be convinced that the neg doesn’t need to win an alt, but I think that it’s super helpful to. I think affs get to weigh their impacts usually but maybe not always. Please do not presume that everyone in the room knows K buzzwords and actually explain what they mean if you want me to vote on them.

CP’s:

“I don't like your perfect crime” – how I feel about CP’s that steal the aff. I’m not a huge fan of process CP’s. I think the states CP is fine to test the fed key warrant, but maybe it’s not.

“Honey, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the time” – I’ll kick CP’s for you if you tell me to. I don’t think that CP’s always need solvency advocates. The best CP’s are in aff solvency cards though.

Theory:

“Isn't cool, no, I don't like you (oh!)” – generally how I feel about aff teams that go for condo – I’m just kidding. A little. I think 2-3 condo are fine. Being neg is hard and affs should be able to answer multiple CP’s with defenses of their internal links. Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument not the team.

No Plan Affs:

“I'll be the actress starring in your bad dreams” – if you don’t tell me how to vote in these debates! I believe debate is a game. The role of the ballot is to vote for the team who did the better debating. I really like fairness as an impact (“Don't like your tilted stage”) if explained well, but I’m also a fan of arguments about the importance of research (“I've got a list of names and yours is in red, underlined; I check it once, then I check it twice, oh!”)

I think topical versions of the aff and switch side debate arguments are often persuasive and should be answered specifically by the aff rather than with sweeping claims like cross apply the case. When you are neg, I think you should answer the case and contextualize your impacts to the aff. When you are aff, if you make totalizing claims (ie "antiblackness is ontological") the burden of proof is on you, not the other team to prove that it's true.

“But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of time” – I think engaging with critical affs is great and smart – It’s important to tie the aff down to something to generate competition though.

I err on the side of tech over truth.

If you are nice to the other team, explain your arguments, and compare impacts, I think that we will all enjoy the debate.

┍————————————————————————————- /ᐠ｡ꞈ｡ᐟ\ ————————————————————————┑

I would rather you have a few really strong well articulated arguments, than 50 underdeveloped rushed arguments. You can speak fast, but I would prefer if you articulate more than just the tag line of the card.

K debates are awesome when the alternative is fully explained and contextualized.

Please include me in the email chain: Gregoryharpesm@gmail.com

Happy debating !

ʕʘ̅┏ل͜┓ʘ̅ʔ

┕————————————————————————————(..)(..) ∫∫—————————————————————————-â”™

Sam Heller

he/him/his or they/them/their

I haven't been heavily involved in debate since 2016, so don't expect me to up to date on trends in the activity or on this year's topic.

Be clear - I flow from your speech, not your speech doc.

I'm not a fan of ridiculous and contrived internal link chains. I think that the way debate as an activity values high-impact, low-probability risks over lower-impact, high-probability risks is fundamentally flawed and bad for the activity. You don't need a nuclear war/extinction impact for me to care about what you're saying. That being said, this doesn't mean if you make a nuke war claim I'm going to ignore everything else you say. It just means my default impact framing is not going to be "any risk of extinction outweighs everything else" like it is for most judges.

Debate is about arguments, not cards. You can make a good argument without reading a card, and you cannot use reading a card as a substitute for articulating an argument. Also, a card that simply states a claim without providing a warrant is useless.

If I don't know what the aff does after the 1AC, then the neg has a lot of leniency in their ground. You don't get to wait until the 2AC/1AR/2AR to explain the aff.

Framework/Topicality - K affs and T/Framework were the fastest-changing parts of debate when I left the activity, so I assume I'm behind the times a bit on these debates. That being said, I don't think I judge them fundamentally different than other args in debate. The neg needs to answer case, and the aff can't only extend case - they also need DAs to the neg's interpretation.

Reading cards after the round - I do it, but primarily only to verify the claims made in the debate when there's a disagreement between the two teams (i.e. aff: "our card says x", neg: "no it actually says y"). I will not give you credit for arguments in a card that are not articulated during the round.

I have a soft spot for arguments older than I am (inherency, T-Vagueness, voting net on presumption) - I know these args died for a reason but if you find a way to make them I'd be excited!

background:

I’m a former high school policy debater from Whitney M. Young. And I am currently the assistant coach and English teacher for U Chicago Lab School. This will be my fourth year teaching, but first year coaching. I was a K debater my varsity years, though I became much more flexible/policy my senior year. So I don’t really have any prejudices towards any type of argument.

Approach: 

As mentioned above, I don’t have any arguments that you should “avoid” while I’m judging. I will vote and listen to anything. It’s all up to you to persuade me (and crush the other team).  I will admit though, that as a teacher, I do have a biased belief that debate genuinely provides good education. So if you’re arguing edu bad, you better be really good at it. With that said, I enjoy hearing arguments that criticize and question policy debate itself (e.g. role of the ballot, satire affs, etc.) . My speaker point range is 27-30, with a median of 28. Please put me on the email chain, even if I’m just observing: ms.sarihernandez@gmail.com

 Also, please dont spread your blocks the same way you spread the rest of your cards.

kritiks, etc.

I really enjoy performance and kritik debates. I like well-done k overviews, with a developed link analysis (the more specific the better). Please make sure you’re telling a consistent story through your K. I should know what the K is before the 2nr. Also, please do not simply use jargon terms/phrases without any explanation. Depending on the K/author my understanding of the terms you use will vary.

If I am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, I will prioritize your explanation. I may also read your evidence and google-educate myself if the other team questions the validity of the assertion you’re making. The google thing will only be in instances where I genuinely need to look up a “fact.”

topicality/framework/ theory

I’ll vote on either. But, if you plan on going for T, I strongly suggest making that you’re whole 2nr, rather than just two minutes of it. If you are going to do something other than the “traditional” type of debate, you should be ready to defend it through framework and explain why the education you provide is better. With regards to theory, ideally I'd like for you to present a persuasive in-round abuse story. I do vote on theory, just give me pen time if you want me to vote on it.

disads/cps

Just like the K, you have to have a good story and impact analysis. PICs are fine, so long as you make it clear why it's sigfinicantly different from the aff.

how to win my ballot:

Paint a picture! Make it clear how these events connect and what the world would be like under the K, Aff, CP, etc.  A good impact analysis goes a VERY long way!

I debated for the City University of New York (CUNY) for three and a half years and judged for CUNY for a year and a half. I left to peruse my PhD in English literature at Northwestern.

I am more interested and knowledgeable about critical literature, but if you decided to run the K I will hold you to a higher standard than those who chose not to. I am not going to lie to you and tell you that I can be objective: it does not exist. Our personal ideologies and emotions cannot be checked at the door. However, I will try not to let my personal ideas invade the debate space ( a hard task). Even though I love the K, I do love to hear FW/ clash of civilization debates and will vote for, “must defend USFG” if the work on the argument is done well.

Does:

1)   Be funny if possible (serious point boost).

2)   I like good clash and well thought out and deployed argumentation.

3)   Impacts impacts impacts. Please!!!

Don’ts:

1)   Don’t be mean to the other team (serious point deductions).

2)   Don’t go for theory (I despise it); if you do you may not like the results (you have been warned). The time you waste making shitty one-line theory arguments you could have made a substantive compelling analytical argument on the substance of the debate.

3)   Don’t read 5 off (hate it): I like good clash. And good clash is not always  promoted by running a shit load of arguments you are never going to go for anyway.

4)   Don’t fuck around with jumping and passing arguments to the other team: either youre ready or you need more prep time.

5)   Not a fan of T arguments but if you HAVE to run them I will simply have to evaluate it (but I’d prefer not to).

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Jiang%2C+Jessica

Experience : Ex-Debater at CPS, 3x Tournament of Champions Qualifier, Sophomore at Harvard
Speaker Position : Have done all of them
Email : ryanjiang98@gmail.com

2017 Update:
Stanford will be the first tournament I'm judging for the education topic. Still pretty up-to-date on current events, but probably not about the current 'meta' in debate, i.e. which affs are considered topical or not. Everything below still applies.

2016 Update:
I haven't judged any debates on the China topic yet, so you should debate in front of me assuming I know nothing about the current policy debate meta/best arguments on the topic. I'm pretty up to date on current events and have a pretty solid cultural/historical understanding of current dynamics with China and East Asia, but don't take that for granted.
That will also implicate topicality for me - I have zero idea of what affirmatives are generally considered topical by the community, so that will have literally no impact on how I evaluate the debate.

Overall Wiki:
I'll try to be as objective as possible when evaluating arguments, and give each argument equal credence. Of course, a caveat is that if you say openly absurd or offensive statements, especially ad-hominem attacks on the other team, I will be inclined to not only openly dismiss those arguments but also wreck your speaker points.

Couple of pre-dispositions, I guess :

Cheap-shots are great. If they drop conditionality they drop conditionality. Don't make things more complicated than they are. As a judge, I will look for easy way outs. That said, if you are completely crushing a team on every flow and choose to go for a dumb theory arg, that will reflect poorly on your ethos, etc.

Role of the ballot is to tell the Tabroom who won the debate. Any arbitrary statements about the role of the ballot without warrants (i.e. the role of the ballot is to determine the best strategy towards X) is exactly that -- arbitrary, and I won't find it particularly persuasive without more explanation. However, if the other team does drop the role of the ballot, that's often an easy and clean way to deal with impact debates, which are normally pretty messy when it's a K versus a policy impact. More on this later.

I'll decide on the flow. Style points if you can be self-aware of the credibility of your arguments but crush the other team.

Be funny, being entertaining is always great if its not cringe-worthy or at the expense of quality debating.

Framing issues / Impact Calc :

General statements : in the second rebuttals, it is your job to write my ballot. If you can win the debate in the first 30 seconds to a minute, and successfully do so, you will earn respect from me.

K on K violence - I think role of the judge arguments or defenses of debate as a unique pedagogical institution are particularly convincing strategies. I want to know why I matter because half the time a ballot does not change anything and everyone knows it. These are more persuasive to me than role of the ballot arguments because if you position the judge as an educator / policymaker, I can change up the thought calculus. Role of the ballot arguments are tautological in that they don't change how I evaluate the flow and when teams blanket assert that the role of the ballot argument wins them the debate it only ends up muddling my thought process.

K vs policy - this is usually the trickiest to evaluate. K teams must work hard to tell me why VTL claims outweigh utilitarian framing, or why root cause is more important than proximate cause, etc. I tend to default towards lives saved and timeframe - the "try-or-die" framing most policy teams go for is sadly pretty persuasive.

Policy on Policy - this is straightforward. Don't try to win that your impact outweighs on timeframe AND magnitude AND probability. That's a giant lie. Tell me which one of those three you win, tell me why that matters. I love smart turns case/disad arguments, especially on the level of internal links.

Specific Args :

Counterplans: be abusive, be tricky, solve the case. That's what they're for. But if you're affirmative, call them out. Chances are, the neg is being pretty abusive and if you do a fairly decent job on the theory debate you should be okay. Tell me how to weigh the risk of a solvency deficit versus the net benefit.

I'm undecided on conditionality. If you actually do a decent job debating it out and not just reading blocks back and forth, I will be willing to vote on either side. Theory is a question of competing interpretations unless you drop reasonability.

Disads: Yup.

Case Debate: The aff is terrible. Point that out. Winning a minimal risk of case is often one of the best strategies to win the debate, regardless of what you're going for. This part of the debate is underutilized and is often reduced to nothing other than impact defense.

Topicality: Have good interpretations, and debate out the impacts.

Kritiks: Don't just throw 50 buzzwords at me in 1 minute and expect that to mean anything. I care about quality of analysis more than cheap-shots. I love anything from high-theory to race/feminism/identity args. If you do it well you don't have to worry about me.

Framework: I think the game is pretty rigged against the neg, but if the negative does a good job I will vote for it. As someone who has read a K aff all year, I will expect your warrants to be well fleshed out and impacted, and I won't let you get away with reading a K aff just because I did it too. You're "cheating" -- tell me why that doesn't matter / their definition of cheating is bad.

Austin Johnson

Trinity Valley School

Head Coach/Program Director

Debating experience

Debate coach for four years. Took kids to TOC and NSDA Nats.

Role of the Judge

I’m willing to evaluate any and all roles-of-the-judge you put forward. It’s the judge’s job to weigh the round under the criteria you give. That is, the judge is a referee who makes decisions about a game whose rules are determined by its players over the course of each round.

Email Chain

If you're going to spread, I want to be on it. I'll give my e-mail at the time of the round.

CX

I do not flow CX.

Logistics

Track your own prep. I’m okay with flex prep. Flashing is not prep.

Speed

Speak as quickly as you are comfortable. However, if you’re going to spread, please be sure to include me on the e-mail chain.

Theory

The primary thing, in my opinion, that leads to worse debate is spending a lot of time explaining your opponent's model leads to worse debate. I've tried to be gentle about this. It is apparently time to be clear: I do not want to hear a theory argument. I hate them.

I’ll weigh theory if I must. But I would prefer to vote on literally anything else. If something genuinely abusive (not even in the direction of the topic, undisclosed, etc.) happens in the round, then you should call it out. Otherwise, don’t waste time on. If the only reason you’re winning a debate is because you’re manipulating the rules of debate, you’re not winning a debate.

Additionally, don't run Theory just to suck up time. The only thing worse than winning a round because you're just manipulating the rules is winning a round because you're wasting time talking about manipulating the rules and then not manipulating the rules, because that means I had to listen to your crappy theory non-argument which you then did nothing with!

Plans

I’m cool with plans. Just remember that reading a plan in LD means taking on a heavier burden of proof than defending the resolution as-written.

DA/CP

If I’m letting Aff run plans, I should probably let Neg run DAs and CPs. So I do.

Performance Ks

Performance is cool. I buy in-round solvency and pre-fiat alts.

Kritiks

The K is the reason I’m a debate coach. I’m a Ph.D. in English lit who got his degree after 2000, which means I had to be conversant in a loooooot of critical literature. I like materialist or semiotic approaches; psychoanalysis Ks are very slippery and I don’t generally enjoy them.

K Affs

K Affs are fine, but you need to be prepared for a protracted debate about framing that you can actually win.

Stratford/Harvard

Short version:

1. Defend a plan: If you don't read a (topical) plan, please don't pref me; neither of us will enjoy the experience. If you read, but don't meaningfully defend, a topical plan, you probably still shouldn't pref me, but it'll at least be a bit less painful.
2. Don't be mean: If you are mean, obnoxious and/or rude to the other team (or to me, although that actually bothers me less), your speaker points and credibility will suffer dramatically. I would feel fine giving under a 25 for egregious violators.
3. Be specific: As nearly all judges do, I appreciate specificity. However, other than the above issues, as long as your arguments aren't blatantly idiotic/generic (ex: A-spec, Should = Past of Shall), you probably don't need to worry very much about adapting to me, but please below for more details.

Detailed version:
Topicality: I find that well-developed topicality arguments can be interesting and persuasive, perhaps more so than other judges. I tend to evaluate these in terms of competing interpretations, but can be convinced to use an alternative framework if it is well explained. Generally my primary concern with 'reasonability' is that the Aff does a very poor job of explaining what effects that has upon how I should resolve the debate. However, my openness to more developed violations sort of cuts both ways, because it means that I will likely be less patient with blippy violations (a 20 second 'substantial' violation, should=past tense of shall, etc). Also, I usually find it impressive if either team can produce evidence describing the likely political effects of a particular interpretation of words in the resolution.

Other arguments about plan texts: These generally seem very silly to me. Assuming a plan is topical, I don't think it is possible for it to be 'abusive' in any other sense. Questions of specification/vagueness, plan flaws, etc should either be framed as T questions, solvency/evidenciary questions, or ignored. If a team's plan text is vague and you want to establish a link to a DA, you should A) ask them in CX and/or B) read evidence describing the likely effects of the plan. If an aff is unwilling to answer CX questions about their plan, I think that's fine, but they then forfeit the right to clarify later (except, of course, by reading evidence which I will then compare to Neg evidence). As a side-note, I do not think A-spec is a T question, and can't imagine finding it persuasive.

DAs: I think predictive uniqueness questions can never be established with certainty, and therefore prefer to first resolve the direction of the link. However, if told to do otherwise, I would be perfectly willing to ignore this. I think DAs should probably be intrinsic.

CPs: I err neg on all theory issues except those listed specifically below. That doesn't mean I am unwilling to reject a CP on PICs bad, only that my predisposition is not to do so. I also think theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument, but not the team (conditionality/dispositionality being an exception).
Consult: I generally think these are illegitimate and non-competitive, but if a Neg has very, very good solvency evidence about the plan, they will substantially improve their chances on both of these issues. Note that I have a very high threshold for what constitutes "very very good solvency evidence" in this context.
Conditions: This is similar to consult, except the literature is usually better, so I am more willing to vote for these.
Agent CPs: I am mostly thinking here of international/multiple actor fiat, but domestic agent CPs raise less extreme versions of the same theoretical questions. I generally think these are legitimate, but am not sure that they necessarily test the opportunity cost of a particular political actor. Therefore, although most of the reasons that these CPs are illegitimate make little sense to me, a well developed argument about their failure to test opportunity cost could definitely persuade me to reject them.
Normal means CPs: I don't think that these are competitive, unless the Aff makes stupid mistakes in CX. Reading cards about the way the plan would be implemented absent the CPs fiated action does not mean that a world where the permutation explicitly alters it would look the same.

Kritiks: Here are the issues you should be aware of:
1) Framework: I begin with the assumption that the role of the ballot is to choose among simulated policy options. Therefore, the plan is the affirmative's normative statement of what should be changed, and the rest of the 1AC is a series of positive truth claims describing a world in which that occurs. I tend to think that evidence describing the relationship between representations and reality, etc is smart, but inapplicable to debate, because it is a game of sophistry with no necessary correspondence between what a speaker says and what they believe. I also find that the frequent "compromise" (we get our aff and they get their reps K) is logically incoherent as a framework , but am willing to use it if told to do so by the debaters.

2) Alternative: My primary concern here is that these are often so poorly explained (how they function, how they relate to the role of the ballot, etc) that I find them difficult to vote for. You should spend pre-round (and in-round) prep thinking about how to best articulate your alt and how it interacts with your links, their perm(s), and their advantage(s). It's not as much that I think vagueness is a 'theory issue' as much as that I am uncomfortable endorsing a political strategy that is extremely nebulous.

3) Literature: I know significantly more about some authors (ex: Foucault, Cap, Nietzsche, some queer theory, some CRT stuff, most IR K's, Heidegger, Schmitt) than others (ex:  Baudrillard, Deleuze, Badiou, Butler) so that will inevitably affect my ability to resolve some of those debates. Note that I also think Lacan, Chaloupka, most of Zizek's work, and all the other psychoanalysis stuff is basically garbage. Also, I find specific literature dramatically more interesting, persuasive and educational than generic evidence.

Leo (Sung) Kim
Harvard ‘17
Katy Taylor ‘13
hmu at leosjk07@gmail.com if u got questions thanks

i am not the leo kim who will be at the berkeley tournament

prefer email chains; flashing doesn't count as prep unless it's egregious

NOT to be confused with the Leo Kim from California (plz email the right Leo Kim)

updated for the harvard tournament
if it helps - check out my wikis
https://opencaselist15.paperlessdebate.com/Harvard/Kim-Borbon+Aff
https://opencaselist15.paperlessdebate.com/Harvard/Kim-Borbon+Neg

Short Version

Hi. I debated at Katy Taylor and debated at Harvard for 3 years. I coached Katy Taylor Albert and Zaki (RIP sorry about osama aff), and also coached Katy Taylor's Spencer/Subbu and Patrick/Mohamed. I believe the best judges will listen to and adjudicate as impartially as possible any argument and style of debate. You should do whatever you are best at.

I don't think you should pref me based on any perceived ideological bias. My preference is for good arguments and interesting debates.

That being said, I try to leave out any biases or predispositions I may have and be a fair and attentive judge. YOU DO YOU.

I am very reluctant to vote on arguments made in the text of cards but not in the debate. If you think you have better evidence you should explain why.

A new argument is one that could not have been predictably deduced from my understanding of its previous form.

Also - I will vote on an argument only if I can explain it to the other team. This is an arbitrary standard, but it’s the best one I could come up with and it encourages you to communicate more so I’m ok with it.

Clarity over Speed – you can be the fastest debater in the world but it doesn’t matter if you are unclear and nobody can understand you. Speed is not how fast you can spout the words but how fast you can communicate the words. Emphasis and ethos = more speaker points. Also slow down in the T debate and theory debate.

Arguments – Arguments are arguments regardless of what form they take so do whatever you like to do and what you are best at. Don’t assume that I am familiar with the specific details of your disadvantage or that I am familiar with whatever critical literature you read. I just want a fun, well-flushed debate where everything is explained well and why it matters to me in the debate round. 

Ethics- don’t cheat, don’t lie, don’t be rude, don’t say messed up things, don't clip obviously. There is a line between sassy/funny and being an ignorant asshole. 

If you have any questions, definitely feel free to ask before the round!

Be smart. Be funny. Relax. This will help your speaks. Have fun!

+0.5 speaks to the team that uses less than one min of prep and wins


Specifics

I understand that my short version isn't very helpful for people looking for very specific stuff, so I'll write stuff out.

Clarity over Speed – you can be the fastest debater in the world but it doesn’t matter if you are unclear and nobody can understand you. Speed is not how fast you can spout the words but how fast you can communicate the words. Emphasis and ethos = more speaker points. Also slow down in the T debate and theory debate.

CX – a lot of debates can be won in cross-x and a good cross-x can be very devastating and very positive for speaker points (or negative if you seem like you have no idea what you are talking about). Win links to your stuff in cross-x, win no-links to their stuff in cross-x, etc. I will listen to cross-x.

Arguments - Arguments are arguments regardless of what form they take so do whatever you like to do and what you are best at. Don’t assume that I am familiar with the specific details of your disadvantage or that I am familiar with whatever critical literature you read. I just want a fun, well-flushed debate where everything is explained well and why it matters to me in the debate round. I was as comfortable taking the deterrence DA in the 1NR as I was taking the Metaphysics of Presence K - so don't pref me based on what you think is an ideological bias.

Kritiks and the like - Ks are cool. I did a lot of K stuff in high school, and still do a lot of K stuff in college. My academic interest (beyond statistics and stuff) are in security studies and IR. Things I don't like when judging K debates: buzzwords thrown around without unpacking them or explaining their significance, not engaging with the aff, assuming I know the lit, trying too hard to be BoSu or Mich KM but executing poorly, lack of alternative explanation in the 2NR, no external impact. Things I do like when judging K debates: specific analysis, sass, showing off your knowledge, K tricks, smart CX strategies to set up the K, cool explanations in the 2NR of how the K solves the case, good impact calculus.

K Affs - Also cool. I don't believe that there is a necessity for a plan text but I do wish the affirmative is in the direction of the topic, or at least about the topic. That said, if you can robustly defend your method/the important of your advocacy, sure go for it.

Framework: Framework debates, to me, are basically a debate over competing visions of debate and methods. Impact calculus please. "Destroys fairness" isn't an impact - why does fairness matter? What's the impact to fairness or why is switch-side debate good? what makes the neg's model of debate better than the aff's model of debate? why is the aff's model of debate good? Framework debates are fun to judge if they're done well! Yay!

Disadvantages - I like timely/specific DA's. I like politics. I like DA's. I don't know what else to say here. Good specific analysis of turns case and impact calculus = higher speaker points. Also I am not afraid to vote on no risk of the disad. Oh, btw, not a big fan of rider DAs but whatever I'll vote for it if you win it.

Counterplans- I think plan plus counterplans are solved by perm do both. I like really tricky PICs. I usually err neg on theory questions such as PICs bad, bad, etc, but they can definitely be won in front of me. However, I don’t want the 2AR to be PICs bad. Just engage with the substance yo. Also, if your CP has like 10 planks and you say you can kick planks, I'm more likely to be aff-leaning on theory args that I usually lean neg on (like condo). #DontBringConsultJapanBack

T/Theory: [copied and pasted from my roommate Madhu Vijay's philosphy aka MadDog Madhu] The team that wins the tech will win my ballot, regardless of the underlying argument's quality. (Of course, it's harder to make a compelling, technically sound case for something like no neg fiat.) Impact calculus is absolutely vital and underutilized. My substantive preferences aren't very relevant -- I will say that in general, the closer a CP is to the plan and the less specific differentiating evidence the neg has, the less likely I will be to believe it's competitive/legitimate. That is a very loose preference, and tech >>>>>>>> vague predispositions here. I tend to default to competing interpretations because reasonability is often debated vaguely/poorly by aff teams; if you can do otherwise, do so. As every judge says, theory/T are like DA's; you should debate them as such, and I will judge them as such. A caveat is that if you do things like not meeting your own interpretation, you'll probably lose. tbh i don't like judging theory debates because it's often done poorly

Also, I generally default to competing interps but can be persuaded otherwise (This is just the position i start out with in the debate - if you can win a disad to this preference then I will view the debate through a lens of reasonability and the same the other way). Topicality is generally a voting issue. T doesn’t cause genocide, but certain impact turns to T can be persuasive.

Case – woefully underused part of the debate. These arguments can be so strategic and when used creatively, they can be one of the most important parts of the debate. I’m not talking only defense claims like ECONOMIC COLLAPSE =/= EXTINCTION, but also impact turns and straight turns to their scenarios. Those are coolio. A well-done and well-engaged case debate = more speaker points. Smart cross-applications on either side = more speaker points.

Some self-perceived theory bias:
Aff-leaning on: Consults/Conditions, A-Spec (lol)
Neg-leaning on: Conditionality (to a certain extent), PICs bad (unless it's super abusive), Dispo

Ethics- don’t cheat, don’t lie, don’t be rude, don’t say messed up things. There is a line between sassy/funny and being an ignorant asshole. I’m fine with cursing in round if done correctly/appropriately/moderately.

If you have any questions, definitely feel free to ask before the round!

Be smart. Be funny. Relax. This will help your speaks. Have fun!

errr... if it matters, people who have really influenced me in my debate career at harvard so far (in no particular order): patrick kennedy, lundberg, mathew petersen, bradley bolman, yung michael suo  

I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging. Explain yourself and your arguments clearly for best results.

For e-mail chains and questions/concerns: lianne.lk@gmail.com

Arguments:

I don't really prefer certain types of arguments. I would like to see you run whatever you think you can argue best. That being said, I do prefer clear, substantive debate with good clash. Listen to your opponents and make sure you are actually responding to what they run. I am most interested in judging debates where the two teams are actually listening and responding to each other. Keep it organized. FLOW and respond to arguments based on your flow.

Kritiks: If you are running a complicated K at full speed that is heavy on rhetoric and clearly meant to confuse rather than educate, I am not the right judge for you. I am not impressed by use of buzzwords and highly complicated literature that you refuse to help your opponents understand during cross-ex. This seems to be trending more and more prevalent in policy debate and it is a real turn-off for me. If you are reading in any complex critical argument, you need to slow down during speeches and work to clarify the complex argument in cross-ex when opponents are asking you clear questions.

Topicality: If the affirmative is reasonably topical (as in not a K-aff), and responds to T efficiently in the 2AC with we meet and/or counter-definition/interp, etc... then you should assume that I will not be voting on T. I will favor reasonability in cases like this, and don't particularly enjoy judging rounds arguing rules and technicalities through to rebuttals if we can avoid it. So, my advice to neg would be: if your opponents adequately respond to T in the 2AC, you should kick the argument by the 2NR.

General Note: Ultimately, I judge the round based on the evidence and analysis explicitly provided by both teams. I will not make arguments for teams under any circumstance. If the aff says the sky is purple, the sky is purple on my flow until the neg states otherwise. You should also explicitly tell me why you win the round in your rebuttals. The only time I would make an exception in my "tabula rasa" approach to judging is if something stated is blatantly offensive and/or discriminatory. This is as a means to ensure student safety and equity within the round.

Flashing Evidence/E-mail Chains/Sharing Speech Docs:

This is probably sounding outdated in the world of post 2020 debate, but I'm leaving it in for now just in case: Your prep time stops only when you pull out your flash drive to hand to the other team. Saving, attaching, compiling, etc. is all part of your prep.

Now for the more technologically relevant: In the same spirit as above, for e-mail chains and/or drive sharing, prep time stops when you press send on and email or press share on a google/cloud document. I would suggest asking for your opponents email addresses prior to the start of the debate round so that doing so does not take time out of your prep. I really do not want to be the judge in a round holding up a tournament, and unfortunately it seems like this is the only way I can hold everyone accountable without everyone stealing prep left and right.

This should also go without saying, but the expectation is that you are prepared to and have planned for sharing speech docs in some way with your opponents. If you have no way of doing so, I will request that someone in your partnership allow the other team to use your laptop to view the speech. As a last resort, I will instruct the opposing team to stand and read over your shoulder during your speech so that they can flow appropriately. These are, to reiterate, last resorts. The ethical move for the sake of education in the round is to make sure you have a way to share documents: via email, google docs, dropbox, flash drive, etc.

General Conduct/Protocol/Speaker Points:

Open cross is fine. Make sure questions and answers remain a team effort though, for the sake of your speaks.

High speaks go to debaters that stay organized, keep to their road-maps, and clearly signpost.

Err on the slow side with me. I am super unimpressed by debaters that spread unintelligibility. State your taglines and authors slowly with extra clarity to be sure that they end up on my flow; If I can't understand you, I can't write down what you are saying, and your argument is moot. Spread only if you truly know you can be understood when you do so (that should go without saying, but based on rounds I've had to sit through, I guess it needs to be noted explicitly). Rule of thumb: if I am not typing while you're speaking, take that as your clue that nothing you are saying is going on my flow.

Treat your fellow debaters with the utmost respect, especially during cross ex. I understand that debate can be stressful, but stress is never an excuse to be rude or nasty. There is no simply need for it. Unnecessary hostility in cross-ex is a major issue for me. Chill out and try learning from each other. If you are rude or unnecessarily hostile to either your opponents OR your partner, your speaks will negatively reflect that.

The use of any derogatory/discriminatory terms, including sexist, homophobic, and/or racial slurs when referencing an opponent or judge will result in my stopping mid-round to call out the unacceptable language. Speaker points will negatively reflect the use of such language. Repeated use of slurs/name-calling will result in my ending the round with an automatic win for the opposing team.

I don't love the use of profanity for profanity's sake-- Meaning, if you can make your argument without the use of profanity, I would prefer that. If you are using profanity, your words should be chosen for a reason, and the reason should not be shock value - make smart choices here.

My personal background:

- I have been involved in policy debate in some capacity as either a college debater, judge, or high school coach since 2010.
- I am a high school teacher. (Courses taught: AP Macroeconomics, Economics, Law & Equity, Criminal Justice, Intro to Debate, Advanced Debate, US History & Social Justice).
- My academic interests mainly lie in economic theory. I believe strongly that economic impacts ARE social impacts and existential impacts.

Final Thoughts:

I congratulate you on choosing to participate in one of the most difficult, yet rewarding, activities that high school/college has to offer. I encourage you to use debate as a true learning and growing experience. If you allow for it, debate can make you a critical reader, a faster thinker, a better writer, a more confident speaker, a more prepared activist, an in-tune empath, a team player, a humble winner, a gracious loser, and ultimately a better overall citizen of this world. I wish you the very best of luck, and encourage you to use what you learn in debate to create more good in the world, starting as soon as you possibly can... perhaps even right now.

put me on the email chain: mikekurtenbach@gmail.com

coach @ Brophy College Prep.

experience: 10+ years

tldr: i have minimal predispositions - all of the following are my preferences, but good debating will always change my mind. i arbitrate debates purely based off the flow - i don’t read evidence unless 1) i was told to in reference to an argument or 2) the debate is incredibly close and evidence quality is the tiebreaker.

topicality: it’s okay. i think limits are the controlling standard. reasonability is probably a non-starter unless it’s dropped.

framework/k affs: let me start off by saying i would prefer if the affirmative defends something contestable. affirmative teams should not rely on “thesis-level claims” and should engage the line by line, mostly consisting of defense and impact turns. as long as the negative wins that debate in and of itself is good (which shouldn’t be hard), fairness is a legitimate impact. i think decision-making is silly. negative teams shouldn’t be afraid to go for presumption. same goes for performance affs. i don’t think a poem necessarily solves unless tied to tangible advocacy; convince me otherwise. *on the education topic, i’m especially persuaded by the tva*

kritik: it’s okay, but i’d prefer a more technical line-by-line execution by the neg over three minute long overviews that are repeated on every single argument. that being said, i think the ideal 2nc for most k’s should focus less on reading new evidence and more on contextualized analysis to the substance of 1ac. i think most k debates are lost due to lack of explanation or contextualization of the link or alternative. blippy extensions won’t do it for me, unless you can explain your advocacy in tangible terms. i will probably default to letting the aff weigh its impacts, unless you convince me otherwise. affirmatives, this is probably where you should invest the most time. losing 2ar’s either miss offense embedded on the link debate, lose the framework, or let them get away with absurd broad generalizations (or drop a pik). winning 2ar’s buckle down on case outweighs, mutual exclusivity, or well-analyzed impact turns.

da: love them. politics is my favorite argument. case-specific da’s are the best. aff don’t drop turns case. in the absence of a counterplan, impact calc/framing is incredibly important for my ballot and should be introduced earlier rather than later. in the presence of a counterplan, negs should weigh the da to the risk of a solvency deficit. specific internal links always beat general framing pre-empts.

cp: also love ‘em. pics are my second favorite argument. condo is probably good to an extent. decide what that extent is for me. i enjoy watching a well-executed process counterplan so long as you know how to defend it theoretically. unless told otherwise, i default to judge-kick.

case: please bring this back - it’s a lost art. highly encourage re-hilightings of their evidence, specific advantage frontlines, etc. i love impact turn debates. if an aff can’t defend why economic decline is bad, why should it win?

cross ex: i appreciate when you can answer every question straight-up in cross ex, instead of dodging them. cross-ex is a great time to build ethos. i think one of the greatest mistakes i see debaters make round after round is not carrying concessions in cross-ex into their speeches. cross-ex is binding.

Tufts University '20
- 3 years parliamentary debate (APDA, USBP)
- 2 years ethics bowl (APPE; USA #2, 2020).

Lexington High School '16
- 4 years policy debate (NatCir)
- some public forum (MSDL)

Summary

If it's not on my flow in the final rebuttal, I'm not voting for it. I will NOT follow along on speech docs. Speed is OK, but clarity is key. All argumentation is the debaters' responsibility to make coherent in the final rebuttals.

Harmful / intentionally disrespectful conduct will tank speaker points.

Run what you do best and please ask any other questions you have before the round!

Background

Most of my high school affirmatives had traditional policy mechanisms. I have some experience with "identity" and Continental criticism in debate, esp. on the neg. I have researched affect and political philosophy. I am not involved in topic research; please don't assume acronym familiarity.

Founding Board Member, WUDL (Washington Urban Debate League), 2013-current; former travel policy debate coach at Thomas Jefferson (VA), 2014-19. Debated nationally in HS and at Harvard (1990 NDT champion and Copeland Award winner) before starting a foreign policy career, including a stint in the State Department, earning a Ph.D., and have run the Washington Quarterly journal (you've probably cut or read a bunch of foreign policy cards from it) since 1998 as my full-time job.

I judged about 50+ rounds a year (now maybe 20 in WUDL), but don't teach at summer camps so better to explain topic args early in a year. In the spirit of David Letterman and Zbigniew Brzezinski (and ask a coach if you don't know who they are), here's a top 10 list of things you should know about me, or about what I believe makes you a better debater with me, as your judge:

10. I don't read speech docs along with you while you are speaking (except to check clipping); I use them as reference docs.

If I don't understand you, and it's not on my flow, it didn't happen. This is a speaking activity. Speed is fine, and I'll say "clear" if you're not.

9. Better debaters structure their speech (use #s) and label each new piece of paper (including 1AC advs) before starting to read tags/cites.

Ever listen to Obama speak? It's structured. Structuring your speech conveys the important points and controls the judges' flow (don't use "and" as that word is used in cards ALL the time). The best debaters explain arguments to the judge; they don't obscure arguments to hide them from the other team. Points will reflect that.

8. I generally prefer Affs to have plans as examples of the resolution.

I am indebted to the activity for opening my eyes over the years to the depths of racial tensions and frustration in this country, particularly among today's students, and constantly learn about them from coaches and students running these arguments well. All that said, I do intuitively believe the resolution divides ground and is vital for the long-term viability of this activity (aka I will vote on framework, but neg has to do more than say "you know old school policy debate is valuable...you did it").

7. Portable skills (including switch-side benefits) are real, and will pay off over 1-2 generations when you are trained and in charge.

What you do in this room can help train you to improve government (from inside or outside) even if it takes patience (think a generation). I am an example of that and know literally dozens of others. The argument that nothing happens because the aff doesn't actually get adopted overlooks the activity's educational value and generally feeds the stereotype that this generation demands instant gratification and can't think over the horizon. It's a process; so is progress.

I also intuitively believe teams shouldn't get the right to run an argument on both sides of the topic. The best way to challenge and sharpen your beliefs is to have to argue against them.

6. I'm not a good postmodernist/high theory judge (this includes psychoanalysis).

5. I am more likely to vote on conditionality if there are strategic contradictions.

4. Top debaters use source quals to compare evidence.

Debaters make arguments and use cards--cards don't make arguments themselves. Cards effectively serve as expert testimony, when the author knows more about the subject than you, so use the author's quals as a means of weighing competing evidence.

3. Permutations should be combinations of the whole plan and part or all of the CP or alt to test whether the CP or K is a reason to reject the Aff (aka competitive).

I've found permutation theory often painfully poorly debated with the neg block often relying on trying to outspread the 1ar not to go for perms in HS. Perms are not inherently illegitimate moving targets. Conversely, don't assume I know what "permute: do the CP" means; I find debaters rarely do. MAKE SURE THE TEXT OF A PERM IS CLEAR (careful when reading a bunch at top speed and text should be written in your speech doc for reference and is binding).

POTENTIAL UNCOMMON VIEW: I believe affs have the right to claim to adopt permutations as the option the judge is voting for (the neg introduced the CP/alt into the debate so it's not a moving target) to solve a DA and can offset the moral hazard that "you can't straight turn a CP so why not run one/more", but this must be set up in the 1ar and preferably 2ac.

Finally, I will resort to judge-kicking the CP or K if nobody tells me what to do, but somebody (before the 2ar) should.

2. Good Ks have good alts

At its core, policy debate is about training your generation to make a better world. That means plans and alts are the key to progress. I prefer not to hear generic Ks with either nihilistic (burn it down, refusal, reject the Aff) or utopian (Ivory Tower) alts. But show me a K with an alt that might make a difference? Particularly with a link to the Aff (plan specifically or as example of resolution) rather than the world? NOW we’re talkin’ ...

1. The most important thing: I try to be as tabula rasa as possible.

If you win a debate on the flow, I will vote for it. Seriously. All the above are leanings, absent what debaters in the room tell me to do or what I tend to do in evenly-matched, closely contested debates. But you should do what you do best, and I will vote for the team that debates the round best. You are not here to entertain me, I am here to evaluate and, when I can, teach you.

I save this for last (#1) because it supersedes all the others.

PROCEDURAL NOTE: If you're not using an e-mail chain, prep time ends when your flash drive LEAVES your computer (or if you are on an email chain, when you save the doc) -- before that, you are compiling your speech doc and that's your prep time. I tend to get impatient if there's too much dead/failed tech time in debates.

This is a working philosophy, which I'll update periodically, so please feel free to ask me any questions and if I hear the same one/s a couple times, I'll be happy to update this.

I came back because I believe policy debate was invaluable in my education, loved the competition, learned from and started a career based on the research I did and heard (and still do learn from it and you to this day), and want to create opportunities for others to benefit from competing in policy debate. I owe my career to this activity, and other members of my family have benefited from it in many ways too. I'll do my best to make each round fun and worthwhile.

Compete, make each other better, and have fun. There's no better intellectual game. Enjoy...Let's do this...

I judge, traditionally, based on whether or not a debate can stay on topic, and solve for the issue. Remain respectful and on pace. You must have the knowledge to articulate your knowledge and evidence in comparison to your opponent. Do this and you shall succeed.

David Levin (he/him/his)

Head Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT

Email Chain: levind@stlukesct.org

All Formats

be decent to one another (this includes your partner). don't use oppressive rhetoric. put me on the email chain.

Paradigms for PF, PD, and LD below.

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

Public Forum

>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for Kritiks. i'm a pretty good judge for theory. this format has so much potential for innovation - don't be afraid to try something different/new.

TOC 24 Notes:

Congratulations on making it here! Based on my topic research and the limited number of disclosed cases I've read through already, I have a few thoughts about debates on this resolution:

AFF GROUND: Aff ground is largely speculative - Evidence that actually advocates for the abolition of permanent membership is scarce, and there's no analog/historical example to provide an empiric basis for aff solvency. All of this probably means aff analytics carry a bit more weight on this topic. I think it's fair for aff teams to go beyond the literature base to envision what the world of the affirmative looks like, just have some empiric basis to support your speculation.

"HYPOTHETICAL CONFLICTS": I'm predicting that negative teams will make arguments about conflicts that "could have happened but didn't" because of the UNSC. Taking that on face value is as speculative as aff solvency, so provide a little bit of analysis or evidence that can point to how the status quo UNSC was/is able to avert conflict/escalation.

General:

"Progressive debate" debate doesn't mean much to me. I love to evaluate kritik and framework debates. I like evaluating purposeful T and theory rounds (I'd especially like to see more fiat debates). I also like judging a good salt-of-the-earth "substance" round. I don't enjoy evaluating what you might call "tricks", but I'll judge them fairly. I'm not here to tell you what you can't run (outside of oppressive/exclusionary arguments). It's good to interrogate the normative expectations of PF debate, and to have discussions of what forms of exclusion undergird debate, and specifically this format, to begin with. I likethis article from Stefan Bauschard a lot.

Housekeeping:

Please pre-flow and create the email chain before the round. Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting (see "Evidence"). If you have a shell (T, theory, etc), please send it in the card doc. Let's work together to trim down the time spent on evidence exchanges.

DO NOT send a "locked" document to me or your opponents. This is a competitive equity AND academic integrity concern.

Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one.

Speaking:

Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant.

If you have an auditory processing concern, please address it with your opponents rather than me whenever possible. If someone comes to you with an auditory processing concern, accommodate them. Be good to each other.

How I flow:

I flow digitally, and divide my flow by contentions. For contentions with multiple subpoints, just make sure you sign post. I flow warrants and read card docs during crossfire and prep, so don't just extend your author/tag.

I don't judge-extend or judge-kick whenever possible (maybe once in a while in a novice round).

I flow overviews at the top of the first contention. I'd rather flow weighing on the contentions individually, rather than en-masse at the bottom of the speech.

How I evaluate:

A-priori arguments are, as the name implies, evaluated first. Absent an a-priori debate, I go to framing.

Framing should be complementary to your impact/weighing. If framing is not argued, or if both teams drop framing, I default to utilitarianism. Once the framework debate is resolved (if there is one), I move to the contentions.

I like comparative link weighing a lot. Speculative impacts require a bit more work on uniqueness than empiric impacts. I think the status quo can be an impact in itself.

If neither team is able to garner offense, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo. Presumption can be flipped if the status quo is the impact.

Crossfire is binding.

Speaker Points:

I average around a 28.7 for varsity rounds. For a well-executed technical debate, expect something in the 28.8-29.4 realm. Above a 29.5 is reserved for performances that "stick to the ribs", demonstrating both technical mastery and rhetorical salience. Remember that debate is largely a practice in storytelling.

Specific Arguments

Topical "normative" Cases:

Truth is determined by the flow, and I don't judge-extend or kick arguments. Otherwise, do what you do. Turns rock.

Topical "critical" Cases:

Win your framework and role of the ballot. "Role of the judge" feels redundant, but if you make a distinction between my role and my ballot's role, I'll listen.

Again, links and solvency usually the most vulnerable components of the case. K solvency shouldn't be restricted to discourse - but what does the fiat-ed adoption of the critical worldview look like?

Textual alts that suggest specific actions get a little too close to plans/counterplans for comfort - instead, "vote [your side] to endorse/reject [something]", then go win the link.

These rounds are where I can offer my most helpful feedback, whether you're running a K or debating against one.

Non-topical criticisms:

Win your framework. Explain why the criticism is a prerequisite to topical debate, answer the TVA/TVN, and the perm.

Remember that I default presume to the side of the ballot closest to the status quo, whether you're reading a Non-T K or debating against one.

Presumption can be flipped either way. If you do a performance or narrative of some sort, implicate that stylistic choice.

"Off-case" Criticisms:

I'm not quite as fond of these for time constraint reasons (they often result in messy back-halves), so if you read one, do so in 2nd constructive or first rebuttal.

If you're critiquing a specific problematic discourse your opponent advances, consider running it as a short theory shell instead (example: I don't need you to spend 120 seconds dissecting gendered structures of power to claim misgendering is bad - it's pretty straightforward).

Topicality:

I prefer T be read in shell form with an interpretation, violation, standards and voter(s).

I believe that fairness is an internal link to various more objective impacts, rather than an impact itself. If you go for "drop the team" on T, it should be the whole FF.

T against kritiks should center standards for why I should hold the line for the resolution.

Theory:

Strong theory debates should focus on defining best practices for the activity.

"Theory bad" arguments are inherently theory arguments themselves and I'll evaluate them the same way I evaluate other forms of theory.

I prefer competing interpretations, but if the theory is clearly infinitely regressive or needlessly punitive, my threshold for reasonability lowers. This is especially true for theory "tricks".

Disclosure is good; Open-source disclosure is the gold standard; from my experience and observation, disclosure serves to benefit small programs and under-resourced programs; community minimums for disclosure are debatable. Paraphrasing, rather than reading actual evidence, is unethical.

Evidence:

Cut cards are an ethical standard for debate and non-negotiable at the varsity circuit level. Paraphrasing is not an automatic loss, but I will have no basis to trust your analytics absent you producing a marked copy of your evidence.

I have a low threshold for voting for paraphrasing theory against you, absent a performative contradiction from the other team.

Novices should learn to cut cards, but for them this a goal, not an expectation.

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

Policy:

I'm a little rusty, but regularly judged policy between 2016 and 2020. K v. K and K v. FW/T rounds were my favorites.

Hello again! It's been a minute! If you have me in a policy round, my most important request is that you help me flow you. I can normally follow at decently quick speeds, but if I "clear" you, it's a request for you to help me catch what you're saying. Sign posting is important and please please read tags and shells more slowly than your internals.

I debated policy in HS and coached/judged for a few years before moving to more PF. That said, policy directly informed the way I coach and evaluate PF. I don't have particularly strong opinions about most arguments, so run what you're good at running. I understand that this is quite vague, so if you're unsure how you'll pref me, or what to run in front of me, just ask.

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

Lincoln-Douglas:

Run what you want, but understand that I don't know the norms as well here.

You can likely infer my judging style from the PF and Policy sections above. Any questions, just send an email.

Meh

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta then you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, miscited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact-check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element, the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any single set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments from the participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and use it to get judges who will automatically check-in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. It's not about who wrote the best constructive only. It's about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result, I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is brian.manuel@uky.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered. Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate Facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era where students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasize the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must prove their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations, I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negative burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love to debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also, why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2-year-old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Sukhi and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability, not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; it's what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - it's rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This means they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your lifelong friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

An additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or it's won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and fewer sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. It's called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, a strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but it's unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely affected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full-time coach. Debate is my full-time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with, and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging, my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard-working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being run every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

Copied with the permission of Sarthak Garg

Prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer. If there's an email chain, prep will stop when the email is sent.

General Information
Be nice and I would prefer that you read what you’re best at and comfortable with. I’m open to debaters making whatever arguments they like as long as it is a coherent argument that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I will default to evaluating the debate by what was said in the debates and not my personal dispositions.

I also think that it is important for teams to engage with the others arguments. The important thing is to explain your argument but more importantly is to explain why it matters/why I should care, and what I should do in order to resolve the issue, so it’s important to start narrowing the debate down and framing my ballot by the last speeches. I am most comfortable voting for you when you win debates outright, flow-by-flow. Line-by-line and good technical debating are at a premium here. Explain how the arguments you read interact with and short-circuit the arguments the other team is reading/going for. Flexibility, round vision, and adaptation in both argument style and in-round argument selection are things I value highly This will increase your speaker points and minimize the issues I’m left having to parse through after the round.


Brian Rubaie puts it best:
Things to do --
1. Slow down/speak clearly. Fewer/better/longer cards, more explanation. More clarity and popping on keywords in evidence.
2. Start the 2nr or 2ar with what the first 10-15 seconds of the decision would sound like.
3. More case, it's clash-filled and engaging. No ev on the case? Doesn't mean you've got nothing to say; I love analytical arguments.
4. Treat each other well and have fun. No one gets to debate for very long and we all give so much of ourselves. I care deeply that everyone feel welcome and valued.
5. Tell me what evidence to read and why. I value ev quality greatly but don't read much unless it's contested.


Tech/Truth/Evidence
I care very much about evidence quality if the issue gets contested or specific cards become of issue in later speeches. Debate is an educational game, and tech over truth is the fairest way for me to evaluate debates— if you can’t beat timecube or the lizards k, you probably don’t deserve to win. Dropped arguments are true arguments, no matter how stupid they are. But I will not extend arguments for you. Extensions without warrants are not extensions.

Smart Analytics > Mediocre Evidence


Specific arguments:
Topicality/Framework—I like a good T/FW debate from both the aff and neg perspective. It’s important to counterdefine. I will not vote on simple buzzwords like education and fairness without you actually impacting out why that matters (see above section on framing). Impact calculus is a must. Slow down a bit on these otherwise I won’t be able to flow everything.

Theory—Like T, these debates need to be warranted out and impacted. Just reading blocks aren’t sufficient; arguments have to be engaged. Slow down on theory. I don’t have any predispositions for theory arguments so go for it if that’s your thing.

Case Debates—Entirely under-utilized. Too many teams get to weigh the entirety of the aff advantages regardless of how contrived the series of internal links or how poor the solvency mechanism is at solving alt causes etc. Also case debates don’t necessarily have to have cards to be good, sometimes pointing out bad evidence or just making true/smart arguments is plenty sufficient to greatly mitigate the case’s impacts. I really enjoy impact turn debates.

Disadvantages—Fairly straightforward. Do it if that’s your thing. Make sure you have a solid link story. Warranted impact calculus is preferred.

Counterplans—Necessary vs sufficient claims are very smart and good to go for in front of me. I do think a counterplan needs a solvency advocate. I appreciate a well thought out counterplan and if you can get away with a sneaky counterplan, go for it. If you’re going for the CP, I’ll need warranted explanation of why the counterplan solves the aff and is net beneficial to vote for it.

Criticisms—I’ve got experience here but that doesn’t mean you should just throw around buzzwords. Again, line-by-line and good technical execution are at a premium here. Make sure you explain why what specifically the aff is doing is bad, what the implications of that are, what the ballot does to challenge that, what my role as a judge is, and how I am supposed to frame the round. The affirmative team should make sure to challenge role of the ballot/judge and the lens through which I am supposed to view the round. Make sure these are warranted and you engage the other team’s argument when you’re framing the ballot in the 2NR/2AR. Links should always be contextualized in the context of the affirmative even if there are not cards for every link. The more specific your arguments and spin are to the affirmative, the more persuaded I will be to vote for you. There needs to be warrants to all the arguments just don’t say value to life outweighs or ontology first you have to explain why that is true. I think to win a K you usually have to mitigate the case in some way. The alternative is where these debates tend to be the most shallow. Aff teams: challenge what the alternative does and why it would be revolutionary. Neg teams: explain why the alternative can resolve underlying issues/the links to the K and why it would be a good methodology towards X issue.

K Affs—If this is your thing, go for it. A lot of what I wrote in the criticisms section applies here—explain everything, frame my role, and the role of the ballot. If the neg reads framework, refer to the above section on T/FW. I don’t have any predispositions to either side of this debate so warrant and impact everything out. Even though I generally think affs without a plan can be permissable I will still vote neg on framework, if the negative does the better debating. An aff without a plan must have strong warranted reasons that it is justifiable in framework debates in order to win. K affs with a topical plan I think are almost always legitimate but can be extra topical, so you'd be better off reading a specific T argument rather than just extra T. I think a lot of times these affs make large claims that could be substantially mitigated by the negative having a case debate and engaging the aff with reasoned arguments.

Cross-examination—It’s important. A well executed cross-x can substantially mitigate an argument or drastically improve your speaker points. Referencing arguments made in cross-x as warrants or extra links for the DA or K will boost your speaker points and ethos.

Cheating:
"All types of discrimination are prohibited – the debate is a safe space for learning and interaction. Evidence must be presented in an academic fashion. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. I also consider violations of disclosure norms to be pretty lame generally, but I understand the difficulty surrounding enforcement of my personal beliefs about disclosure. Don’t say “new aff” if you’ve read the same aff, but have a different “theme” to one of your advantages."—Brett Bricke

Creds to John Block, Daniel Schexnayder, & Ian Wreny

You can put me on the email chain : stormeebryemassey@gmail.com

NOTE- I do not look at your speech doc during round- I only ask to be on the chain in case I need to view cards after round. Please do NOT assume that because something is in your doc, it was flowed.

Team Involvement:

Coaching Experience:

Head Coach of US Debate Formats for Vancouver Debate Academy (BC)

Former Director of Debate at Grapevine HS and Trinity HS in TX.

I have over 7 years of experience coaching competitive speech and debate.

Competitive Experience:

College: University of Oklahoma Class of 14'

HS: Flower Mound High School 09'

Background in Events: I did Policy debate for 9 years (4 at Flower Mound High School; 5 at OU)- I was a big K debater.

I have coached students in CNDF, BP, Policy, LD, Congress, WSD, and Public Forum.

I currently coach Public Forum Debate, WSD, CNDF, and BP.

PF [Updated for Stanford 1/9/24]

Here are my top five suggestions if you have me in a PF round:

1. Be organized- I keep a clean flow (I was a policy debater for a long time and have judged on a collegiate level). Do not say your opponent missed something unless you are 100% positive.

2. Have evidence readily available- I evaluate a lot of your credibility in context of your evidence. If evidence is paraphrased poorly, is out of context, is not easily accessible, or is clipped- your team will lose points with me. Debate with integrity :)

3. Crossfire with care- Try to drive crossfire with questions and strategy- I am not a fan of back and forth arguments/tiffs during crossfire. Avoid being aggressive, please. I do pay attention to crossfire.

4. I am a gameboard judge (tech over truth- barring offensive argumentation that is racist, sexist, etc.). - if you concede an offensive argument- that is potential offense for your opponent. If your opponent concedes an argument- point it out and extend it. I will almost always evaluate tech over truth if spin is not addressed directly.

5. I am not likely to vote on frivolous arbitrary theory- if you read an argument that your opponent should lose because they didn't do some arbitrary thing like putting their phone number on the wiki- I will not likely vote for you and will likely want to vote against you. For me to vote on theory- you have to prove in-round abuse. However, if your opponent concedes the theory, I will vote on it- I will just be very sad.

La Salle College HS:
Policy Debater 2004-2007
Head Coach of Policy Debate, 2012-2016
Head Coach of Speech and Debate, 2016-2023.

As of September 2023, I am no longer actively involved in coaching, but will still judge from time to time.

I have judged debate (mostly policy, but also LD/PF) since 2008. I no longer judge with regularity and while I am fine with speed, etc. I am no longer a judge who does any topic research.

General Debate Thoughts

Policy--------------X------------------------------K
Tech-----------------------------X----------------Truth
Read no cards------------------X-----------------Read all cards
Condo good----X--------------------------Condo bad
States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing------------X-----------------Politics DA not a thing
Always VTL-X--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL
UQ matters most--------------------------X------Link matters most
Fairness is a thing----X---------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact
Try or die-------------------------------X----------No risk
Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------I’ll just read the docs
Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground
Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption
Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev
"Insert this re-highlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

• You should do what you do best and do it well – I think I am a good judge in that I will allow the arguments to develop themselves, and take the responsibility of the judge being a educator seriously.
• I will not vote on any argument that makes me uncomfortable as an educator. You should ask yourself, if my teachers/administrators were observing, would I make this same argument?
• Speed is fine, but clarity is important. Most debaters could slow down, get more arguments out, and increase judges comprehension.
• Tech>truth; however, when you have tech and truth on your side, it’s hard to lose.

Experience

Dartmouth 20', Lexington 16', debated policy 4 years at each.

Rounds judged on Antitrust: 0, Cards Cut: 0.

duncan.s.mccallum@gmail.com on the chain please.

he/him/his

General

Policy argument background. I try hard to evaluate debates objectively and be content neutral. I consider myself fairly well read and interested in many subjects. Therefore my process of evaluation, rather than my comprehension, of your arguments is more likely to be impacted by my background and biases.

I find myself to be less interventionist than the average judge. I am willing to take the implications of "bad" arguments at face value until disproven.

Strong preference for well researched strategies and evidently knowledgeable debaters. The closer arguments are to the "literature"/academia the happier I am.

Kritiks

Enjoy good versions of these debates, strongly dislike bad ones. The difference between the two is specificity.

Unwarranted overviews and explanation do not get very far with me.

Good K debating is good case debating. Aff inclusive kritiks are underrated.

Planless affs

Struggle the most with comparing impacts. Neg leaning on kritik competition. Generally frustrated with trend towards proliferation of 1ACs which are 6-7 minutes of T preempts. I'm quite receptive to strategies meant to exploit resulting inconsistencies.

T-USFG: I believe that there is too much ground (not too little) under aff interpretations. This means limits and procedural fairness are compelling arguments. Affirmative turns are compelling and should be mitigated by case debating. Strategies premised around interesting counter-interpretations are compelling but rare. Most counter-interpretations provide little defense. Topicality is a better argument than framework. TVAs are rarely necessary as I seldom find the exact content of the 1AC uniquely important. See: Turner, John.

Topicality (v plan)

I enjoy thinking about topicality. A strong interpretation must be a predictable limit. Neg ground standards are not persuasive. Overlimiting interpretations are rare. Arbitrary interpretations are common. 2As do with that as you will. I favor arguments backed by good cards. Lean towards competing interpretations.

Very willing to vote on specification arguments.

Disads

More receptive than most to smart analytics. Zero risk is a unicorn. Low risk strongly mitigates impact comparison and implication. But, that stuff is still very important when done concisely. Most turns case and impact calc arguments require only a couple seconds to defeat.

Average judge for politics DAs.

CPs/Theory

The stronger the grounding of the CP in topic literature the more theoretically legitimate it tends to be.

Very receptive to theory arguments excluding multi-actor fiat, not-a-policy fiat, and uniform-50-state fiat.

'Reject the argument not the team' is persuasive in most instances. Arguments about what is justified rather than what happened in the round are much stronger.

I have the typical 2A's frustration with CPs consisting of 5+ planks. I'm not sure quite what to do with it but I'm annoyed.

Conditionality: probably good. Interpretations that restrict conditionality to a specific number in the 1NC are arbitrary to some degree – I find dispositionality more persuasive. I don't think there is much controversy around defining that term, but still extrapolate your interpretation. Against 2NC planks or amendments. No opinion on judge kick.

Misc

Evidence comparison is quite important. I care a lot about quals. I am inclined to strongly discount unqualified evidence and inclined to strongly prefer extremely qualified evidence. Identifying and communicating the qualifications of a particular author is the responsibility of the debaters.

You cannot insert evidence into a debate. You must read it unless it's an image that can't be read easily (e.g. chart, map).

How to get good speaks -

Hard numbering. This is very near and dear to my heart. Eschewing line by line is a great way to get bad speaks.

I find my favorite debaters are genial, well read, and very confident. The most important thing is to demonstrate preparation with execution.

Bold decision making.

Debating the case.

Jokes. Don't worry too much about content. Recommended subjects: Dartmouth debate, Boston sports, NBA, soccer, Twitter, pop culture, ridiculous metaphors (see Estrada, Joseph; Tambe, Raam).

You will get bad speaker points if you are unclear.

Updated 11/13/20

TLDR: Do whatever. I haven't been super active the last few years so everything below is probably less relevant now. Make things easy for me and tell me why you're winning in your last speech.

OLD PARADIGM

Debate Experience: I debated for four years in high school reading mostly soft left affs and the cap k, qualifying to the TOC my senior year. I haven't judged a ton on this topic so make sure you explain topicality/ other stuff you might assume I'd know.

Debaters that have influenced me the most: Anthony Ogbuli, Rishi Chebrolu. Check out their paradigms.

Sparknotes Version: Do what you want. This is my first year judging so I don't really know what I like/dislike yet and this paradigm will probably change. Coming from a small school I probably have more respect for a well executed generic than the average judge. Cool with k's, no-plan affs, I really just want to see what you do best. Impact calc can completely turn debates around in the 1ar onward.

Non-policy affs: This was the section that mattered to me most when I was debating. I probably have a slight (52-48) aff bias on the framework question. That said it's still a super winnable argument and was in 95% of my neg blocks in these debates. Negs should use topical version of the aff arguments to neutralize large portions of aff offense. I'm definitely more persuaded by arguments about the educational value of a limited resolution grounded in switch side debate than "policy education good" arguments. Aff teams should challenge neg internal links to neg impacts cause they're usually super poorly articulated. Fairness is an internal link not an impact.

Kritiks: LINKS LINKS LINKS. Especially against non-policy affs if you can give me something better than "they talk about race and that's not class sooo..." you will be rewarded. Find the parts of the aff that you're actually disagreeing with and highlight that for me. References to specific pieces of their evidence/rhetoric are dope. Links are also the best answer to the perm. Dropped turns case arguments from policy affs are pretty devestating. On both sides you should assume you're winning less of the framework debate than you think. Couch these arguments so that even if you don't win your interpretation you can still garner offense on whatever else you have. I went for neolib probably 75% or more of rounds my sophomore year on so I'm pretty familiar with that but please don't read that just for me. Besides cap I'm most familiar with policy and race based kritiks. Not very well read on or experienced with high theory so if that's your thing make sure you clearly break that down for me. Writing the ballot at the top of the 2nr is absolutely necessary for kritiks.

Topicality: I have a burning passion for well executed topicality arguments. A well put together t argument in the block can completely mess up a 1ar's debate. These debates are usually won or lost on the limits question for me. I default to competing interps cause reasonability is rarely explained well.

Disads: Not a lot to say here. Impact calculus is the most important and least well done aspect of disad/case debates from my experience. Big fan of analytical takeouts to obviously stupid links.

CPs: Despite being a 2n I find myself leaning aff on most theory questions. I think aff teams let the neg get away with a stunning amount so feel free to not only run but go for theory. Negs should be prepared to defend why stealing aff ground was justified if pressed on it but no one seems to do that so it probably doesn't matter. Weighing solvency deficits against the risk of the da at the end of the round is not fun so please make that easy for me.

Case Debates: Underutilized. A lot of big stick policy affs have laughable internal links and I'd love to see you go after them in cross-x or with analytics.

Email me at wjmccarthy7@gmail.com with any other questions.

Manny Medrano

Polytechnic ’15 (“Polytechnic HM”)

Harvard ’19 (“Harvard AM”)

Top-Level

-          Affirmatives: Affirmatives should defend something. However, my definition of “something” is flexible. It can potentially take the form of a “traditional” plan, a “non-traditional” advocacy statement/method, or anything in-between. The negative should be able to identify some method of the affirmative and say that it is bad. If I don’t think that the 1AC met that burden, then I am likely to be persuaded by a negative framework argument. “T-federal government/T-should” is a debate I am happy to judge, and not ideological about.

-          Conditionality: Two conditional options are probably good, assuming that they are not directly contradictory. More than two conditional options is justifiable, but must be defended.

-          Reasonability vs. competing interpretations: I am more likely than others to buy a well-developed defense of APPLIED reasonability. I am also more likely than others to reject a poorly developed one. What does the topic look like under your interpretation? Is that change/restriction of the topic meaningful? These are core questions.

-          Kritiks: I made these arguments in high school, and have continued doing so in college. That means that well-explained negative kritiks are highly enjoyable. Conversely, well-explained affirmative defenses of their plan/method/etc. are equally persuasive. Links need impacts. I won’t kick the alternative without you asking. Permutations are not advocacies—they are tests of competition. The affirmative should be able to weigh the 1AC, but what “weigh” means is of course up to debate. Alternatives must solve the impacts to the links.

-          DAs: Great. 2NC link wall is important, and spin is essential. Conversely, I can be convinced by a smart uniqueness overwhelms argument, smart link defense, etc. It’s all about persuasion. The negative’s job is to tell the story. Evidence is a portion of that narrative, but at the end of the debate I’ll likely be evaluating the truth value of your DA, not card 6 in the 12 points subpointed at the bottom of the 1NR.

-          CPs: Great. Sufficiency framing makes sense to me, but I am very much open to affirmative reasons that such framing either doesn’t apply, is undesirable, etc. Kick out of CPs.

-          Evidence: I will read evidence from relevant areas of the debate. I like good evidence, but great analytics are better than good evidence.

-          Humor: Please. Even if not well-executed. Bad humor can be good, good humor is good, but OK humor is bad. Pick a side. Debate is a training ground, but not just for argumentation.

Questions? Please ask. More than willing to answer them. 

15ayushm@gmail.com

Update for Gonzaga 2022: I haven't judged a debate in over 2 years. I still understand what's going on, but I will probably be less comfortable flowing very fast speakers, and I won't be fluent with topic-specific acronyms/abbreviations. Please slow down, thank you!

Please do not threaten your opponents with violence. If you do this, I will vote against you.

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

I make decisions by determining the important questions of the debate, starting with the most broad (does the case outweigh the DA? does the solvency deficit outweigh the net benefit to the CP? does the K outweigh the case?) and paring that down to the specific disagreements (does economic decline cause war? do the consequences of actions matter more than their ethical import?) based on sets of evidence. Given this model of decision-making, it would behoove you to articulate those questions and keep in mind how you would like them answered. Very clear judge instruction about the big picture at the beginning of speeches goes a long way. Reasonably assess what you and your opponent are each winning and present the case for a ballot in your favor. Teams very rarely win all of their arguments, so the team that convincingly and reasonably evaluates the debate is more successful.

Clash and engagement usually matter above the content of any particular argument (with some important exceptions). Given this emphasis on engagement, it is important for both teams to highlight points of disagreement.

Regarding theory and topicality, effective comparison of the impacts of standards wins debates. Beginning this process early in the debate increases your chances of winning and makes these debates more interesting. The argument that counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive is easily winnable, especially if the 1AR engages the line-by-line and defines relevant words.

Framework debates almost always require debating about the case. A topical version of the aff has varying levels of value depending on the aff's best offense against framework. T standards about the value of engagement and clash are more intuitively persuasive than nebulous "decision-making" impacts, but I am open to hearing both. Most importantly, articulating a clear, salient impact that interacts with the other team's offense is the most valuable strategic choice for the beginning of the final rebuttals.

If left undebated, I will not "judge kick" advocacies extended in the 2NR, and I will weigh the case against Ks.

Lincoln-Douglas
My debate experience has mostly been in policy debate, and while I am familiar with the differences in LD, mostly everything above applies.

"Conditionality bad" is substantially more winnable in LD than in policy, but the mechanics of how I think theory should be debated remain the same. Reasonability is also more winnable in LD given the rise of absurd theory arguments. I would prefer to judge a debate that does not center upon theory.

Good with anything, speeed- make sure that you are clear and I can hear what you say.

Topicality: 

Explain why its abusive in the round and why it matters to the debate as a whole.

Policy/fiat/USGF affs:

tell me why policy making is the best thing ever/ why it's preferable to the Neg's roll of the judge and ballot/etc. Explain your permutations, what they look like, how they work, why it functions.

Case:

Case Debate is important, make sure that you engage in it!

K/DA

Give good link analysis, the more links that you have specific to the case the aff is running the better, if you only have generic links then I probably will not vote for it so make sure you focus on the link and alternative debate.

9/20/2019

I have experience debating competitively in high school and college from 2008-2015. I debated at Baltimore City College and Harvard.

I don't prefer listening to certain arguments over others.

I like debates where debaters successfully clash on crucial, core issues in the debate.

I see my role as a judge to decide on a winner and loser of the debate, and to justify to the debaters, especially the losing team, the reasons for my decision.

I do not seek to read evidence after debates, and will usually only read evidence to resolve crucial questions that are not resolved by the debaters.

Debated for Washburn Rural, 2012-2016

On speed: I am not at all familiar with this year's topic and I have only judged a few debate rounds in the past four years, so I am rusty on listening to spreading. If you are really fast, you should probably not go your absolute fastest.

I believe debate is an incredibly valuable and life-transforming activity. For this reason, I take every round very seriously – and I think you should, too. This means respect your opponents, and each other. It’s ok to be assertive, but there’s a big difference between being confident and being rude.

In the words of Dana Randall: “I believe debate is a unique academic activity. I believe the merits of switch side debate and the in round clash this activity affords mean that it is usually a greater source of education for students then most of their academic courses. I believe that in order to fully realize the merits of this activity debaters should engage in discussions that stem from the resolution. The affirmative team should have a stable advocacy which defends the direction of the topic. Debaters should disclose previously read positions fully. Teams should place the full citation to arguments they have read on the wiki as soon as is possible. Disclosure enhances pre-round preparation, accessibility, the ability engage an opponent's argument, and raises the standard of what qualifies as evidence.”

I have been a 2A almost my entire debate career. I like negative strategies that poke holes in the aff and ask good questions – most of my partner's 2NRs, and mine when I have done them, have been the politics DA, a topic DA, and topicality. My favorite types of debates to watch are ones where the negative has prepared a specific strategy and is well-versed in the technicalities of the 1AC. I tend to like affs that are smaller but solid. I don't like shaky causal link chains in affs, but if the neg doesn't poke holes in them, then I will obviously give the aff the benefit of the doubt on them.

DAs:
I love these – please run them. As much as I love a smart counterplan in the 2NR along with it, I think the best neg teams can go for the squo and question the 1AC’s logic. For example – why does a collapse of one industry in the US mean the entire economy declines? Why does that mean global nuclear war? Deficits in the 1AC’s internal links are often underutilized by the negative on the case in favor of generic impact defense.

Not a fan of politics theory arguments. If the DA's so bad, beat it on substance, not on "the neg dropped intrisicness".
Make sure to use your DA to turn the case at the impact and internal link level. This means impact calc is essential.

Topicality:
I will usually default to competing interpretations – which is why I think topicality debates should be framed as two “counterplans” each with respective net-benefits (education, fairness, etc). Saying “depth over breadth” isn’t an argument – one of the hardest parts about going for T (and answering it), is making sure not to only explain the “link” but also implicate this in terms of terminal impacts (What does lack of education mean for debate? Why is that important? What impact outweighs the other, and why?)

Counterplans:
These counterplans are usually good:

• PICs
• Advantage
• States

These counterplans are susceptible to theory:

• International Fiat
• Consult, conditions, recommend
• Word PICs

I can be convinced either way. I will reward you for specific counterplans that are well-researched and prepared.

Theory:
I did not debate in college and judged very few rounds, so it's been several years since I've thought about debate theory, and I'm rusty. I remember the basics (common args for and against condo, etc.), but don't really remember non-basic theory
Theory should be impacted if you’re going for it – buzzwords aren’t enough for me to vote for your argument unless you explain it.

Kritiks:
I’m not your best judge for these – do not read a K in front of me if your only goal is to confuse the other team and win because of that.
I’m not very well-versed in this literature, but will keep up with topic specific Ks and generics.
If you decide to go for the K, please make sure to explain your arguments very clearly to me. This means being very explicit in CX about what the alt does. I will not vote on something if I don’t understand what it means. I am not familiar with "K-tricks", so do not expect me to recognize your argument and vote on it absent a clear explanation.
I do not want to judge high theory and philosophy.
Links of omission are not links.
Floating PIKs are bad.
Weighing the aff is good - it is difficult for me to ever believe a framework which holds the affirmative to a perfect standard (in terms of epistemology, representations, etc) is one that is fair.
Death is bad - I will not vote for arguments that claim death is good.
Fiat is good - obviously voting aff doesn't usually cause change outside the round, but the notion of fiat allows for intellectually stimulating debates about the costs and benefits of public policy.
A 2AR that says the aff outweighs and the alt doesn’t solve is very persuasive to me, especially if combined with the permutation. That being said, I am sympathetic to new 1AR/2AR arguments if an argument in the 1NC or block is not developed.
For more info, please see the link below.

K Affs:
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=8363

Good luck, have fun, and debate with heart J feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

(Thank you to Elizabeth Cordoves--most of this paradigm is taken directly from hers).

Email: shannonnierman@gmail.com

I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School for four years, debated for 3 years at MSU, and currently coach at Groves.

Topicality: I’m not opposed to voting on T, but rereading T shells is insufficient. There needs to be substantial work on the interpretations debate from both teams, in addition to the standards and voters debate, i.e. education and fairness. As long as the aff is reasonably topical and it is proven so, T is probably not a voter. Also, if you are going for T in the 2NR, go for only T, and do so for all 5 minutes.

Counterplans: Any type of counterplan is fine; however, if it is abusive, do not leave it for me to decide this, make these arguments.

Disads: Any type of DA is fine. A generic link in the 1NC is okay, but I think that throughout the block the evidence should be link specific. When extending the DA in the block, an overview is a must. The first few words I should here on the DA flow is “DA outweighs and turns case for X and Y reasons.”

Kritiks: I will vote on the K, but I often find that in the K rounds people undercover the alternative debate. When getting to this part of the K, explain what the world of the alternative would look like, who does the alternative, if the aff can function in this world, etc. I am well versed in psychoanalytic literature i.e. Zizek and Lacan and I do know the basis of a plethora of other Ks. This being said, I should learn about the argumentation in the round through your explanation and extrapolation of the authors ideas; not use what I know about philosophy and philosophers or what like to read in my free time. Read specific links in the block and refrain from silly links of omission.

Theory: I am not opposed to voting on theory, but it would make my life a lot easier if it didn’t come down to this. This is not because I dislike the theory debate rather I just believe that it is hard to have an actual educational and clear theory debate from each side of the debate. Now, this said, if a theory argument is dropped, i.e. conditionality bad, by all means, go for it!

Performance: An interesting and unique type of debate that should still relate to the resolution. As long as there is substantive and legitimate argumentation through your rapping or dancing and whatever else you can come up with, I am willing to vote on it. Even if you are rapping, I would prefer to have a plan text to start.

*As technology is vital in our life, many of us have switched toward paperless debate. I do not use prep for flashing, because I have also debated both off of paper and paperlessly in debate and I understand that technology can sometimes be your opponent in the round, rather than the other team. I am being a nice and fair judge in doing this, so please do not abuse this by stealing prep, because I will most likely notice and take away that stolen prep.

FAQs: Speed – I’m okay with speed as long as you are clear!
Tag teaming - I’m okay with it as long as it’s not excessive.

Things not to do in rounds I’m judging: go for RVIs, go for everything in the 2NR, and be mean. Believe it or not, there is a distinction between being confident and having ethos vs. being rude and obnoxious when you don’t have the right to be.

rnix@bostondebate.org

Policy Debate Coach for 3 years at Edward M Kennedy (MA), now working for the Boston Debate League. I'm familiar with the resolution and most of the common policy Affs this year. I'm familiar with the more common K and Theory arguments, but if you're running a theory-heavy kritikal aff, do a little bit extra to make sure I understand your argument. I believe my role as the judge is to help both teams improve their arguments and learn from the round.

I go blank slate as best as possible, but I will vote down offensive arguments, and I will explain myself fully in my feedback if that is the reason why I voted you down. I will vote on anything, including K, T, Theory, FW.

Please extend your positions throughout the debate, if you drop an entire position in a speech, even if you bring it back later, I will vote on fairness/violation issues (but only if the other team actually explains the nature of the violation and why I should care that there was a violation in the round, I will do my best not to intervene). Violations won't lose you the debate, but they may cause me not to consider some of your arguments.

I will only ask to see evidence if there has been a direct challenge by the opposing team to it's content or validity.

Impact analysis is the debate round. Convince me why your impacts within your framework are best and why you best achieve your framework and you'll win the round. If one side drops framework, I will assume whatever framework the other team gives me. You need to do the work to weigh the most important arguments at the end of the round. It's safe to assume that if an argument was run and extended throughout the debate that I will at least minimally weigh it in my decision calc, so ultimately you need to explain to me why the summation of your impacts outweighs those of the other team.

I'm pretty good with speed, but volume is important, as long as you're loud enough we'll be all set. There is something to be said for emphasizing your most important points by extending them throughout the round and changing your tone when you present them. Otherwise I will assume everything you're saying has equal weight, which may not benefit you in the round.

Organization is important. Tell me which flow you're on and tell me when you move to something new. If you're giving a line-by-line, let me know, otherwise I'm going to flow everything straight down as an over/underview. I won't do the work for you on the flow.

Ananth Panchanadam

2020 Update: Ananth Panchanadam

Education: B.A. Political Science, New York University (December 2018). Ms in Finance, Georgetown University, McDonough School of Business (May 2021), Unionville High School(2015)

Professional Experience: Internships in Investment Banking and Corporate Finance

Coaching/Teaching Experience: Stuyvesant, Ransom Everglades (Students qualified to TOC from both schools)

Competitive Background: Policy Debate

Paradigm: Wanted to keep this simple and quick. Feel free to ask more in-depth questions

I like students who have plans and by plans I mean students who have a clear vision as to what they are trying to accomplish in each speech. I want to reward debaters who have an idea of how to win the debate and can explain and execute that it. I prefer that over debaters who just extend their scenario and do line by line without any broader strategy.

I don’t have any style of argumentation preferences and have had coaching success with Policy, K and performative strategies. Speed is fine, please be clear and don’t blaze through theory shells and pre-written analytics.

I also think that the goal for most students is to win a debate and that students look to exploit points of arbitrage to secure victory.

T: I believe that Affs have a prima facie burden to be topical. What it means to be T is up for debate. You can also reject the topic but be ready to defend it. I don’t have a strong preference for reasonability or competing interps. It seems inevitable that both are used in my decision. Def go for it if you have a good explanation. I treat standards as linear disads and actual abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse.

Ks:

Role of Ballot is the first thing I evaluate on a k flow but I do need to believe that there is a reason for the ballot to have a role and that the specific role of the ballot is good.

Role of Judge =/= Role of Ballot. Role of Judge, ideally, helps me prioritize an issue or method that influences the way I interpret the arguments made in a round.

I view links as independent disads to the aff. Good teams will explain them as reasons to vote for the alt and/or the squo.

DAs/CPs:

Use case arguments to strengthen your DA arguments. Strong link work will serve you well. Specific counterplans and texts are good.

Personal Opinions/Conventions:

1) I disclose and call for cards unless told otherwise

2) Tech vs Truth is stupid: Drops =/= wins and strong truth claims don’t always beat technical drops. Use situational awareness to determine how to approach technical aspects of debate

3. 3) Author Quals matter. Peer reviewed research, respected news sources, industry opinions (especially for Finance and Econ). Authors from relevant fields.

4) Science, Statistics and Data analysis are good.

5) I don’t have a revolution or reform good bias for K debates

6) I generally don’t find g-lang type arguments persuasive and I will not vote for them against ESL students.

7) I don't like arguments made in bad faith and you'll know it when you see it. I don't like sketchy disclosure practices (Either do a reasonable disclosure or don't disclose at all and be prepared to defend the consequences of your decision).

8) I don't take prep for flashing/Emailing. Not everyone has a $3k macbook.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have and good luck!

me:
I debated at Michigan on the military presence topic. I was a 2A on a Baudrillard aff. On the neg I did a lot (policy & K things). In the 2016-2017 school year I coached Traverse City Central. I haven’t been regularly involved in judging/coaching since then.

general:
There's not much I won't vote on. Any well-explained and well-constructed argument is one that I would vote on. If you can explain things and give good impact calculus, I will want to vote for you and give you good speaker points!

"non-traditional" affs:
The trend of copying & pasting affs from college wikis is a terrible form of education and debate. If you can't explain the thesis of your aff, what a ballot means, etc., I won't really want to vote for you. I have no problem voting for an aff that doesn't have a plan if you debate it well.

framework:
I judge a lot of framework vs. no-plan aff debates (these are the majority of my aff debates in college). Similar to what I've written above, I think some teams that read high theory arguments in high school are a bit confused and have a difficult time explaining their aff. Framework is an appealing argument to me when it is explained contextually (when you talk about the aff). In the same vein, teams that default to framework when they don't hear a plan in the 1AC usually get out-contextualized by the affirmative when they refuse to engage the 1AC.

speaker points:
I reward people who are smart and pleasant. It's advantageous for debaters to be human-like in debates (have fun, joke around, etc.). Makes the debate more enjoyable for everyone and hopefully takes some stress away.

theory:

I lean neg when there is not clear in-round abuse, but once again, attempt to be impartial.

etc.:
Don't be mean. Debate should be a fun/educational space for everyone. That being said, if you're reading an argument or use discourse that is super offensive to someone/some group, you'll get low speaks and I most likely will not vote for you.


If you have questions you can email me at rennpasq@gmail.com

9 years of policy debate experience. Currently at Harvard, previously coached Chandler High School and Hamilton High School (AZ).

Quick Pre-round Notes:

• Speed is fine. Distinguish between tags and cards.
• Tech > Truth.
• Don't read stupid arguments.
• "Extend XYZ" is not an argument. Give clear explanations and contextualizations of prior evidence.
• Tag-team CX is fine, don't dominate your partner.
• I don't count flashing as prep unless I notice you stealing prep (probably also not great for your speaks or street cred).

Speaker points:

• Be aggressive, but kind and pleasant. Just because you have X number of bids doesn't mean you're excused from being respectful. Don't be condescending.
• I will pay attention to CX and reward fantastic ones.
• Clash. Many high school rounds come down to "who dropped what?" rather than "who debated best?". I'd rather hear you engage the other team's arguments rather than blindly blaze through a prewritten overview.
  • On that note, I've found that hearing large prewritten overviews is rarely helpful. 
• Jokes poking fun at the Seattle Seahawks, Los Angeles Lakers, the University of Arizona, and good puns are a plus--but don't overdo it.

Arguments:
Case --- I highly value research and love seeing well-researched case debates. Some of the best debates I've judged have come down to nuances in policy implementation, internal link chains, and fights over root causes. I like strategic 1ACs that pre-empt frequently encountered negative arguments and continue to leverage their case throughout the debate. That being said, the 2AR is not a constructive. I won't flow new arguments or ones not developed in the 1AR. 

Disadvantages --- Great. The more specific, the better. That being said, I still love a good Politics debate. Focus on quality over quantity: If it’s in the 1NC, it should be worth going for in the 2NR.

Counterplans --- Great. Most of my senior year in high school was spent cutting case-specific PICs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're theoretically legitimate and I can be convinced if they are/aren't in a debate round. I don't think most consult CPs are legitimate (or any CP with an artificial net benefit, for that matter).

Kritiks --- Cool (if you know what you're doing). Don't assume that name-dropping a dead German guy means I'll automatically vote for you. Assume I don't know the literature beforehand and give me a case-specific link story and why I should care.

Things I've seen in good critical debates include, but are not limited to:
NEG

• 2NC/1NR link contextualization specific to the aff.
• A simple, but effective alternative overview (if you also claim to solve/turn the aff, tell me how in the context of the 1AC). Why does it solve your impacts? Why does it solve/turn those of the 1AC?
• Impact comparison in the context of framework
• Framework: Why shouldn't I weigh the 1AC against the alternative? 

AFF

• Permutations should be explained in the context of the K (At the least in the 1AR + 2AR). If the 2AR is solely "extend perm do both", you're fighting an uphill battle.
• Some negative teams are pretty terrible at explaining their alternative. Win a substantial risk that the alt doesn't solve and/or a strong link turn and the ballot's probably yours.

Topicality --- T should probably be all 5 minutes of the 2NR. There needs to be a reason that your impact is a significant hindrance to the debate (e.g. "we lose the spending DA" isn't a substantial enough reason to vote neg because it's a terribly generic argument). Affirmative's don't necessarily need to win that their interp is best for debate, but they do need to win a framework that allows me to believe that substantial defense is enough to vote aff.

Theory --- I appreciate when teams utilize theory to justify/extrapolate key arguments to give them an edge on contested flows. I have a high threshold on using theory as a reason to vote aff/neg; give me a compelling–more than just a blip–reason why I should vote for you.

Non-traditional/Performance Affirmatives --- While these are fine, I do believe these should be somewhat related to the resolution. Arguing that "framework is oppressive" isn't a compelling argument on its own. In order for debate to function properly, there needs to be some point of stasis that debaters can come to. That doesn't necessarily need to be USFG or policy action, but it does need to be defined (hence the framework debate).

UPDATED FOR THE THE GLENBROOKS 2023

uclabdb8@gmail.com

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***brief***
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. pen time on overviews matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue

**background**
identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. i now spend my time developing programming for Chicago's urban debate league. you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.

**disads/cps/case**
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- chicago
- udl
- coaching debate!

**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

College debater on both the American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary Circuit. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact and be accessible to all debaters in the round. Weighing and comparison is very important to me - this and other analytics should be slower if you want them on my flow. Spreading too much will result in me not flowing your entire speech.

Updated for ASU 2021

I spent the first half of my debate career reading primarily "policy" arguments and the second half of my career experimenting with critical literature. Most of my 2NRs my senior year consisted of either psychoanalysis, politics (and CP/case), T, or framework. I've debated and coached both sides of the framework debate. I'm currently a lawyer. I have not judged any debates on this topic and have done almost no research on it either.

Contact info: rsrajan93@gmail.com (add me to the email chain)

Big picture:

-Each side should have offense (solvency deficits, DAs, etc.) to the other side's proposed advocacy (1AC, TVAs, CPs, K alts, etc.). In terms of impacts, however, I am comfortable believing that there is such a low risk of something happening that it is not a concern.

-Impact COMPARISONS frame my decision regardless of the genre of debate. Your final speech ought to provide some insight into why the strategy you are going for is a good one.

-While I care a lot about both evidence quality and spin, how you debate your evidence matters the most. Evidence quality will influence speaker points.

-Even...if argumentation is good because you're not likely to win every argument.

-Less is more. Final speeches ought to value breadth over depth. Fewer arguments that are better impacted out have a greater chance winning in front of me than hoping your opponent drops a poorly impacted one.

-I am quite good for impact turns, especially in Policy v. K debates.

-I have to be able to trace any argument that is in the 2AR to the 1AR. I will not reward aff vagueness or any attempt to obfuscate the debate up until the 2AR.

Note: Each debater gets one constructive and one rebuttal. After the 1AC/1NC, I will not evaluate what you say during your partner's speeches. This presumption can only be overcome with a very good and explicit reason.

Specific Arguments:

Framework: I judge this debate the most often. Fairness is far more persuasive as an internal link than it is as an external impact. The two most persuasive negative strategies are either: (a) an explanation of how the negative's conception of the activity promotes certain beneficial skills or a model of research (or engagement with the world) that links to some larger impact that outweighs and is mutually exclusive with the aff OR (b) a reason for why conceiving of debate as more than just a game structured by competitive incentives is bad. Negatives should still play defense to the substance of the aff via case answers, TVAs, state engagement good args, an SSD claim, etc. Such defense should also address aff impact turns to framework.

Affirmatives need a connection to the topic. Affs should also defend doing something and that advocacy should extend beyond the aff debaters. Otherwise, it's very easy for me to find that any impact on framework outweighs the aff. To effectively hedge against procedural fairness offense, affirmatives ought to have a vision of what debate looks like under their interpretation. I've noticed that I've been voting negative more often because affirmatives spend too much time describing the content of the aff and not enough time explaining how they grapple with the competitive structure of debate. Explain how you deal with the fact that debate is a competitive activity and how you would change our relationship to or channel the benefits of competition.

Lastly, I have a hard time completely separating "form" from "content." I am willing, however, to believe that one may be more important than (or control how I evaluate) the other.

Kritiks: Examples matter. While specificity to the aff is not required, specificity does influence how likely I am to believe the thesis of your K.

For the aff, if the negative critiques a methodological underpinning necessary for the aff to be true/function, the burden is on the affirmative to answer that critique. It behooves the aff to have a defense of their epistemology, ontology, representations, etc. or reasons why those considerations should not matter. The aff can and should make arguments about specificity, but needs to contextualize these arguments for the purposes of impact calculus or internal link takeouts.

When answering framework on the K, the aff should defend their model of engaging the resolution. I'm not too persuaded by arguments grounded in predictability or fairness.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability arguments should be phrased as reasons why the negative's interpretation is bad. I also believe that T is about what you justify so potential abuse is a voting issue. I'm not too persuaded by plan text in a vacuum type arguments. For both sides, it's important to contextualize any standards to specific arguments grounded in topic literature.

CPs/Theory: I heavily lean neg on conditionality. I lean aff on theoretical objections to CPs that compete off the certainty of the aff. The negative can obviate a lot of these concerns by having a topic-specific solvency advocate defending the value of discussing the CP. My default is to reject the argument and not the team.

I will kick the CP if I think it's worse than the status quo. A neg team does not have to say judge kick. Affs can make arguments about why judge kick is bad, but I'm a tough sell.

If you have any questions or would like a typed up version of my RFD, please email me.

delete

I'm currently in my 3rd year of parli debate and debated in policy for Sci Tech for 4 years. This means that it's unlikely you'll be speaking too fast for me to understand at any point, but if you're unclear and don't become clearer after I've 'clear'ed you a couple of times, it'll hurt your speaks. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact and be accessible to all debaters in the round. I am very open to any kind of argumentation (including K's) as long as those three things are included. Weighing and comparison is very important to me - this and other analytics should be slower if you want them on my flow. CX should be just as argumentative as your speeches.

And I shouldn't have to say this, but don't be mean.

The most important thing to me is that you are clear and intentional about laying out the big picture. It will help a lot for you to very explicitly say 1) what you're winning and 2) how that interacts with the other team's important arguments in a way that adds up to a ballot. I think the essential skill that the best debaters have is the ability to do this eloquently, concisely, and with the right strategic instincts. Even if you do this in a clunky and inefficient way that's still much better than not doing it at all.

The second most important thing to know is that I am not a good flow, and will miss a lot of what you're saying if you don't accommodate this. I'll try to make it clear if I'm struggling to keep up.

Finally, I've gone for and voted for lots of different arguments, and I'm happy to vote on anything as long as you keep the above in mind. For what it's worth I went for mostly DAs at the end of my career but enjoyed reading and thinking about critiques as well.

Matt Schnall Judging Philosophy (updated February 2021)

The three most important things to know about debating in front of me are: First, I am an exceedingly open-minded listener; I am willing to take most any argument seriously. Second, in convincing me, argument strength (logic, appropriately evidenced premises) is generally more important than technique. Third, debate should involve interaction — between you and your opponent; between you and me.

A short explanation:

“Taking all arguments seriously” means that I am open to persuasion on almost all issues in a debate, outside of time limits and speaking order. Creative and strategic arguments tend to particularly engage me. This doesn’t mean, however, that everything you say is automatically an argument. Generally, I will only consider arguments that are complete. So, if you say x will cause y to happen (or prevent it) but do not explain why y would be good or bad, there is no argument and no response is required. Similarly, “perm do the aff” requires some explanation in order to become an argument.

In terms of truth versus tech, I appreciate technical proficiency and rhetorical skills in debate. They make it easier for me to be a good judge. Good line-by-line debate, preceded by a coherent story, is usually the best way to convince me to see things your way. Nevertheless, I do my best to evaluate arguments however they are presented, and if your opponent persuades me on a point, the fact that you have been faster, more emphatic, more eloquent, or repeated your argument in more ways will not carry the day. In evaluating evidence, I will begin by giving weight to the supportive warrants a proponent has flagged or the gaps articulated by the opponent. Once I am reading a card, however, if there is a gap that is plainly inconsistent with the proponent’s explanation, I will not ignore it merely because the opponent did not point it out.

Interaction means clash; it means listening; it means asking and grappling with difficult questions in cross-ex, not dodging them. It means I may interrupt your speech or cross-ex to ask a question. Even if I say nothing, I will provide a wealth of non-verbal feedback. If I frown or look puzzled, I probably don’t (yet) understand your argument; if I shake my head, I may not (yet) be convinced. In either case, try it again. You will be most successful if you treat me as an active listener who is working to understand and evaluate what you are saying, rather than a passive canvas on which to paint some preconceived picture.

Clarity and online debate:

I decide debates based on your arguments. To do that, I need to understand all of your words, and more generally to understand complete arguments as they are made. I can do this in person at a reasonably high rate of speed, but it does require both comprehensibility and digestible, transparent argument structure. For online debate, I would recommend slowing down to a speed consistent with your technology. I will look at evidence if resolving an argument depends on it — and to this end, please include me on the email chain — but do not expect that I am reading along with your speech doc.

More details:

My background — I debated in college and coached college teams with some success when I was much closer to your age than I now am. Over the last 25+ years, I have stayed involved by judging somewhat regularly. I did a bit of coaching and argument development and judged more heavily over the period in which my children were high school debaters (2010-2016). Harvard will be my first debate judging on the criminal justice topic.

Clarity —

(1) Comprehensibility should be the same for tags, citations, and evidence: I am listening to, and flowing, cards. If you are not comprehensible I will say something, but after 3 or 4 "clear"s you would be wise to keep an eye on me to see whether I am following, as eventually I will give up on verbal feedback.

(2) An argument is not an argument until I understand it. If you reiterate it in a later speech, I will treat it like any other new argument. Obscure wording is not your friend. If a tag is more than 10-15 syllables (not words), you probably need to simplify it. Pay attention to me when you are making any novel or intricate argument, particularly theory and advocacy statements (plan/counterplan/alternative advocacy) — if I look confused or stumped, explain further.

Predispositions — I expect that a debate will involve advocacy by the affirmative team and a response to that advocacy by the negative team after which I can determine a winner using some reasonably objective standard(s). Beyond that, I will entertain debate on framework, theory, etc. I am predisposed to resolve theory disputes in favor of competitive balance and educational value, but I can be convinced otherwise. All else being equal, I would prefer to see a debate about the topic.

Time limits and speech order are not negotiable. On a two-person team, each debater must deliver one constructive and one rebuttal speech, and I will not evaluate advocacy that takes place by a different person, including a partner, during that speech. Absent reasoned argument to the contrary, rebuttal speeches, including the 1NR, are limited to response to or elaboration of arguments from prior speeches; however, outside of the 2AR, I will not entirely discount an argument as new unless the opponent so identifies it.

Incomplete arguments — As noted above, I do not evaluate an argument if it does not contain — or I do not understand — all of the elements necessary in order for it to affect my decision making (such as an argument missing a link or impact). Whether an argument is complete is of course a subject for debate, but if you think your opponent’s argument incomplete, you should point it out. If I agree, then I will treat the argument as newly made when it is completed. This might cause the argument to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, and it would always allow you to make new responses after the argument is completed.

Debated at Lexington & Harvard. Master’s in environmental policy, getting a law degree—let me know if you have questions about college or grad school. My email is z.schnall.4@gmail.com.

TLDR: no argumentative preferences, flow-centric, do line-by-line, don’t be a jerk, use warrants, be clear, take care of yourself!

2024 Updates: I haven’t judged at a tournament since 2018. I was with the times and now I am not—so if there are new assumptions around theory, framework, etc., assume you should explain them. I can still keep up but please start speeches slower so I can get adjusted to your voice first.

Here are three guiding principles in order of importance:

1. Self-care comes first. I want you to be able to have a positive experience in the debates I judge and to generally feel welcome in the community. If something’s getting in the way and you feel comfortable telling me, please let me know.

2. Debaters are more important than judges. I’d like you to get what you’re looking for out of debate (education, adrenaline, line on your resume, etc.), so long as it doesn’t substantially interfere with someone else’s ability to have a positive experience.

3. Life goes on after debate. I personally think debate works best when students learn how to advocate for causes in which they believe, and then advocate for them outside the debate space. Portable skills matter far more than a dusty trophy.

Bias: I don’t care what you talk about (with some exceptions, see offensiveness below), but my one “bias” is that debate should be about trying to make the world a better place—whatever that means to you. If you think that debate is just a game and want to mess around for two hours, I am not the right judge for you. If you’re convinced that your plan or advocacy or alternative is really a good course of action to take, you should be able to convince me as well. If you don’t think an argument is defensible outside of a debate room, don’t read it in front of me. Given my preference for substance, theory and topicality arguments are often less fun for me to judge, but if you can frame the ballot as a way to make the world (or the debate community) a better place, then you’ll be fine.

Flowing: I decide debates based on my flow and will default to flowing speeches and most of CX. If you want me to stop flowing or to look up during a speech, tell me. If I am not able to rearticulate an argument based off what I was able to write down, I will not vote on it. I will have a much better flow (and faster decision) if you number your arguments and do line-by-line.

Offensiveness: Making offensive arguments will damage your speaker points. If you are doing something that is clearly offending or otherwise hurting an opponent, stop doing it. I don’t want to decide a debate on meta-issues (clipping, representations, etc.), but if sufficiently offensive, I am willing to vote against them. I have never judged a debate in which I had to actively intervene, but I reserve the right to do so.

Dropped Arguments: When I judge, the words“1AR dropped turns case” aren’t by themselves enough to guarantee a neg ballot. This is more of an “explain your arguments” thing and less of a “truth over tech” thing. Always give warranted explanations. Debate your opponents at their best, and you will do your best.

Clarity: I judge by the speeches, not the speech docs.I want to hear what you are saying, not just have a vague idea of what your tag is. You can still spread in front of me. In the interest of avoiding interference with your speech, I will NOT say clear during your speech unless you ask me to do so before the round. Slow down on advocacy texts and theory. I will probably check a speech doc to fix advocacy texts during CX; I won’t do the same for tags or theory. If it’s not on my flow, it won’t be in my RFD.

Speaks: These things will generally boost your speaker points: charisma, humility, kindness, cogent overview/impact framing, flawless line-by-line, pivotal CX moments, strategic cross-applications, coming back from behind. These things won’t necessarily boost speaks but will make me happy: affs that wrote/researched their own case and know its intricacies, negs that substantively engage the case, reading good evidence, making arguments you believe.

**EMAIL FOR EVIDENCE CHAIN**: semplenyc@gmail.com

Coaching Background
Policy Debate Coach @

Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (2020 - )

NYCUDL Travel Team (2015-PRESENT)

Brooklyn Technical High School (2008-2015)
Baccalaureate School for Global Education (2008-2010)
Benjamin Banneker Academy (2007-2008)
Paul Robeson HS (2006-2007)

Administrative Background
Program Director of the New York City Urban Debate League (September 2014 - Present)

Debater Background
Former Debater for New York Coalition of Colleges (NYU/CUNY) (2006- 2009)
An alumnus of the IMPACT Coalition - New York Urban Debate League (2003-2006)

Judging Background
Years Judging: 15 (Local UDL tournament to National Circuit/TOC)

Rounds Judged
Jack Howe is the first I will judge on this LD topic.

LD Paradigm

I've judged LD in the northeast and given my policy background, I can judge a circuit LD debate. My thoughts on LD are pretty similar to Policy given that you can run whatever you want... just make an argument and impact it. My specifics on LD (which I judge similar to Policy) is listed below.

PF Paradigm
I've been coaching PF for a few years now and to talk about my judging paradigm on PF, I would like to quote from Brian Manuel, a well-respected debate coach in the debate community when he says the following:

"This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, mis-cited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in the debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you"


Policy Short Version:
I try to let you, the debaters decide what the round is about and what debate should be. However, as I enter my fifteenth year in this activity, I will admit that certain debate styles and trends that exist from convoluted plan texts/advocacy statements where no one defends anything and worse; debaters that purposely and intentionally go out of their way to make competitors and judges and even spectators feel uncomfortable through fear tactics such as calling people out in debate because one doesn't agree with the other's politics, utilizing social media to air out their slanderous statements about people in the debate community and so on is tired and absolutely uncalled for. I say this because this has been an on-going occurrence far TOO often and it has placed me in a position where I'm starting to lose interest in the pedagogical advantages of policy debate due of these particular positions. As a result, I've become more and more disinterested in judging these debates. Not to say that I won't judge it fairly but the worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot is failing to explain what your argument is and not telling me what the ballot signifies. So, if you are the type of team that can't defend what your aff does or how it relates to the topic and solely survives off of grandiose rhetoric and/or fear tactics... STRIKE ME!

Long Version:

The Semantics of "So-Called" Rules or Norms for Debate Rounds


THE INTRO: I try to have zero substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. But as I judge, judge, and judge policy debates, that tends to shift. So, in out of all honesty, I say to you that all debaters will have the opportunity to argue why you should win off with a clean slate. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you all to make things up. So at the end of the day, don’t make me have to do the work to adjudicate the round… you do it. DON'T MAKE ME HAVE TO DO THE WORK THAT YOU SHOULD DO IN THE ROUND!!! I don't mind reading evidence at the end of a debate, but don't assume that I will call for evidence, make sure that if you want me to evaluate your argument with your evidence at the end of the round just tell me what I should review, and I'll review the argument for you. Also, if you intend to use acronyms, please give me the full name before you go shorthand on me.

TOPICALITY: I've come to enjoy T debates, especially by those that are REALLY good at it. If you are that T hack that can go for T in the 2NR then I am a lot better for you than others who seem to think that T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it, that brings major weight when it is time for adjudication. FYI, T is genocide and RVIs are not the best arguments in the world for these debates but I will pull the trigger on the argument is justified. (and I mean REALLY justified). Voting on reasonability or a competing interpretation as a default paradigm for evaluating T is up for grabs, but as always I need to know how the argument should be evaluated and why it is preferable before I decide to listen to the T debate in the 2NR (e.g. predictable limits key to topic education).

COUNTERPLANS: I don’t mind listening to a good (and I mean) good CP debate. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. I award debaters that are creative and can create CPs that are well researched and are competitive with the AFF plan. Those types of debates are always up in the air but please note that in my experience that debaters should be on top of things when it comes to CP theory. Those debates, if executed poorly are typically unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve so be careful with running theory args on CP debates that A) makes ZERO sense, B) that is blimpy, and C) that is not necessary to run when there is no abuse. Violation of any of the three will result in me giving you a dumb look in your speech and low speaks. And it really doesn't hurt to articulate a net benefit to the CP for that would win you some offense.

DISADVANTAGE: I evaluate Disads based on the link story presented by the negative in the 1NC and what is impacted in the 2NR. To win my vote, the story needs to be clear in terms of how specifically does the affirmative link to the DA. Any case can link but it’s how specific the link is and the calculus of the impact that makes me lean more towards the neg.

KRITIKS: I can handle K debates, considering the majority of my debate career has been under critical arguments (i.e. Capitalism, Statism, Racism, Biopower…) But, if you are a team that relies on the judge being hyped up by fancy rhetoric that you learn from camp, practice, or a debate video on YouTube, you don’t want me. In fact, some of you love to read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like a fast debate like anyone else, but if you read the overview to your tortuously complex kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, go nuts with speed. I will vote on offensive arguments such as "K Debate Bad/Good or the perm to the alt solves or turns to the K, as long as you win them. Overall, I’m cool with the K game, ya dig. All I ask of you all is a comprehensive link story for me to understand... an impact and what does the alternative world looks like and how that is more desirable than the aff policy option. "Reject the aff" as the alt text.... very long stretch on winning the K if I don't know what it means.

FRAMEWORK: Like Topicality, I also enjoy framework debates, if done properly. And like topicality, I try to not have a default preference in terms of defaulting to policymaker or activist or whatever in the fairness of approaching the debate round from a clean slate. At the end of the debate, I need to know what the round should be evaluated and what is my jurisdiction as a judge to evaluate the debate on a particular framework versus the opponent's competitive framework (if they choose to present one). If there isn't a competitive framework, I'll simply default to the original framework mentioned in the debate. In essence, if I am not presented with a framework of how to evaluate the argument, I'll take the easy way out and evaluate the argument as a policymaker. However, it is up to the debaters to shape the debate, NOT ME.

PERFORMANCE/ K Affs: I'm slowly starting to dislike judging these types of debates. Not because I don't like to hear them (I've ran critical affirmatives and neg positions both in high school and in college) but more and more I'm stuck judging a debate where at the end of round, I've spent nearly two hours judging and I've learned little to nothing about the topic/subject matter but instead subjected to grandiose rhetoric and buzzwords that makes no sense to me. I really dislike these debates and the fact that these types of debates are growing more and more places me in a position where I'd rather not judge these rounds at all. As a judge, I shouldn't have to feel confused about what you are saying. I shouldn't have to feel pressured into voting a certain way because of one's pessimistic view of the debate space. Granted, we all have our issues with policy debate but if you don't like the game... then don't play it. Changing the debate space where diversity is acknowledged is fine but when we lose sight of talking about the resolution in lieu of solely talking about one's personal politics only becomes self-serving and counter-productive. For that, I am not the right judge for you.

That said, if you want to run your K aff or "performance" affirmative, do what you do best. The only burden you have is that you need to win how your level of discourse engages the resolution. If you cannot meet that burden then framework/procedural arguments become an easy way to vote you down. If you can get through that prerequisite then the following is pretty straightforward: 1) I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. 2) If you want me to engage the debate via a comparison of methodologies, you need to explain what it is and how it functions in the context of the resolution and prove that its preferable against your opponent or vise-versa. 3) I want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say (or the dances they do, or whatever). If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance/K Affs with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me, in fact, you will just hate me when I give you lower speaks. However, if you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine. 4) If you answer performance/ K Affs arguments with well thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you’ll easily pick up my ballot.

THEORY: This is something that I must say is extremely important to mention, given that this is greatly a big issue in policy debate today, especially in the national circuit. So let me be clear that I have experienced highly complex theoretical debates that made virtually NO sense because everyone is ready to pull out their blocks to "Condo Bad" or "Vagueness Good" or "Agent CPs Bad" without actually listening to the theoretical objection. With that I say, please pay attention. Good teams would provide an interpretation of how to evaluate a theory argument. Like a procedural argument, you should prove why your interpretation of the theoretical argument is preferred for debate. It would also help you to SLOW, SLOW, SLOW down on the theory debates, especially if that is the route that you're willing to go to for the 2NR/2AR. If the affirmative or negative are planning to go for theory, either you go all in or not at all. Make sure that if you're going for theory, impact it. Otherwise, I'm left to believe that its a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

FLASHING EVIDENCE/EMAIL CHAIN: I have a love-hate relationship with paperless debate but I can accept it. That being said, please be aware that I will stop the prep time once the flash drive is out of the computer of the team that is about to speak. I take this very seriously considering the on-going mishaps of technical issues that are making the paperless debate, in general, a notorious culprit of tournament delays, considering the flashing of the evidence, the opponents searching for the correct speech file, and the infamous "my computer crashed, I need to reset it" line. If you are capable of having a viewing computer... make it accessible. I'm also cool with email chains. You can send me your speeches to semplenyc@gmail.com. Same rules on flashing apply to email chains as well.

BEHAVIOR STYLE: To be aggressive is fine, to be a jerk is not. I am ok if debates get a bit heated but that does not allow debaters to be just plain rude and ignorant to each other. That said, please be nice to each other. I don't want to sound like the elementary school teacher telling children to behave themselves, but given the experience of some debaters that simply forgot that they are in an activity that requires discipline and manners... just chill out and have fun. For example, POINTLESSLY HOSTILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS really grinds my gears. Chill out, people. Hostility is only good in cross-ex if you making a point. And oh yeah, be nice to your partner. At the end of the day, they're the one you have to go back to practice with.

Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socio-economic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate gives you an opportunity to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals of their individuality when presenting arguments however I will not condone arguments that may be sexist, racist, or just plain idiotic. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament and most importantly respect yourselves.

HAVE FUN AND BEST OF LUCK!!!

8 years of CX experience. Debated for 4 years at Chandler High School and previously coached for them (Chandler CS) and Milton High School (Milton HH & Milton FM). I used to be a 2N but I have experience being a 2A as well. Grilled cheese enthusiast.

Last Updated: Westminster 2017

General Notes

• Anything that's argued and debated well goes
• Don't try to talk faster than you're thinking - clarity is key if you're speaking fast
• Clearly outline why you win the ballot in the 2NR/2AR. Judge intervention isn't fun/cool
• Actual warrant extensions > quick blips
• Tech > Truth
• Comfortable with non-traditional/performance stuff as long as it's within the bounds of sanity (whatever that means)
• Flashing isn't prep; don't steal prep

Speaker Points

These vary from round to round because of subjectivity but I'm relatively lenient compared to most judges. 30.0 is rare (only once).
28.2 - 28.6 = Average
28.7 - 29.1 = Above average/good speaker
29.2 - 29.5 = Good enough for elims
29.6 - 29.9 = Late elims

Rather than taking away points for poor debating, I much more often reward them for nifty tricks/good strategy. That being said:

• Aggressiveness =/= rudeness. Make a point but be respectful in the process. We're all part of the same community.
• I'll pay attention to CX and strategic ones will be awarded.
• Numbering arguments (starting from the 2AC) will be rewarded with an extra 0.2 points. It will help you organize your flows and naturally increase the clarity/organization of your speeches.
• Clash is crucial for high speaks and wins.
• Jokes/humor in speeches are encouraged but please don't spend your entire speech making puns. On that note, jokes about the Seattle Seahawks = +0.1. Also, jokes about Chandler High or Milton High debate squads = +0.2.

Specifics

Case --- I highly value research and think well made case negs are the most damaging. Make sure case arguments are frictional with your off case impacts or CP solvency. No, neg flex, while tolerable, is not the only or best answer to contradictions across flows. Compared to most judges, I am more willing to vote on just case if it's well debated and there's some solid offense.

Counterplans --- I think case-specific PICs are strategic. I'm not a big fan of consult CPs (or anything with an artificial net benefit) or CPs that compete solely on a solvency differential. It's not that they're bad, but really, they're bad. 2NR needs to have good solvency mechanism articulation and comparative analysis between the CP/aff.

Disads --- The more specific, the better. Disads are wonderful if they're specific. I very much enjoy and hope to hear good link articulation in context of the aff. I think disad-specific case arguments are incredibly beneficial at framing and winning a debate. I've warmed up to the politics disad quite a bit recently. I'm somewhat skeptical of the link debate on politics, but that's likely a side effect of not seeing it done well recently. My preference on politics links are also a personal belief that doesn't have a bearing on my decision - if you think you can do a good/winning job with it, roll with it.

Kritiks/Non-Traditional Affs --- Hype. I'm fairly well-versed with critical literature and read a decent amount while I debated. Throughout my career, I leaned left three out of four years reading soft left and hi-theory affs. I think there is a lot of strategic and educational value to reading these arguments and they can have tremendous impact both in debate and in larger communities if executed correctly. I think a bigger and bigger problem with kritiks is that they're being read more often but not explained with the level of detail they ought to be. Many rounds tend to have close to no explanation of what a post-alternative/post-affirmative world looks like or what the alternative/aff actually does, which puts me in a pickle (I like pickles too) in terms of understanding what I am voting for. I frame Ks through the framework debate but the aff should be able to weigh their justifications - I won't kick the alt for you and I really hope there's an explanation of how the alt resolves the impacts to the K. Dropping swanky/famous last names =/= giving an explanation of ideology/methodology. Please don't just read overviews or pre-written arguments for the full speech, be creative and clash in the context of the debate. While my voting record historically leans left, I have a relatively high threshold for solvency explanations and round-specific articulation.

T/FW --- Sure! I'll evaluate it just as fairly as I would any other argument. I think these debates can be very educationally and strategically valuable but have to be executed correctly (which rarely happens). The biggest problem with teams reading T/Framework is that it isn't impacted well in the context of the aff and I end up being confused as to why I should vote for the argument/why one model of debate is better/whether education or fairness comes first/what education matters/what abuse has taken place (e.g. "we lose links to the spending DA" isn't a substantial enough reason to vote neg). Historically, my voting record is not in favor of FW but that doesn't mean you won't pick up my ballot if you read it.

Theory --- It's aight. In addition to utilizing it as a voting issue, I like teams that couple their theory with other arguments to justify/extrapolate key arguments to give them the edge on contested issues. I have a high threshold on using theory as a reason to vote aff/neg; give me a compelling reason (more than just a blip) why I should reject the team. In most cases, it's just a reason to reject an argument or not a team but if you do enough work on it, you most definitely may be able to convince me otherwise. Please please please make sure you give some example of abuse, i.e. specific models of debate/in-round, or have solid proof for your violation and have a logical impact in conjunction with that.


If you can't find the answer to something here, default to Adam Symond's wiki. He was one of the best lab leaders I had and my philosophy aligns with his for the most part.

If you have any questions before/after the round and still don't know the answer, shoot me an email: mnvsevak97@gmail.com.

Experience:
- 11 Years Policy Debate
- Weber State and University of West Georgia
- Coach at Juan Diego Catholic High

1. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence of interrogation in speeches and cross-examination.

2. I often vote for the team that can make complex arguments sound like common sense. Clarity of thought is paramount

3. If there is an “easy” way to vote, that's warranted, I’m likely to take it.

4. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation.

5. The earlier in debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more likely I am to latch on to what is going on and make a decent decision.

6. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will be ahead in my mind.

Iowa City West '15

# of rounds judged this year: like 1 round lol 

I'll pretty much evaluate anything as long as it is well-explained and implicated throughout the round.

lol will update later 

TL;DR
Quality > Quantity. Explain arguments. FW/T debates need proven abuse and a deep standards debate. Use theoretical and substantive framework properly. 2AR/2NR needs to clash, weigh arguments, and tell me what I should be evaluating on my ballot. CX is binding. Flashing isn't prep. Don't be offensive. Don't be an ass to anyone or your speaks will suffer. My face is usually pretty expressive during rounds. Other than that, have a good time, I'm fairly lenient.

Background Info
I debated for four years at Chandler HS, AZ (3 CX/1 LD). I was the 2A/1N. Read Nietzsche and Marx a lot. I enjoy debaters who use the debate space as a space for education, empowerment, and growth, but the better debater wins. I'm a pretty versatile judge.

Speaker Points
27.7 - 28.2 = Mediocre.
28.3 - 28.7 = Good.
28.8 - 29.5 = Very Good.
29.5 - 29.8 = Impressed.
Be aggressive, not mean. I'll give an extra speaker point if you (successfully) make fun of these people: Tanzil Chowdhury, Manav Sevak, or Rohit Rajan.

Specifics
Counterplans
Need a good analysis of how the perm resolves the net benefit of the CP. Consult CP's are bad. Neg needs to explain the competitiveness of the CP well. Theory is usually insubstantial unless it's dropped. CP cards should be really good, and there needs to be comparative analysis from aff and neg. I enjoy PICs.
Disads
Impact scenario needs to be well explained. Any DA works for me, but there needs to be a lot of link/internal link work done to win it.
Case
I'll get mad if you just read an OV and then a bunch of cards on case and move on. Use the cards from the 1AC on the line by line and articulate your thoughts and read new cards when necessary. If I'm not able to explain your argument by the end of the 2AR, then you didn't do a good job. My threshold for case negs is lower, but if you go for case they also need to be explained well in the block.
Kritiks/Non-Traditional Affs
This is what I spent most of debate doing. If you just vomit a bunch of buzz words without explanation I'm not going to like/understand the argument and I'm going to give the other team a lot of leeway in their rebuttals. If you're able to explain your aff powerfully and concisely, I'm down to listen to anything. I enjoy smart 2AR tricks. For the neg, the same explanation standards apply. Tell me what the alt looks like, and I won't kick it for you if you're going for it as a case turn in the 2NR.
T/FW
I need to know why T/FW is a better model of debate than what the aff offers. I'm probably not going to vote on potential abuse. K affs should provide substantial DA's to the negs interpretation. Know the difference between substantive and theoretical framework (state engagement key vs. debate needs rules), and explain your standards accordingly. I default to competing interpretations.
Theory
Sure. In addition to utilizing it as a voting issue, I like teams that couple their theory with other arguments to justify/extrapolate key arguments to give them the edge on contested issues. I have a high threshold on using theory as a reason to vote aff/neg; give me a compelling reason (more than just a blip) why I should reject the team. In most cases, it's just a reason to reject an argument but if you do enough work on it, you may be able to convince me otherwise. Make sure you give some example of abuse, i.e. specific models of debate/in-round. I don't like disclosure theory.

You can catch ya boy @ nikpreet45@gmail.com

Isabel Slavinsky

Second year debating at Harvard

Debated four years at Atholton High (in Maryland)

Thoughts:

- I'm excited to judge, want the debaters to be having fun, and doing what they're best at!

- I haven't judged (before the Harvard tournament) or done research on the current high school debate topic - don't assume that I have a detailed background

- Mainly familiar with "policy" style arguments - I don't have as much experience with high-theory critical literature

People who's wikis are more comprehensive and I think similarly to about debate:

Emily Gordon (with the exception of the part where she talks about how she's gone for the K a bunch) and Advait Ramanan

This paradigm was pretty sparse for a while, but I've decided these are pretty useful.

I debated in policy for four years in high-school. I debated at the University of Oklahoma for 4 years.

***** slow down in online debate.

*** LD Addendum's

I've been judging and coaching LD for about 4-5 years now at this point. I'm relatively cool with whatever you do. Tricks will probably be a harder sell with me, but I have and will vote on it if they're impacted out and made relevant. I probably have a higher inclination to lean towards rejecting the argument rather than the debater in most instances.

Pretty good for T on this topic.

** Most of this stuff is in relationship to policy debate.

Debate is up to the debaters. Do what you will with the debate, I will do my utmost best to evaluate the arguments in front of

I view debate largely as a set of questions I'm asked to resolve. Depending on how I answer those questions my ballot changes. I find debaters who effectively tell me which questions ought to come first, and how answering those questions informs the rest of the debate.

I'd like to think I don't have any wild idiosyncrasies as part of my judge habits, but here are some of my thoughts, they may or may not help you make a decision on where to pref me
Counter-plans

1. New Planks in the 2NC are probably bad.

2. I can be persuaded conditionally is bad if the negative gets a little too wild.

DA's][1. These are cool. Specific links are cool, but I understand the game. If you gotta run 10 generic links because the aff is small, then do what you gotta do.

K's

1. I'd like a little more explanation when you make an ontology claim. "Settler-colonialism is ontological," for example, is much more expansive than a 'politics doesn't succeed argument. Explain what you think settler-colonialism is and how it influences society, and then explain why that informs what forms of politics are successful or violent. This will make it much easier to evaluate your argument!

2. Be clear about what your FW argument is. 9/10 times its helpful to be clear.

3. Reference the aff. if I could imagine the 2nc being read against another aff with no changes, then your speaks will reflect that.

4. Permutation is probably not a negative argument.

Critical Affirmative's

1. Clear counter-interpretation/Counter-model tends to be a much better way to achieve my ballot than straight impact turns. Explain to me what clash happens in your model of the debate, and why that solves the neg's internal link. However, if the strategy is impact turns then make sure to spend time doing impact calculus.

2. I'm not really concerned with whether or not the performance of the 1ac solved the bad parts of the world. I view K-Aff's much like Policy affs. I.E. Explain how your model of politics would be good if exported.

3. I really do appreciate when teams apply their arguments in interesting and thoughtful ways. Regardless of you making a "new" argument, if you add your own bit of character to the argument I will appreciate the effort.

FW

1. I'm not as bad for FW as my debate choices would indicate. The way to get my ballot in the vein of Michigan GW, lots of clash and debate focused I/L's. Explain why the C/I collapses into an ever expansive interpretation., and why the affirmative can't square the circle of competion.

2. I am a bad judge for FW teams who are dismissive and don't respond to the affirmative. I think negative teams sometimes miss some basic responses to the affirmative in the pursuit of using academic language. Sometimes aff's just assume illogical things that you can point out, even if it seems simple! Don't ever think an argument is too simple or someone's argument sounds too smart to make a basic response!

3. I'm not a good judge for "Truth-testing means no aff"

Frivolous Theory

1. Not my cup of tea, but I'll vote on it. It will be reflected in your speaks tho.

Updated – 9/05/17

Current School Affiliations:  Thomas Jefferson High School (2016-)

Previous School Affiliations:  Debated at Broad Run High School, 2x ToC Qualifier

Quick Version: Debated on both sides of the policy/K spectrum so I don’t really care how you debate. You are more likely to succeed if you stick to what you are good at rather than adapting – good debate overcomes argument I may not agree with. I do not have a great familiarity with this topic so explaining acronyms and complex education policy will go a long way.  The only rules I have are: your speech ends when the timer goes off, I will pick a winner after the debate, and you cannot interrupt an opponent’s speech on purpose. Besides that, have fun and make good arguments.

General Outlook on Debate (a lot of this is shamelessly stolen from Shree Awsare)

- Do what you're good at.  My job as a judge is to adjudicate the debate that the debaters present to me, not to influence how the debate goes down. I was coached to always be flexible in my argumentative arsenal so I am comfortable listening to and judging many different arguments. I don't have huge distaste towards particular genres of arguments (like PICs, T, Politics DAs, Ks, etc).  I am not a blank canvas, but the idiosyncrasies I display as a judge will have more to do with how you execute your position rather than argument choice.

- Tech > Truth, but with limits.  Arguments like "counterinterp: only our case is topical," OSPEC, word PICs, wipeout, and the lizard people are not doing your speaker points any favors, but I am firmly on the boat that if you can't beat a bad argument, you don't deserve to win.  However, there is a distinction between bad and offensive (eg: "racism good"), which I will not tolerate.

- In-Round Persuasion is essential. Ev quality becomes important in close debates but is a secondary concern to explanation and ev comparison by debaters.  A well-warranted and well-impacted analytic can beat a poorly warranted series of carded claims. 

- I will strongly resist "judge-kicking" a CP or a K alt. The neg can explicitly make a framing argument justifying this practice, but there is a strong likelihood that if the aff answers it to a barely adequate capacity, I won't be compelled to "judge-kick" a world the neg has chosen to defend as an option in the 2NR.

Specific Arguments

Topicality. I enjoy these debates.  You should provide a robust, comparative perspective of your vision of how the topic and/or debates should function. This requires an explicit list of what specific cases and/or practices your interpretation permits/disallows and impacting why this is beneficial for the activity.  I default to competing interpretations absent a different way of adjudication. 

T vs Critical Affs.  I’ve been in a lot of these debates on both sides of the issues – several thoughts: 
(1) It will be very hard to persuade me that an aff having no connection to the topic is good for debate, affs that have some connection even if they don’t have a plan are good.

(2) Focus on the real arguments.  Outlandish claims like "T is the logic of genocide," or on the other hand, "all teams will quit because K teams are off topic" are unpersuasive.  Smart teams will make impact arguments that are specific to the limits that are being set--either to defend the benefits of narrowing deliberation over a topic or to point out the myopia of such a curriculum. The team that debates this issue the best is most likely to win in front of me. 
(3) For teams defending the wall:  Procedural Fairness and mech-based education style impacts are more persuasive to me than "decisionmaking key to end existential threats like global warming."  Fairness can be a terminal impact rather than just an internal link, but it needs to be framed and warranted as such.
(4)  Uniqueness arguments matter.  Inevitability and access claims (and their relationship to the T version of the aff) seem to be where I begin decisions, so take care to develop or debunk them.

Theory: Slow down a bit and really warrant out your theory argument. Reading your generic 10-subpoint block at full speed is not something I consider persuasive. Think about theory debates like T debates by comparing the different versions of debates that each interpretation create. I will default to “reject the argument, not the team” on all theory arguments (except conditionalitiy) unless told otherwise.

Straight-up Strategies. My favorite straight-up strategies involve PICs (real ones... not Word PICs) or Advantage CPs (that compete either through a topic DA or impact turn of 1 advantage).  Politics, artificially competitive CPs, etc are fine. Judge Instruction is vital.  Does UQ frame the link debate, or do the links frame a close UQ debate and why?  Does the DA turns the case or the other way around, and why?  None of these questions should be left up to me.

The K: There’s nothing than I hate more than K teams who think they are smarter than everyone in the room who have long spiels of academic works without putting it into context within the debate. I will be impressed if you command significant knowledge about the theory at hand and are able to apply them to the case through examples from popular culture or empirical/historical situations. Of course, if you have no idea what you are talking about that is not good either.  Affs should take advantage of negative teams sometimes omitting discussion of one of these three things: the link, alt, or impact.

For teams debating against the K:  I am more interested in arguments (analytics and cards) that substantively engage the K while having a robust defense of the case. The K's "greatest hits" are useful but at some point, you are going to have to answer their "K turns the case" and other tricks they may have by using your aff. I won most of my neg debates when aff teams refuse to answer K tricks and I have no problem voting for that as a judge. Cover your bases while protecting your case and answering the K.  I do not necessarily need carded evidence to overcome their characterizations, smart analytics are often enough to respond to contrived link or case turn arguments.  I think the cleanest path for substantive victory vs the K is to weigh an advantage that outweighs and can't be solved by the alternative, and then win that their "impact filter" arguments (serial policy failure, RC, "your ev can't be trusted," UQ claims, etc) are fallacious in the context of the advantage you've isolated.  Debaters on the policy end of the spectrum that I've judged tend to say I evaluate K debates like a "checklist."

Miscellaneous: I won’t count flashing or uploading docs as prep as long as you do it in a reasonable manner.. I am fine with debaters timing themselves, but if for some reason you want me to time I am okay with that too. Also one of my biggest pet peeves is not being ready for a debate – stuff like taking 10 minutes to start a speech after you have flashed the document, not having adequate­­­­­­ supplies to debate, and being incompetent with paperless debate is all stuff that is likely to lower your speaks and make me mad.

Info below is hopefully helpful, but please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions, preferences, accommodations, etc. for me to answer/keep in mind!

The biggest things to keep in mind when debating in front of me are:

• Make sure your tagline actually corresponds with the body of your cards! Misrepresentative tags go against your argument and speaker points.
• I'm comfortable with spreading, but you need to prioritize clarity over volume. If you have one less link card or can't manage to get the final impact analysis in but are speaking much more clearly and intelligibly, that's a good tradeoff. Slowing down on the tagline and author is especially critical. That's not to say that clarity in the body of a card/argument is unimportant; mumbling through these parts to the point that I cannot understand you essentially takes away the warrants, which leads me to not put much weight on your claim.
• I'm fine with stock, T, Theory, Ks, etc., but each argument should be fundamentally sound: explain to me, be it via evidence or analytics, the logical flow between your links and impacts.
• Speaking of evidence and analytics, both are fine, and while strong cards with credible authors are great, incisive or powerful analytics can take out arguments where one might have otherwise resorted to a string of cards. Point out logical fallacies in the other side's arguments, and explain why your claims, links, and impact exhibit logical consistencies. I look favorably upon counterarguments where you point out the flaw in the logic or credibility of your opponent's card, as they're more efficient and usually more grounded than just reading blocks.
• Impact calc & framing debates, especially in the final speeches, is critical. Give me voters, of course, but also give me reasons why your voters and/or value and criterion and the implications they have are more important than the other side's (magnitude vs. timeframe vs. probability; stock vs. systemic; connections between your impacts/values/criterions and those of the other side).
• Points made intelligently in CX through suggestive questioning will be noted on the flow and considered elsewhere in the round. For that reason, mentioning an argument and the fact that it was brought up in CX (assuming it was) will count—no need to reiterate a point that’s been made already.
• In LD, the value/criterion debate is important, and showing me why your pair outweighs/is a prereq to/etc. your opponent’s pair is essential. However, I’m very receptive to non-stock Neg arguments, impact calc, explanations of how your impacts apply to your opponent’s value/criterion pair, etc.
• Be assertive, but not rude. It’s a fine line, but it’s an important one. Assertive debaters look intelligent and gain speaker points for masterful handling of the clash and confusion in a debate. Being assertive will gain you speaker points. Being rude will likely bring down your speaker points.

I have 7 years of both debate and judging experience combined, ill go into deeper detail before an actual debate round (feeling lazy)

I consider myself to be an all around judge, in the sense that my sole purpose in the debate round is to evaluate it and vote on who made the most convincing argument. 

I was a Whitney Young K-debater. I vote on how the team did, not what they ran. Explain. I have voted on everything, it's about what the team does to show me how they won that specific debate. Good speaker points come from being pleasant and showing me that you understand the round and how you win, not by saying extintction. Interaction between aff and offcase is usually the best route. 

K's

I love when you can completely explain to me how the K links and will change what the aff does. Don't run one if you're unprepared to explain to me and the other team the implications of the K. Be ready to use analytics verses cards because K's are all about breaking the norms. Real K-debaters be prepared to answer framework, even though it makes the most boring rounds. I will vote on framework if you can win on it. 

Case/ DA's

I'm good with DA's as long as you can explain them to me. I am really chill but don't expect me to give you an extension you haven't made.

T

If you are good at explaining actual impacts/real world implications of an untopical aff then go for it, but it typically makes for a very boring round.

Debate Background: Policy Debate for ICW (2012-2016, TOC Qualifier 2015 & 2016) and Harvard (2016-2017)

Coaching/Judging Background: Policy (Boston Debate League 2016-2020, ICW 2017, GBN 2018-2019, University of Iowa 2019-2020) and Public Forum (National High School Debate League of China 2017 & 2020)

POLICY PARADIGM

You do you. That being said, I am much more familiar with policy arguments than critical arguments. Good, warranted analytics are much better than bad, underhighlighted cards. Tech determines truth. Limited topic knowledge.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM

Given my background, the most persuasive arguments often draw on a few strong pieces of evidence. Weighing in summary and final focus determines who wins. I don't flow crossfire.

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions. Please put BOTH of these on chains: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com and lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Virtual Debate Updates:

I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.

Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.

Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.

Evidence/Argumentation/General

I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.

I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.

I listen closely to cross-ex.

Ks

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.

Debated several years for Northwestern.  Coached and ran every style of argument - from politics DA + process CP to poetic performances - at both high school and college level.  I will judge all arguments to the best of my ability as long as no one is being intentionally offensive/violent/harmful with their arguments.  Do what you do well and be kind to one another and there will be no problems.  

honest assessments of the debate are key - you're never winning everything, but you're rarely winning nothing (hopefully). Figure out what you win, what they win, tell me, and tell me why i still vote for you.

Here are some of my thoughts on the activity and how I’ll judge you – PLEASE persuade me otherwise, I like ideological change. However, in the absence of a discussion in the debate, this is how I’ll think about your business.…

A dropped argument is a true argument – However, meta matters, if your first argument on a K is framework and your thirteenth arg is “the res means the judge is the USFG” and the block answers 2AC 1 but doesn’t explicitly address 13, they haven’t “dropped” an arg and it definitely isn’t “game over.” Additionally – try not to say things like “game over,” I’ll steal something from Antonucci: the phrase is “meaningless unless you’re actually calling on me to stop the timer and yell “TKO!” Which I wouldn’t do.”

Clarity is Key - not just on tags, on the text of the cards as well. Most of constructives are spent reading evidence, it should probably be comprehensible. I'll try and flow warrants from the text of your cards, so don't just muddle it up because you want to get to your next argument.


T – Reasonability does not mean that if you are “reasonably topical” you win, it means that if your COUNTER-INTERPRETATION IS REASONABLE for debate, limits, etc – you win. I have no idea what it means to be “reasonably topical.” ALSO – limits arent an impact – and fairness probably isn’t either – the 2nr/2ar need to paint a picture of how debates happen, realistic affs that would be run, and why THESE debates are good/bad for this topic/debaters in general to win. T is a disad – the violation is the link and the standards are the impact. Do impact calc.

Ks/Framework – I’m probably not going to be convinced that Ks are bad for debate, because they probably aren’t, I am more likely to be convinced that you should be able to weigh your impacts against theirs, or something along those lines. You need specific link analysis – lines of evidence from their 1ac combined with specific link cards is probably the best-case scenario for you. Be smart and use EMPIRICAL EXAMPLES – I am very persuaded by smart historical examples or modern analogies. Don’t rely on cheapshots (V2l, floating PIKs, truth=fake, etc), if you win them, baller, but make sure to combine them with substantive/technical strategy. If you expect to win on one card you read in the block – that’s fine, but MAKE THAT CLEAR IN THE BLOCK – flag it as an independent argument as early as possible.

DAs/CPs/Case – not much to say here, the more specific the better, but if you’re a politics and case kinda debater, that’s fine, there’s a reason for everything.

Theory – Slow down a little bit. Blippiness won’t win you debates – in the 2ac it’s fine, as long as it’s clear, but depth in the rest of the debate is key. Combining hypothetical situations for abuse with what they actually did is best. Finally – combining theory arguments can get you far if you’re aff. Reject the arg, not the team is presumed until the side going for theory overcomes it - just labelling something a VI doesn't make it so.

Cheap shots – I’ll vote on them, but make sure that when you originally make them (be it the 2AC or the block) – you are clear about its implication for the ballot, IE – drop=loss, and why.

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'

I am a parent judge and this is my second year judging.

Explain yourself and your arguments clearly for best results.

2017: I coach k teams and pay rent through /education/ (interestingly the current resolution). also, typically, i coach teams whose 2nr/2ar riff alongside either afro-pessimism or a certain european variation of philosophy.

2016: hi - i am a graduate student studying media theory and cultural studies coaching brooklyn technical high school (brooklyn, ny) and would like to be added to email chains via lzausen @ gmail

for me comprehension is a precondition to understanding. rigorous and textual argumentation, performance, theoretical impact assessment are all aesthetic choices valued highly. use the above words as stylistic assessments for my flow. in my opinion, the judge's roll is to facilitate; best case scenario, you clearly articulate an interpretation of what the round is, and I vote. i coach k teams. but, I hold performative affirmatives to the same degree as state action, and thus all the rhetorical, performative, logical turns are signs of misreading, and are considerably more noticeable to me with the critical team. even if I tend to vote for k / critical argumentation, I will similarly vote for nuanced permutation arguments as the easiest way for affirmative teams against the k - a competitive perm should have a net benefit. but as a judge, I attempt to come into the round with as little pretenses as possible, and if policy-orientation debate is your approach to the resolution I will certainly and easily vote on these types of arguments in the face of a incomprehensible criticism and/or blatant inattentiveness in this game we call policy debate. on this, I find that in-round education is a funnel that both types of debate can accomplish, and I’ve noticed myself more willing to continue these through on the flow.

Grant Zhang

NOTE: I've been outside of debate for a decent amount of time, and I'm not entirely aware of what current norms are. Please be patient with me and explain arguments in detail. That being said, I'm also not the best flow in the world, so please be extra clear. The notes below explain the lens through how I view debate.

I work as an investor today, and my education was centered around finance and economics, so I tend to think of events and policies in terms of opportunity cost and risk weighted evaluations. To me, these elements are heavily present within debate, although they lack discrete quantitative values. I weigh conflicting positions by their opportunity cost and the risk and magnitude of those opportunity costs. I probably evaluate risk and internal link consistency much more heavily than other judges you may have (e.g. global financial crisis with no war outweighs small resource wars in west Africa with a nuclear war impact on a risk-adjusted basis provided internal links are consistent).

Logic is incredibly important which rules out a lot of critiques and disadvantages. Weak arguments tend to maker larger logical leaps and overgeneralized statements.

Evidence is only needed if you are making a positive statement that requires some statistical or probabilistic research or expert opinion to make a well-reasoned argument. This does not include broad philosophical claims like value to life is more important than life, and I trust that you can make reasoned arguments to defend these claims on your own. This also applies for things that are common sense or readily apparent to anyone.

Things I care about:

Comparison and clash

Quality of evidence

Speaking clearly

Logical Consistency

Things I'm not persuaded by:

Oppression Olympics

Debate as a survival strategy

Death Good

Whether or not voting for you spills over

Whether or not this debate sends you to elims or the ToC

The 2NC is generally the last speech that gets new arguments for me, the rebuttals may read evidence to answer arguments and make new comparisons. I'm not a fan of late breaking debates, but if it's a situation where there is a new aff or negative position, I'll be a little more lenient about new arguments in rebuttals. If an argument is dropped or mishandled, a clever 2NR or 2AR will make comparisons or applications of arguments they already have to make it a smaller issue.

Tech vs. Truth

Most of the time, I fall in the middle here. In a debate where one team is clearly annihilating the other team, I am more likely to side with the technical aspects of the debate. In a debate where I think one team is dominating on most of the flow but the other team still has a fighting chance, the quality of evidence becomes very important in my decision. I'm not a fan of one liners that maybe viewed as technical knockouts when dropped like unarticulated floating PIKs and topical versions.

Aff

Aff Stuff

I think you have a good aff if:
1. It is at the center of the topic with a large literature base
2. It has good warrants about why it’s specific solvency mechanism is the best way to address it’s impacts
3. It has a diverse amount of impacts that can be weighed against disadvantages. I think it’s smart to have a war impact, an environment impact, and another type of impact. (disease, terrorism, ethics) This gives you a lot of headway in debates that are big on impact calculus. The strategic utility of having an aff with multiple impacts is that certain impacts are more strategic to deploy against different types of disadvantages and critiques.
4. It has good USFG key warrants.
5. The aff has good solvency evidence specific to each advantage.
6. The internal links add up and there aren’t lapses in consistency from internal link to internal link. For example, I would dislike an advantage that would solve for terrorism in Eastern Europe, but your impact evidence is about Al Qaeda having nuclear capabilities and the ability to initiate a nuclear exchange.
7. It is able to tackle and beat disadvantages and critiques rather than being dodgy about the aff’s mechanisms. It will be difficult to win my ballot if your aff’s purpose is to no-link as much stuff as possible. I like a consistent and coherent position. Not something that changes once during the 2AC or the 1AR.

Soft left

I think these types of affs are poorly debated most of the time. You need to be doing high level impact calculus; otherwise, I will side with the disadvantage outweighing the aff.

I view the majority of debates as a risk analyst. I ask myself: If I adopt a policy, what is the expected return on that policy and what is the opportunity cost of the policy, is there a free lunch opportunity, and how should I evaluate that risk?

I tend to believe the idea of risk premiums in finance are relevant in debate; High magnitude impacts have very low probability, and many low magnitude impacts have a very high probability. The high magnitude compensates the lower probability of the impact. It is the job of the debater to shape my preferences; am I an elderly risk averse investor who doesn't want to take on much volatility, or am I a 25 year-old whose incentive is to "go to Vegas!"

Under this paradigm, it doesn't make sense for me to vote for a low magnitude impact over a high magnitude impact if the debaters present them to me with equal weights. I am getting a free lunch with the high magnitude impact. If I am presented the two scenarios with equal risk, I will always choose the higher magnitude scenario. Unless you somehow convince me to abandon my preferences of being a rational person (incredibly unlikely), I expect you to do impact calculus on the probability level, and you should shape my preferences. What is missing in these debates is an extrapolation on why large impacts have low probability. An assessment with impact defense and a push on alt causes would likely convince me to prefer the security of a high probability, low magnitude impact.

The idea that the education presented by your aff outweighing the impacts in the debate is unpersuasive to me. I can't seem to find a reason why voting for you is necessary for additional education, and it seems more of a reason about why researching the genre of ideas that you have presented is more important, which is more suited to a topicality argument. Regardless of whether or not you are in an academic setting, policy setting, or any setting where research and ideas are rigorously scrutinized, the idea that you can present heavily flawed ideas and be praised for it because it is novel is ridiculous.

If you aren’t going to defend instrumental action by the United States Federal Government
Read this if you don’t have a lot of time
I’ve worked a lot with these affs my senior year in high school. Just because I may have read some of these arguments does not mean I am the best judge for them. I read a Nietzsche aff at a few tournaments for the purpose of strategy, not because I like these arguments. In fact, if the strategy of your aff is to create reasons why predictability and switch-side debate is bad, I’m not a good judge for you. If you would think of any of the arguments you read as “troll,” then I am definitely a bad judge for you. In most instances, I believe critical affs should be heading in the direction of defending a topical plan that relates to the resolution. I am not persuaded by any arguments that are along the lines of "the federal government is violent," therefore we shouldn't attempt to engage it. Most of the time, affs that deal with large macro-level issues are much more persuasive when they are implemented by the government. A better response is to be making arguments that problematize current government responses related to the topic and problematizing the logic of using instrumental action, but this does not mean "federal government violent" so they don't solve; that still isn't persuasive. I also do not believe that topical versions need to win that they solve 100% of the aff; topical versions are a way to talk about your scholarship while also giving the negative a nexus to debate you on. Winning a topical version doesn't matter if they are winning impact turns to T / Framework (which I think 95% of them can easily be answered by saying they don't apply to debate).

I also need to know what the aff does by the end of the debate. In a lot of "French theory" debates, I often lose track of or never find out what the aff does. In those debates, I think the negative is well-positioned to go for a Topicality presumption combo.

I'm not a big fan of affs that are in the vein of altering the form of debate, examples are like the "we rupture debate," the "we make debate a safe space," or "vote for us because we represent marginalized knowledge" arguments if your aff sacrifices actions in the direction of the topic. I am easily persuaded by impact turns to these affs like research oriented debate is good and using debate to prepare students for the real world is good.

T and Framework are not the same thing. Framework is a limit on form while topicality is a limit on content.

Fairness is an impact, but the way that most teams go for it doesn't reflect it as an impact. I don't think you need to win a large Lundberg impact to win the debate. Debatability and research are excellent impacts to go for.

I'm not persuaded by no spillover arguments in the context of other people will still read non-topical affs.

Role of the ballot arguments are unpersuasive but competing models of debate and role of the judge arguments may be important in these debates.

Most reasons for not reading a plan are bad; I don't think you have to defend the USFG is violent and that most state links are going to be the status quo anyways. If the primary reason you have for not reading a plan is to not have to debate disads and counterplans, I won't be persuaded by your answers to T.

I am likely to grant the negative disadvantages to your scholarship. If your aff is geneaology about why military presence is bad, I will still grant the negative a deterrence DA if you no link that because you don't actually reduce military presence for the sake of ground and direct clash with the scholarship that you presented. It is unacceptable to be dodgy against direct impact turns to your aff. Along with this, I won't buy your defense on T if you do something like this.

Affs should:

1. Affirm the topic. It is unpersuasive to me when your argument is that it is unethical to affirm the topic. Debate is a place where we see an exchange of ideas and open-mindedness towards new things. If your aff doesn’t mandate a plan, it must at least be in the direction of the resolution. If it is not, I will find it very difficult to grant you any internal link defense to their topicality arguments, and you will likely lose without defense.
2. You need defense against topicality/framework. I think predictability and limits are important and that the aff should provide for a substantive debate the negative can engage them on. Impact turns to limits and predictability are not persuasive to me. There needs to be ongoing dialogue in debate. I think debate is an important activity where an exchange of ideas needs to happen. In order for that to happen, there needs to predictability and limits for the negative. People often read cards in the context of educational institutions but not clash and dialogue focused activities like debate when they choose to impact turn predictability and limits. The logic of a lot of your "debate is bad" is often reliant on a metaphor, and none of your evidence is about debate. If you find a piece of evidence that says switch side debate causes genocide and the war on terror in explicit terms, I might buy the argument.
3. You need a reason why debate is key for your advocacy. If your excuse for reading an untopical aff is "we think messing around in debate is fun, and we should get to do whatever we want," then I will not like you. I am particularly fond of wrong forum arguments when articulated in an instance as such. There are many other places where you can mess around. I do think that debate has an element of contributing to self-awareness and developing skills.
4. Your aff should solve for its impact. Often times, I hear absurd methodologies that don’t have any policy relevance claim to solve for huge overarching extinction impacts and power structures. I don’t think methodologies like coalition building within debate are very reasonable or effective unless they transport that knowledge into politics. It’s more persuasive to me that we should strive to become policymakers than it is to say debaters should start protesting on the streets. I have a large qualm with affs that start their advocacy statements with [partner's name] and I. I don't understand how you and your partner can claim to solve such a huge impact. If your answer to this question is, "who cares? it's not like affs with a plan solve anything," you are starting off the debate in the wrong direction for me. I need a clear and logical reason as to why the methodology that you proposes does anything.
5. Policy relevance is a plus. I like practicality and concreteness. If your aff is more practical and logical, I will find it more persuasive.
6. Just like if you were to read a policy aff in front of me, give me a reason why your solvency mechanism is key. Give me a reason why it is preferred over the topical version. If your answer to topicality is the USFG is always racist, I will probably vote negative on the topical version. To beat the topical version, you need intuitive and thoughtful answers about why your methodology is key, not why an institution is bad. Give disadvantages to the topical version. I tend to view a lot of T-USFG/framework debates in offense defense.
7. Have a strong impact, multiple if possible. I think you need to weigh an impact that cannot be encapsulated by the negative’s interpretation. You need to do impact calculus about why your impact outweighs. Why is it worth sacrificing substantive clash in debate? Why are the skills we build from the Lundberg evidence not as important? If you are able to have some type of extinction impact, that is a big plus, just make sure your aff logically solves for it. Framing is the most important thing in many critical debates. You should make comparisons so that I can see what is and isn't relevant. However, if you aren't going to engage the other team, you are setting yourself up for failure.

Neg related stuff about these affs

You should push teams that read non-traditional affirmatives on the competition level. If competition is based around the explicit statement of the plan text, why do planless affs get permutations? Of course, there is the response that advocacy statements check, but there is the unique nature of the stability of a plan text that is important to consider when evaluating negative ground and competitive equity.

Neg

The Case

People tend to read a lot of impact defense because it is generic and applies to everything. I think the neg is at a disadvantage in many debates if the route they take is disadvantage and impact defense. If you are only pushing them on the impact level, and the aff is shooting holes in all parts of your DA, then it is easier for them to compare the 100% aff solvency that I will award them (because you didn’t pursue anything but impact defense) to a lower risk of a disadvantage. In an ideal debate, where the aff and neg are great at impact calculus, I’m probably voting aff because I think there is a higher risk that the aff solves for some impact than the risk imposed by the DA. That being said, there are many holes in an aff’s internal links that don’t require evidence to make it a problem for them. I rather hear your own intuitive thoughts about the aff's terrible internal links than your generic (and probably bad) impact defense. Push them on the solvency level as well; we often let affs get away with solving too much.

Disadvantages

Don't start your speeches with "The disad outweighs and turns the case." I know you are going to make the arguments if you are a semi-competent debater. Most of the time when debaters start off their speech with this statement, I don't have a warrant as to why your impact outweighs the case; I rather have you make comparative arguments that describe how your impact escalates and what sets it apart from the affs impacts than you asserting that you outweigh the aff. Good debaters don't need to remind themselves to make these arguments; they just make them.

I think a good disadvantage has a specific link to the aff and is also more intrinsic to the aff than politics. Another way to impress me is to have your disadvantage also answer the internal link story of the aff. If the thesis of your disadvantage also covers why the aff doesn't solve for its internal links, I will certainly be impressed. I think aff link uniqueness arguments are very convincing and smart link uniqueness analytics can significantly lower the risk of generic disadvantages, which is all of the better a reason to research plan specific disadvantages.

If you want to win me over, good impact calculus will get you far. Give reasons why whatever impact filter you are going for is the most important and how that implicates the aff and how it implicates the other filters. A good 2NC/1NR on a DA will read cards on the impact level, and it will read cards on why the DA turns the advantages of the aff. When you read cards on the uniqueness, link, and internal link level, it’s more effective to have different warrants in each card. A wide variety of warrants on each level of the debate will give you more options and it will let you encapsulate on the 1AR’s mistakes. I like specificity. A link argument about the aff is better than 5 generic links that the aff might fall under. However, if it is a really small aff, you need to apply the aff to the generic links and give warrants as to why the aff may fall under some of those links.

Some more politics specific stuff

I think the quality of evidence that often surrounds politics DAs are terrible. To me, politics is a terrible strategy unless you have stellar link evidence, a really specific counterplan, or are completely crushing the case (most likely not just impact defense). I am tired of seeing one-lined cards within these debates because that seems like it has become the norm of acceptibility surrounding politics. A good aff team will do a good job crushing incoherent internal links as their main strategy. A good politics debate that is card intensive and clash heavy is one of my favorite debates to watch provided there is good evidence. Specificity usually wins these debates, meaning unless you have good cards about the aff or a litany of links that the aff can apply to (but the aff drops some), I probably will vote aff given that their link defense is about the plan's mechanism.

Link determines the direction of uniqueness in most debates. The only times where I don't see this happening is when budget and debt ceiling roll around because there is actually a short timeframe where the vote can happen at any moment.

A reason as to why the politics disadvantage is good is not a reason to why it’s intrinsic. If the 2AC says the disadvantage is not intrinsic, I don’t see a reason why you would answer that with politics is good. I think public pressure and constituency obligation is a better answer to intrinsicness.

Winners win is much better the bigger your aff is. Another way to encapsulate on winners win is to apply it specifically to their politics DA and give reasons why your aff is different from the instances in which winners win theory is disproved.

Counterplans

The way that counterplans are assessed puzzle me because I find that process to be vastly oversimplified. I'm not convinced that counterplan solvency is a yes or no question. Solvency is a probability between 0 to 1, and impacts have a probability of 0 to 1. This also means sufficiency framing doesn't make sense to me. Negative teams should be framing their counterplan as the risk of a solvency deficit is less than or not as important as the risk of the net benefit and affirmative teams should make the argument that the risk of a solvency deficit is more than or outweighs the risk of the net benefit.

Your counterplan should be both functionally and textually competitive. By textually competitive, I don’t mean by redefining the word “should.” Normal means counterplans are always bad. I’m not a good judge for you if your strategy relies on the consult or the conditions counterplan. However, I can be convinced that these counterplans compete and are legitimate if you have a stellar solvency advocate about the aff. For the aff, to deal with the giant blocks of theory that they read at you, I would suggest giving me a filter to evaluate theory arguments. For example, the aff should say “evaluate the impacts to theory in the context of debate because any of their policymaking education arguments are subject to change because the process of policymaking is always changing and the education that we get now may not be applicable in twenty years.” I also really don't want to hear the block's 4 minute dump on theory when they choose to read word pics and the dirtiest process counterplans.

I think a solvency advocate is a good measure of whether not a questionable counterplan like the International Actor Counterplan and the States Counterplan should be allowed, but you will find that I tend to be rather lenient as to what I consider as a solvency advocate simply because I believe the Aff should be tested on why action by the USFG is key.
Process counterplans are rarely persuasive. You will need to have a pretty specific solvency advocate to make me consider it in terms of whether is theoretically legitimate as well as some way to make the counterplan competitive.

I will never be persuaded to vote for an artificially competitive counterplan unless it's against a team that doesn't defend a plan.

Critiques

When I'm judging a critique, a lot of the time I find that I am pushed into a situation where the debate is very difficult to decide due to poor debating and bad evidence. These situations tend to involve a lot of judge intervention, and I end up heavily relying on my own preferences to evaluate the debate. Much of the time, technical concessions weigh more heavily than framing issues that end up being a wash.

In most of the debates where the 2NR is a critique, I have voted for the critique on presumption + risk that the alternative solves something. There are a lot of logical holes within how alternatives, impacts, and links interact with each other. Questions that I often ask myself are how does the plan lead to the large impacts that the critique has isolated? How is the plan so significant that it derails the alternative from resolving the harms of the critique? Why isn't the permutation able to overcome the residual links to the plan? With the way that contemporary critiques are structured, I find it difficult for me to resolve these questions for the negative in any logically coherent way.

The most successful critiques in front of me develop specific links to the plan and frame them as solvency takeouts to the plan. Alternatives avoid these solvency deficits, so they potentially solve better than the aff. On top of that, successful teams flip impact calculus to the framework level and convince me about why their specific orientation is better for an education model or better informs decision-making. Most macro-level impacts on critiques are absurd to me because most likely your impact evidence isn't unique to your link evidence about the affirmative; it's probably about why the system that you are critiquing is bad. Impacts about the way the affirmative approaches decision-making makes a whole lot more sense to me.

People go for reject alts incorrectly; the best reject alts frame themselves as we are not the aff, and the aff is bad. I think they can also be strategically coupled with presumption claims, framed like the aff doesn't solve and is error replication, the alt has a chance of solving and avoiding error replication. I think if you are not winning a link and turns case arguments, reject alternatives end up working against you because I often compare a world where we reject the aff to a world where the aff is done, and most the time I end up deciding that the aff is a good idea, given that the alternative is artificially competitive.

I think the permutation double bind argument and the permutation do the aff and the alt in all other instances is underutilized and makes a lot of sense against most critiques.

More teams should be going for utopian fiat bad.

The term role of the ballot is a way I filter impacts. This also means it’s a way of saying impact calculus. I don’t think a role of the ballot is dropped if a team is beating you on impact calculus, but they don’t specifically speak to the question of the role of the ballot. I need a reason why I should prefer the role of the ballot you are advancing.

You should do impact calculus. You should give me reasons why I should prefer root cause arguments.

Debate the case. The aff is probably telling a more coherent internal link story with higher levels of specificity. Unless you mitigate the case in some way, either through the way you frame link arguments or other solvency arguments, I will most likely vote aff on the coherence of internal links and the story of escalation that the aff presented to me.

Framework arguments that ask me to exclude an analysis of the results of the implementation of the plan are often successful in front of me because affs only extend a cursory extension of framework and choose not to provide me with a model of how I should assess impacts. That being said, I have never seen a good response to fairness from a negative team; they mostly give me reasons as to why other standards matter more, but do not grapple with this question. To me, fairness is the most underrated impact. Comparative reasons why I should prefer fairness would help me side with aff on the framework question.

Aff's should impact turn critiques more often. Most affs against critiques are built upon winning the permutation as debate has been shifting leftward, and I think critique teams are losing touch with answering impact turns because of this practice. Don't be afraid to make arguments like Western science and knowledge production, objective data driven statistics, neoliberalism, capitalism, colonialism, and masculine IR are good.

Topicality

Teams should go for substance if they have a chance to win on substance. I side with competing interpretations. I think if the negative has an arbitrary interpretation then it should be easy for the aff to win that their interpretation is better. Reasonability is also viable if coupled with functional limits and precision arguments. I value precision the most as a standard for comparing interpretations. I think the quality of evidence is absolutely critical in topicality debates.

If the aff meets the interpretation, then they meet the interpretation. I do not believe in an offense/defense paradigm around the we meet; there is no such thing as 1% risk that the aff doesn't meet the interpretation. I heavily compare the evidence presented to me on the we meet debate in a textualist manner and use the plan text as a standard for evaluating whether or not the plan meets the interpretation.

Topical versions could be a tie breaker in many debates, but if the aff wins that your interpretation is absolutely horrible, I don't think there is any net benefit to the topical version.

Theory
Conditionality and Neg flex is good to an extent. Beyond 3 conditional advocacies is pushing it. It also makes your counterinterpretation meaningless because your counterinterpretation in no way solves for the affs impacts when they get too large. I like arguments that are substantive and about the specific skills that conditionality allows us to build as well the skills we lose with conditionality. Fairness is usually an internal link to something bigger like people quitting or incentivizing research and education.

Every argument other than conditionality and performative contradictions is a reason to reject the argument.

I am heavily aff-leaning on consult counterplans that don't have intrinsic net benefits, delay counterplans, process counterplans, word PICs and offsets counterplans.

I am slightly aff-leaning on agent counterplans without solvency advocates for the aff they are debating, and heavily neg-leaning on agent counterplans that do have solvency advocates.

My name is Waiho Zhang, I debated policy debate for Brooklyn Technical High School for 3 years.

**Quick Version**

I mainly debated kritikal arguments in high school. My literature basis is very expansive, from race based arguments to pomo white people. However even though majority of my debate career was grounded in Ks, i've also read a fair share of policy arguments so feel free to run them in front of me, I will make my decision accordingly.

*******Long Version*****

Ks: I love kritiks when they are ran well.  I'm familiar with most kritiks, my literature basis is pretty expansive. Please have an coherent link and impact that stems beyond "state bad." I would prefer you extend the ALT into the 2NR but its option, I believe the job of the NEG is to prove the AFF is a bad idea, if you have an big enough link that the PERM doesn't resolve I'll most likely vote you up. Impact calculus is very important, don't forget it, tell me why K outweighs.

Performance: I dig it, just make it meaningful so it doesn't look like you put it into your AFF to take up space.

Framework Vs. K AFFs: I vote on framework 50 percent of the time, prove why your model of debate is better. I feel like the best strat is to go for arguments that push fairness, limits, and ground with education impacts along with topical version of the AFF is the best option. Going solely for state solves in the 2NR is fine but not preferable.

DA, CP, PICS: Love them, give me a link and do impact calc. I think PICS are legit, IDK

Theory: Impact it out, I will vote on it if you go for it. Please spend time, don't make it blippy.

***

Watch your language. No racist, homophobic, sexist rethoric please.

***

Policy vs. K: I will vote on stuff that go hard right, as long as you do nice impact calc and help me frame my decision. I'm not one of those judges who won't vote on shit cause I THINK its wrong. Example: I will vote on heg if ran well, i think its a decent argument, just watch the way in which you run it.

:) Good luck and have fun.