I am a high school graduate from Technology High School in Newark. I have also debated for a total of 5 years. I’ve debated at many tournaments (Yale, Harvard, Bronx, etc).
I am a Kritikal judge.
if there are any other questions feel free to email me at acostalberto94@gmail.com
Arguments

Framework
You need to make this the most important argument in the round. For me at least. You loss framework, than you have a really high chance of lossing the round (depends on how far you are on the framework flow)

Dropping arguments
Drop them properly. Don’t just stop talking about them. If your opponent does drop this argument then bring it up so you can reap the benefits of their mistake.

Speed
I fine with it. I just ask that you slow down on the tags and the main warrants of the arg. If I can’t hear after I say clear three times I will only flow what I hear.

Theory
I like it and I know about it, but I am not going to do the work for you. Just because you say theory and extend it doesn’t mean that you explained ite. There needs to be a clear explanation on the theory flow what is the abuse that happens in the round and why it is important. Theory for me out ranks all others (not because it is an easy way out) because I feel that this argument are the actual rules of the debate round on what can and can’t be done by each team.

C/X
It is open I don’t flow it, but I do listen to it, and it can change my decision.

2NR/2AR
I flow it, but I mostly like to listen to it. This is the crux of the round. I need you to tell me why you should win (by explaining your arguments in the most detail that you can in the time period) and what arguments that your opponent dropped. (the reason for this is that a lot of teams really don’t do this any more so better to feel safe then sorry).

Jargon
I understand all of the debate jargon (since I did us most of them anyway) just that if there are any new ones that you think that I didn’t hear about then explain it to me.

Affirmatives
Topical affs are great, but I really enjoy hearing a critical debate with a critical affs, but with these kinds aff’s come with great responsibility. There needs to be a lot of in-depth analysis onto why your aff solves for what it solves, how it is a prereq. To the k and other args. A lot of debaters really just read evidence after evidence, i instead like to hear how the aff actually interacts with other arguments what is the actual connection. The critical aff can be the most dangerous weapon in any debate round if used properly. Performance affs are fine just explain the framework in great detail and why I should reject the resolution (if that is the case) in your own words or how you are topical.

Negative

Topicality

This can be a very powerful critical argument if used properly, but not many teams use this argument. I will vote on t if there is clear violation before the round is even finished (unless there is framework or theory). This is an argument that I like but not love like others

Counterplan
This is an argument that is very confusing for me, if you are going to run it explain what the plan does and how it doesn’t steal aff ground (unless theory is involved). If there is a critical counterplan involved explain how it is different from a k. other then that I don’t like counterplans too much, but I would vote on it.

Da
This is really a straightforward argument; I really didn’t see any variations of this argument in my debating career. If there are then I welcome them, but I really don’t have anything else to say about them.

K
Finally to the one argument that all teams want to know about. I love this argument, however I find that a lot of teams really don’t explain this argument in great detail. They just leave the k up in the air for the judge to interpret it in there own way. I know enough about the most common k’s that I can understand them, but again if I need to decide what your k is talking about you may not like what I think. Some of the other arguments that I’m not to familiar with I will listen to but there needs to be more of a keen eye in the explanation for those kinds of arguments.

I greatly enjoy policy debate, even though I did not participate in it during my high school or college career. I’ve coached it for 5 years, attended coaching camps and trained coaches and judges. 

Background: My background is in public policy and I hold a masters’ in public policy from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I enjoy hearing debates about the pros and cons of a specific policy, and I will admit that I have a bias towards case that engage on the field of policy. However, if you argue effectively for why you should receive my ballot, you stand a fair shot at winning my vote.

Structure: As far as debate structures and rules, I believe that constructives are 8 minutes, rebuttals 5, and that CX ends at 3 minutes and should be open where one person asks and the team being cross examined can both answer.

Speaking: I’m ok with debaters being aggressive, as long as it doesn’t go overboard into the realm of disrespect. I’m not accustomed to swearing in round as our league has strict rules about etiquette, so if you choose to use profanity I suggest doing so only if you are prepared to defend why it helps your case should the other team attack you for it. Fast speaking is fine as long as you are clearly articulating your words to the point where someone accustomed to listening to speed reading can understand them. I also will want any files you are reading flashed over to me before you start.

Argument Style: If you choose to answer an affirmative with off case positions, I’m looking for argument structure in your answer.

With DA’s, I need strong links and impacts. Impact calc helps. If you are going against a DA, make it clear what you are attacking, don’t make me guess.

CP’s need to be net-ben better than the AFF when all is said and done. If you’re going to go into the conditional/unconditional theory on either side, make sure to explain in round why that helps you win.  

K’s need to have some sort of plausible link, impact and a clear alternative. If it’s a more philosophical K, clarifying role of the ballot and my role as a judge helps your case immensely. As I said before, I have an admitted bias towards traditional policy, but if you do a good job with your K and explain why it outweighs or turns the aff team’s arguments, I’ll vote for you.

T is absolutely a voter, but needs to be well presented. It needs to include not only the definition and the violation, but to persuade me I also want you to give me standards and tell me why it is a voter.

I’m not a fan of theory debates and I generally find them boring UNLESS you have a good reason for doing so in round. I typically won’t vote for a generic theory argument unless the team arguing it can be made clear why it is relevant to that particular round and that particular set of arguments.

Argument Types

I am more accustomed to judging traditional affirmatives, but am willing to consider kritikal affirmatives IF they are well presented.

I have zero experience judging performance affirmatives, so run them at your own risk and make sure to read my comments below before you make the choice to do so.

I love all debate, but I love debate in particular because students have the opportunity each and every round to persuade the judge about how they should vote, and even by what rules the judge should vote. If you want me to vote for your K aff or your performance aff, make it clear what you feel my role as a judge is and what the ballot will do if I vote for you. And if the other team does this and you’d rather run traditional policy, you need to explain why a traditional policy framework is better.  I’ll always do my best to vote based off of the structures and ballot roles presented in round.

In sum, don’t pander to me, persuade me that you are right and that you deserve my vote. If you do a good job, you have a fair shot at getting my vote, regardless of what arguments you choose to run. 

jorman.antigua@gmail.com

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)

When I understand the words you say I take them more seriously

Do what you want.  I follow tournament rules, try not to throw things

History
I debated 3 years at Baltimore City College High School. The first year of my high school career I did mainly Policy Debate. The last two years of my Debate career I delved into the Kritik on both sides of the Debate. The majority of my arguments were mostly race theory and arguments about antiblackness.

I mostly debated the k and I love kritiks. I think that a kritical perspective is important for opening the activity to more marginalized experiences. I believe that it can be productive both for the sport and for the community.  

Paradigm
Despite my love for Kritiks and Race arguments, I will admit that I am less biased than most with my orientation. When I watch and Judge debate, I will do my best to listen carefully to the actual arguments being made and will vote on almost anything if you win the debate. I believe that debate should be about even competition that is based on what is said in round and how it effects the outside world. In terms of argumentation I believe in truth and tech almost equally, with truth just weighing slightly higher on the scale. This means that a conceded argument is true, but within context of reason. I do value the flow; and it still has a major impact on my decision.  

I am fine with spreading; just be clear and slow on tags.

For K teams
For K teams, explain arguments and links. If I do not understand why things are the way they are or even how the Alternative solves for things. then I will have more trouble voting you up. Do yourself a favor and impact and explain each claim you make. For those reading Kritiks I believe a genuine belief and representation of the arguments your talking about is important. Also, if your an all white team that reads a race k against poc I will likely not vote on it unless it has a legit (and I mean hardcore legit) link. That being said in any situation, I will try my best to be open minded.

Policy v Ks/plans with critical advantages
For Policy Teams that are on the Aff and are going against such arguments; do not break out k-ish advantages for a super policy Aff. You should just read what you want and the do the neccessary level of argumentation to win against such arguments. If you naturally read policy affs that have a k twist; then that is fine. 

Topicality
In order for me to vote on Topicality; it really needs to be impacted out. There should probably be more to the Standards part of the Debate other than education and Fairness. (Recently that has been the only extension of T that I have heard in debates that I have judged.) If it is education and Fairness you need to answer the questions of "why is the model of debate that you are advocating for producing important? Other questions such as, "what is the type of education you are producing/why is that good?" What is fairness and why does that matter in this Debate especially against the opponents Impacts. These are the the types of questions that need to be answered in addition to answering the other teams arguments in order to get my ballot. Answering these questions are probably not strictly regulated to folks who run T/FW...., but I have found that the explanations to these questions have been severely lacking in the majority of rounds that I've judged with teams who have brought up this argument. This is why I put this explanation here. I will admit; I am more open than I used to be, but I still do not believe that you were forced to run T. However, I will vote on it if the necessary work is done. In terms of articulation I would be interested in hearing a critical spin on Framework argument that talks about why the State focus may be good politically for (whater K is being talked about.) I am good on theory, so if you run it I'm cool. I'm more geared towards social political justice arguments, but whatever.

Daryl Burch

currently the director of high school debate for McDonogh

formerly coached at the University of Louisville, duPont Manual High School (3X TOC qualifiers; Octofinalist team 2002) the head coach for Capitol Debate who won the TOC.  McDonogh won the TOC in 2007.  I have taught summer institutes at the University of Michigan, Michigan State, Emory, Iowa, Catholic University, and Towson University and Wake Forest as a lab leader.

I debated three years in high school on the kentucky and national circuit and debated five years at the University of Louisville.

I gave that little tidbit to say that I have been around debate for a while and have debated and coached at the most competitive levels with ample success. I pride myself in being committed to the activity and feel that everyone should have a voice and choice in their argument selection so I am pretty much open to everything that is in good taste as long as YOU are committed and passionate about the argument. The worst thing you can do in the back of the room is assume that you know what I want to hear and switch up your argument selection and style for me and give a substandard debate. Debate you and do it well and you will be find.

True things to know about me:
Did not flow debates while coaching at the University of Louisville for two years but am flowing again

Was a HUGE Topicality HACK in college and still feel that i am up on the argument. I consider this more than a time suck but a legitimate issue in the activity to discuss the merit of the debate at hand and future debates. I have come to evolve my thoughts on topicality as seeing a difference between a discussion of the topic and a topical discussion (the later representing traditional views of debate- division of ground, limits, predictability etc.) A discussion of the topic can be metaphorical, can be interpretive through performance or narratives and while a topical discussion needs a plan text, a discussion of the topic does not. Both I think can be defended and can be persuasive if debated out well. Again stick to what you do best. Critiquing topicality is legitimate to me if a reverse voting issue is truly an ISSUE and not just stated with unwarranted little As through little Gs. i.e. framework best arguments about reduction of language choices or criticism of language limitations in academic discussion can become ISSUES, voting issues in fact. The negative's charge that the Affirmative is not topical can easily be developed into an argument of exclusion begat from predictable limitations that should be rejected in debate.

It is difficult to label me traditional or non traditional but safer to assume that i can go either way and am partial to traditional performative debate which is the permutation of both genres. Teams that run cases with well developed advantages backed by a few quality pieces of evidence are just as powerful as teams that speak from their social location and incorporate aesthetics such as poetry and music. in other words if you just want to read cards, read them poetically and know your argument not just debate simply line by line to win cheap shots on the flow. "They dropped our simon evidence" is not enough of an argument for me to win a debate in front of me. If i am reading your evidence at the end of the debate that is not necessairly a good thing for you. I should know what a good piece of evidence is because you have articulated how good it was to me (relied on it, repeated it, used it to answer all the other arguments, related to it, revealed the author to me) this is a good strategic ploy for me in the back of the room.

Technique is all about you. I must understand what you are saying and that is it. I have judged at some of the highest levels in debate (late elims at the NDT and CEDA) and feel pretty confident in keeping up if you are clear.

Not a big fan of Malthus and Racism Good so run them at your own risk. Malthus is a legitimate theory but not to say that we should allow systematic targeted genocide of Black people because it limits the global population. I think i would be more persuaded by the argument that that is not a NATURAL death check but an IMMORAL act of genocide and is argumentatively irresponsible within the context of competitive debate. Also i am not inclined to believe you that Nietzsche would say that we should target Black people and exterminate them because death is good. Could be wrong but even if i am, that is not a persuasive argument to run with me in the back of the room. In case you didn't know, I AM A BLACK PERSON.

Bottom line, I can stomach almost any argument as long as you are willing to defend the argument in a passionate but respectful way. I believe that debate is inherently and unavoidable SUBJECTIVE so i will not pretend to judge the round OBJECTIVELY but i will promise to be as honest and consistent as possible in my ajudication. Any questions you have specifically I am more than happy to answer.

Open Cross X, weird use of prep time (before cross x, as a prolonging of cross x) all that stuff that formal judges don't like, i am probably ok with.

db

Judy Butler: Hired Gun

Affiliations: Too numerous to list

Experience: High School: 29 years; College: 27 years

I will not attempt to characterize what the purpose or value of debate is in this missive; merely how I tend to evaluate the debates I get to judge. I think of myself as a teacher and the debaters as students and strive to treat them with the respect that relationship deserves. I thoroughly enjoy judging debates from almost any theoretical perspective. I also strive to support new ideas, sources of evidence, academic fields and literature entering debate that have traditionally been undervalued.

I like judging debates where the debaters directly address each other's arguments from the jump as opposed to waiting until rebuttals to compare arguments.

I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve in relation to one another as opposed to simply in vacuums - I will totally listen to debates about conditionality and don't have attitude about multiple advocacies.

I like judging debates when the debaters show respect for each other, including their partners - contempt for an argument or position is different than contempt for a person.

I like judging theory debates that have depth as opposed to breadth - five or seven words are really not arguments, nor are they flowable. I ten to shy away from voting on theory arguments that require that I "punish" debaters. I prefer theory arguments that are grounded in the effect on the debate process and the value of including or excluding certain argumentative perspectives and practices.

I like judging debaters that focus on comparison and argument evolution rather than repetition and tend to reward both content and style when apportioning speaker points. Specifically, winning your argument is different than answering theirs: saying why you are right AND why they are wrong is the minimum necessary to answer/extend an argument and put yourself in a position to win that argument in the last rebuttals. Ideally, this level of extension could begin in the 1NC and could continue throughout the debate by all the following speeches.

I promise to be riveted to your speeches, your cross-exes, and my flow. I flow what the evidence says, not just your label. I hope that softens the blow when I say that I don't want to be on the email chain - the debate I'm judging is the one I heard and flowed, not the one I read. If I need/want to see something I will ask - but I need you to be clear in the first place. If you want to understand and comprehend the quality extensions I am asking for in real time, clarity when you originally read your evidence is critical.

PS: Your prep time stops running when you have sent the speech - not before

Happy Debating!

Preferred Name “Nae” pls and thx :)

6 bids to the TOC senior year

3x NDT First Round

For Email Chains: edwardsnevan@gmail.com

College Paradigm:

Do what you want and I will vote for who wins I care very little what anyone at this level reads as long as isn't blatantly racist, sexist, homphobic, etc. Just do you the best you can.

HS Paradigm w/ some edits:

I am a young judge and I am still figuring out my ideas about debate so this paradigm will be an image of what I currently think about the activity. My favorite Judges: Shree Asware, DB, DSRB, Eli Smith, Rosie Valdez, Nicholas Brady, Sheryl Kaczmerick. Here's a list of what I think about certain arguments/ideas.

TLDR: I don't care about what you do just do it well. I can judge the 7 off CP/DA debate or the straight up clash debate. I'm down with speed but will yell "clear" if you're just mumbling. GLHF.

BTW: I make decisions quick it isn't a reflection of y'all I just think debates are usually pretty clear for me. I also have noticed I make a lot of faces and am pretty transparent about how I feel about stuff....take that as you wish.

Tech = Truth- i do believe technical debate is incredibly important to keep the flow ordered and to stop judge intervention BUT only if you are winning the meta-framing of the debate that makes your technical arguments true under your vision of the world. I'm also willing to throw the flow out the debate if compelling arguments are made by the debaters that it's a bad model for how I adjudicate. WARNING: This means you need to have a clear way for me to evaluate the debate absent the flow or I will default to it ie "flow bad" isn't enough.

Theory = Needs an interp not just xx is bad vote them down, but I'm always down to judge a theory debate.

DA- They're fine. I'm capable with judging them and have no problem keeping up with normative policy debate. I enjoy impact turns and I think the most important part of this debate is the impact calc/impact framing. I need reasons why your impact comes first and how it interacts with the other team's impacts. If you're both going for an extinction claim you need to win the probability and timeframe debate with some good evidence.

CP- I enjoy the theory debates here and I think they are important to set precedents for what debate should look like. I lean slightly aff on theory but I think I lean more neg against the permutation if it's well debated out. I think the affirmatives's best bet in front of me is to take out the net benefit unless the CP is just not competitive with the aff. NO JUDGE KICKING THE COUNTERPLAN NO NO NO EITHER GO FOR IT OR DON'T PLS AND THANKS.

K's- this is what I do and i'm most familiar with but this is a double edged sword because it means i expect you to be on point about how you articulate these arguments. Specific links are killer, but generic links applied directly to the aff are just as powerful when warranted. You can kick the alt and go for presumption but that usually requires you winning a heavy impact framing claim. Do your thing and make it interesting debate with your ideas and don't read me your generic Cap blocks (i do enjoy a good cap k though) that have nothing to do with what's going on in the debate. MORE EXAMPLES PLEASE!!!!

K AFF's- non-traditional affirmatives are also my bread and butter. I love how creative these affs can be and the educational benefit that these affs show. Be passionate and care about what you're doing and use your 1AC as a weapon against every negative strategy to garner offense as well as the permutation. Go for nuanced framing arguments and don't be scared of an impact turn. Having Roberto as my partner and Amber Kelsie/Taylor Brough as my coaches has forced me to learn a lot more high theory and I actually enjoy it if done right just know what you're talking about or I will be sad. :(

T - I actually like T against policy aff's a lot if you're gonna normatively affirm the topic you better do it right ;).

FW- this is where I feel like I get pathologized a lot on how I feel. The summer before my senior year my partner and I went for straight-up framework every round with fairness and limits arguments. I think this position run correctly combined with nuanced case engagement with the aff is actually a fantastic argument especially against aff's with weak topic links. I think arguments like dialogue, truth-testing, institutional engagement > fairness, limits, ground BECAUSE the latter group of impacts end up being internal links to the prior. There's a TVA to almost everything so get creative, but TVA with a card that applies to the aff is a killer. If you're aff in these debates you should either impact turn everything or have a model of debate with some clear aff and neg ground. There are a bunch of ways to debate framework but having offense is the key to winning any of those strategies. ALSO DON'T FORGET THE AFF. YOU WROTE IT FOR A REASON EXTEND IT EVERYWHERE.

SIDE NOTE: All pettiness and shade is invited if you make me laugh or throw a quick jab of quirky shade at the other team I will probably up your speaks. If you make fun of Roberto (my partner) I will up your speaks. Also, Naruto/Bleach/My Hero Academia references will be rewarded.

OTHER SIDE NOTE: I grow increasingly tired of people yelling at eachother in CX and the trend of white cis-men constantly interrupting and talking over black folk/poc/women/queer/trans folk. If you do this I will probably be less inclined to care about whatever you say in CX and I may slightly punish your speaks.

Anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. will cause me to stop the round and move on with my life

Everything is a performance.You can hmu on my email at the top for any questions. Good Luck!

Hi, I'm John. I debated policy for the New School for 2 1/2 years, from fall of 2010 to fall of 2012. During my debate career I mostly argued kritiks, defended an advocacy rather than a topical plan, and refused to switch sides. Although there is nothing I totally refuse to vote on (so far), I probably vote for the kritik more often than most judges.

I tend to have a very high threshold on T and FW. On T, I default to resonability, and the neg will have to tell a clear abuse story to get my ballot. This means not just clearly identifying what the aff did wrong, but why it's important (with impacts). I tend to value education as a standard very highly in T debates.

On FW, if the 1AC includes a justification for their non-topical advocacy, then it's up to the neg to respond with offense against the aff's methodology and/or reasons to prefer topical affs for educational/political reasons. Arguing that the aff broke the rules, stole the neg's ground, or will always be able to defend that their principles are good is unlikely to get you far.

CP/DA debate: I'm more receptive than most judges to the argument that probability of impacts is at least as important as magnitude. I see very little value in debates where I end up weighing two far-fetched nuke war scenarios against each other. To paraphrase Boston College DoD John Katsulas, if you got up in front of Congress and argued that we must pass comprehensive immigration reform or humanity will go extinct, you would be thrown into a loony bin.

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.

Affiliation: University of Houston

I’ve been judging since 2011. As of January 2nd, 2022 I am the third most prolific college policy judge in the era of Tabroom. Ahead of me are Jackie Poapst and Armands Revelins, behind me are Kurt Fifelski and Becca Steiner. Take this how you will.

Yes, I want to be on the E-mail chain. Send docs to: robglassdebate [at] the google mail service . I don’t read the docs during the round except in unusual circumstances or when I think someone is clipping cards.

The short version of my philosophy, or “My Coach preffed this Rando, what do I need to know five minutes before the round starts?”:

1. Debate should be a welcoming and open space to all who would try to participate. If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible.

2. Have a fundamental respect for the other team and the activity. Insulting either or both, or making a debater feel uncomfortable, is not acceptable.

3. Debate is for the debaters. My job, in total, is to watch what you do and act according to how y’all want me. So do you and I’ll follow along.

4. Respond to the other team. If you ignore the other team or try to set the bounds so that their thoughts and ideas can have no access to debate I will be very leery of endorsing you. Find an argument, be a better debater.

5. Offense over Defense. I tend to prefer substantive impacts. That said I will explicitly state here that I am more and more comfortable voting on terminal defense, especially complete solvency takeouts. If I am reasonably convinced your aff does nothing I'm not voting for it.

6. With full credit to Justin Green: When the debate is over I'm going to applaud. I love debate and I love debaters and I plan on enjoying the round.

Nukes thoughts:

The amount of time, reading, discussion, and even writing I have dedicated to American and International nuclear strategy is hard to overstate. Please treat this topic with respect.

The standard argumentative thoughts list:

Debate is for the debaters - Everything below is up for debate, and I will adapt to what the debaters want me to do in the round.

Aff relationship to the topic - I think affirmatives should have a positive relationship to the topic. The topic remains a center point of debate, and I am disinclined to think it should be completely disregarded.

"USFG" framework: Is an argument I will vote on, but I am not inclined to think it is a model that best suits all debates, and I think overly rigid visions of debate are both ahistorical and unstrategic. I tend to think these arguments are better deployed as methodological case turns. TVAs are very helpful.

Counter-plan theory: Condo is like alcohol, alright if used in moderation but excess necessitates appropriate timing. Consultation is usually suspect in my book, alternative international actors more so, alternative USFG actors much less so. Beyond that, flesh out your vision of debate. My only particularly strong feeling about this is judge kick, which is explained at the bottom of this paradigm.

Disads: I have historically been loathe to ascribe 0% risk of a link, and tended to fall very hard into the cult of offense. I am self-consciously trying to check back more against this inclination. Impact comparison is a must.

PTX DAs: For years I beat my chest about my disdain for them, but I have softened since. I still don't like them, and think intrinsicness theory and basic questions of inherency loom large over their legitimacy as argumentation, but I also recognize the role they play in debate rounds and will shelve my personal beliefs on them when making my decision. That said, I do not think "we lose politics DAs" is a compelling ground argument on framework or T.

Critiques: I find myself yearning for more methodological explanation of alternatives these days. In a related thought, I also think Neg teams have been too shy about kicking alts and going for the "link" and "impact" (if that DA based terminology ought be applied one-to-one to the K) as independent reasons to reject the Affirmative advocacy. One of the most common ways that other judges and I dissent in round is that I tend to give more credit to perm solvency in a messy perm debate.

Case debate: Please. They are some of my favorite debates to watch, and I particularly enjoy when two teams go really deep on a nerdish question of either policy analysis or critical theory. If you're going down a particularly deep esoteric rabbit hole it is useful to slow down and explain the nuance to me, especially when using chains of acronyms that I may or may not have been exposed to.

Policy T: I spend a fair chunk of my free time thinking about T and the limits of the topic. I used to be very concerned with notions of lost ground, my views now are almost the opposite. Statistical analysis of round results leads me to believe that good negative teams will usually find someway to win on substance, and I think overly dramatic concerns about lost ground somewhat fly in the face of the cut-throat ethos of Policy Debate re: research, namely that innovative teams should be competitively rewarded. While framework debates are very much about visions of the debate world if both teams accept that debate rounds should be mediated through a relationship to policy action the more important questions for me is how well does debate actually embody and then educate students (and judges) about the real world questions of policy. Put differently, my impulse is that Framework debates should be inward facing whereas T debates should be outward facing. All of that should be taken with the gigantic caveat that is "you do you," whatever my beliefs I will still evaluate warranted ground arguments and Affirmative teams cannot simply point at this paradigm to get out of answering them.

Judge Kick: Judge kick is an abomination and forces 2ARs to debate multiple worlds based on their interpretation of how the judge will understand the 2NR and then intervene in the debate. It produces a dearth of depth, and makes all of the '70s-'80s hand-wringing about Condo come true. My compromise with judge kick is this: If the 2NR advocates for judge kick the 2A at the start of 2AR prep is allowed to call for a flip. I will then flip a coin. If it comes up heads the advocacy is kicked, if it comes up tails it isn't. I will announce the result of the flip and then 2AR prep will commence. If the 2A does this I will not vote on any theoretical issues regarding judge kick. If the 2A does not call for a flip I will listen and evaluate theory arguments about judge kick as is appropriate.

Online Debate Thoughts:

1. Please slow down a little. I will have high quality headsets, but microphone compression, online compression, and then decompression on my end will almost certainly effect just how much I hear of your speeches. I do not open speech docs and will not flow off of them which means I need to be able to understand what you’re saying, so please slow down. Not much, ~80% of top speed will probably be enough. If a team tries to outspread a team that has slowed down per this paradigm I will penalize the team that tried for said advantage.

1A. If you're going too fast and/or I cannot understand you due to microphone quality I will shout 'clear'. If after multiple calls of clear you do nothing I will simply stop flowing. If you try to adapt I will do the best I can to work with you to make sure I get every argument you're trying to make.

2. I come from the era of debate when we debated paper but flowed on computers, which means when I’m judging I will have the majority of my screen dominated by an excel sheet. If you need me to see a performance please flag it for me and I’ll rearrange my screen to account for your performance.

3. This is an echo of point 1, but it's touchy and I think bears repeating. The series of audio compressions (and decompressions) that online debate imposes on us has the consequence of distorting the high and low ends of human speech. This means that clarity will be lost for people with particularly high and low pitches when they spread. There is, realistically speaking, no way around this until we're all back in rooms with each other. I will work as hard as I can to infer and fill in the gaps to make it so that loss is minimized as much as possible, but there is a limit to what I can do. If you think this could affect you please make sure you are slowing down like I asked in point 1 or try to adapt in another way.

4. E-mail chains, please. Not only does this mean we don't have to delay by futzing around with other forms of technology but it also gives us a way to contact participants if (when) connections splutter out.

5. The Fluffy Tax. If during prep or time between speeches a non-human animal should make an appearance on your webcam and I see it, time will stop, they will be introduced to the debaters and myself, and we shall marvel at their existence and cuteness together. In the world of online debate we must find and make the joy that we can. Number of times the fluffy tax has been imposed: 3.

6. Be kind. This year is unbelievably tiring, and it is so easy to both get frustrated with opponents and lose an empathetic connection towards our peers when our only point of contact is a Brady Bunch screen of faces. All I ask is that you make a conscious effort to be kind to others in the activity. We are part of an odd, cloistered, community and in it all we have is our shared love of the activity. Love is an active process, we must choose to make it happen. Try to make it happen a little when you are in front of me.

jeremy.hammond@pinecrest.edu, pinecrestdebatedocs@gmail.com (please put both).

I have experience judging most policy debates that would occur. I have found that there is really only one argument type that I currently won't evaluate which are wipeout based arguments which prioritize saving unknown life to that of saving known life (human/non-human life).

I haven't calculated the percentages but I below are some feelings of where I am in various types of debates.

Policy aff v Core DA - Even

Policy aff v Process CP - 60% for the neg (mostly due to poor affirmative debating rather than argument preference)

Policy aff v K - Probably have voted neg more mostly due to poor affirmative debating or dropped tricks. Side note i'm pretty against the you link you lose style of negative framework, but I have regretfully have voted for it.

Theory v Policy Neg - Probably voted more neg than aff when the aff has a non-sense counter-interpretation (i.e. CI - you get 2 condo). When the aff is just going for condo bad with a more strict counter-interpretation I have voted aff more.

K aff v FW - Probably even to voted aff more (like due to poor negative debating)

K aff v K Neg - Probably judged these the least honestly they don't stick out for me to remember how I voted. I have definitely voted for the Cap K against K affs but I don't know the percentages.

K aff v Policy Neg - (Think State good, Alt Bad, or CP) have judged but can't remember.

I have plenty of more specific thoughts about debate, but mostly those don't play into my decisions. I will add more as the year progresses if something bothers me in a round.

email chain: hillweld32@gmail.com
tl;dr - an argument is a claim+warrant+impact, do your thing and I'll evaluate the debate accordingly

I have debated (and listened to) some of the fastest debaters in the country, and I'm pretty comfortable flowing them. But unless you have the ability to be just as clear as they are, don't sacrifice your clarity to read 50 cards in your 1AC at a nice high pitched humming sound that no one understands. I'll give you two warnings if you're not being clear. Keep your speeches organized, line by line and signposting are important.

T - I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise, and you should impact out why your model for evaluating topicality is good. The same goes for the competing interpretations debate; it's not good enough to say that your interpretation has better/different limits than theirs, I want to know why that's important.

Disads - they're cool. I prefer specific links (specific disads are even better) rather than generic ones, and it will also make your life easier. Impact calculus is very important, but you also have to make sure you win the internal link chain to get you to the impact in the first place. I'll default to utilitarianism (whatever you tell me it means) unless told otherwise but am quite open to other frameworks for evaluating the impact debate.

Counterplans - PICs are cool, case-specific CPs are cool. It's important that you're actually competitive and that you're not placing an unfair burden (whatever that means) on the affirmative.

Theory - Use it strategically, and if one team is clearly making the debate unfair and you can impact out why I should actually care about it, that's when you'll win your theory debate.

Kritiks - Do your thing. Explain the link (ideally it's specific or at least articulated in the context of the aff) and impact it out. Even if your alternative is to reject the team I need to know why I should endorse it as a method to combat whatever impact you present. This is what I've spent the most time thinking about, but I wont be doing any extra work for you.

Framework - I really enjoy K debates but this includes a defense of your framework for the round, whether it's a question of alt solvency or state engagement or whatever, impact it out.

K Affs/Planless Affs - The same way it is with everything else, explain your argument and why I should care about it. I'm open to critiques of engagement practices, the resolution, the debate community, or whatever else you can come up with.

Framework v. K Affs - I'll default to competing interpretations, but the same stuff I said about topicality applies here. These debates will most likely include some question about the pedagogical value of the 1AC and I think that a good explanation of why they create better education (or don't) can be extremely strategic for the aff. Similarly, a role of the ballot is an impact framing argument, the 2NR/2AR isn't going to be able to win on "they dropped the role of the ballot." If you win your impact framing, do your impact calculus.

I will actively listen and work hard to develop my understanding of your arguments as the debate progresses regardless of whether or not I am familiar with your style of debating or type of argument.

Hi. I debated at Glenbrook North HS in Northbrook for 4 years, 1.5 in policy and 2.5 in LD. I was the LD coach at Loyola Blakefield HS in Baltimore for 3 years followed by being the debate coach for Chicagoland Jewish HS in Deerfield, IL, New Trier HS in Winnetka/Northfield, IL, Bronx Science, Beacon HS in Manhattan, the director of debate at Mamaroneck HS in Mamaroneck, NY and currently the director of debate at South Shore International College Prep in Chicago. I've also worked at multiple debate camps and have been a private coach for multiple debaters. Trust me, I've seen it all.

Last updated 4/9/24. Changed some words and added my judge kick stance.

I'm fine being on email chains but I'm not posting my email publicly. Just ask before the round.

General stuff:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. I do not discriminate, I'm find with speed (though sometimes my flowing can be bad), fine with theory, fine with kritiks, whatever you want to do. It's your round, not mine have fun with it.

-Extensions are key! Every extension needs to have the word extend/pull through the flow/or similar wording attached to it. Then it needs to have a warrant for what is being extended, finally the extension needs an impact back to the weighing calculus. If that is the value/value criterion mechanism then it needs to impact back to the VC that is being used for the round. If that is some other mechanism, it needs to be impacted to that weighing mechanism (theory means voters I guess). That weighing mechanism and the warrants for the mechanism should be extended (In a v/vc model the vc should be extended along with the argument). If these things are not done then the arguments will not be evaluated in the same depth and I might not give you credit, or as much credit, for an argument that you may have clearly won on the flow. I guess in simpler terms I have a high threshold for extensions. Also, when extending please extend along with the warrant please compare your arguments to other arguments. The best extensions are not just argument extensions but have comparative weighing along with the arguments.

-Evidence is not inherently preferable for analytics absent some argument for why I should prefer that specific piece of evidence over a generic analytic. Debaters are smart and well researched on the topic (usually) and so should be able to have a command of what is going on equal to/greater than a lot of experts. Trust yourself and talk about why you are correct instead of some rando newspaper writer who has probably done less research than what goes into the typical 1AC.

- WEIGH! One of the things I'm almost always unsure of after a round is which argument to evaluate first. Do I look to the Disad, the spike, the contention 1? Most debate rounds involve multiple arguments that could "come first" and people telling me the order in which to evaluate arguments and which arguments are more important makes my life easier. It also means you'll be more likely to win because the argument that you're saying is most important/comes first is probably also the one that you're winning the most. WEIGH! Seriously WEIGH!

On Non-T affs:

You ought pretend to be topical. Topicality means different things to different people and I think that the topic and what topicality means can change in debate and in different debates. However, the aff should claim that they are talking about the topic. What the topic means to you and how it functions might be different than the "traditional" method and that's fine! How you make that claim or whether that claim is true can be (and should be!) contested in the round.

- Other thing: It has become very clear since 10/7/23 that settler-colonialism justifies mass atrocities. I will vote against it much as I vote against people who say or uphold racist/sexist/homophobic or other harmful ideologies.

- Feel free to come up to me at any tournament and ask me questions about anything, I can't guarantee you a great answer but I can guarantee that I will try to respond.

LD Paradigm:

Things I've noticed about my preferences for debate: (This is just a list of things I like, none of these are necessary to win a round but they do affect my judging)

- I tend to prefer debaters who debated similarly to how I debated. What does this mean? I debated in an old school national circuit LD style. On the aff that meant a very broad criterion with mutually exclusive contentions that I tried to kick out of as much as possible (usually at the end of the 2AR, I had one contention and maybe framework). On the neg, it meant a short NC, no more than 2 minutes, with extensive analytical responses to the aff. While it might not help you win the round, debate has changed a lot, it will help your speaker points.

- I like a 2AR that isn't on the flow. What does this mean? The 2AR should be more of a story speech that merely references the flow. A lot of weighing/crystallizing or time on voting issues.

-I like even/if stories. They tend to make the round clearer and make my life easier.

-LD debaters need to stop saying "we" when referring to themselves. You are a singular human being and not one half of a partnership. If you say "we" while referring to yourself you will lose 0.1 speaker points. I will also interrupt your speeches to ask "who is we?" Be prepared.

-I'm a leftist politically. Property rights arguments and other capitalist arguments are not particularly persuasive to me and I don't like hearing them. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means if you have something else it's probably a good idea to run it.

-I presume coinflip. That means if I can't find any offense or way to vote I will flip a coin to decide the round. I have done this quite a few times and never want to do it again but I'm not afraid to do it and if I think your round warrants it, a coinflip will happen. (That said the only times I've done it has been in rounds where there have been on offense by either side so as long as offense exists I will not flip a coin).

-I like philosophy, I am a philosophy major. That said I'm not good at flowing it, especially when spread at the beginning of the speech. So if you do read philosophy slow down a little bit so that I can catch your arguments.

-Going off that last point, my major is in continental philosophy; which means I take classes on all those critical authors you've wanted to use in rounds. Kritiks are wonderful! If you know what are you talking about, please run them in front of me. Ks do not need an alt, though it is preferable. Make sure to understand the interactions between your position and the position of what your opponent is running.

- Please start the AC/NC with I affirm/I negate. It doesn't take away from your word economy and it gives me a second to "catch up" and get used to your spreading/debating voice so that I don't miss your first argument. You don't need to re-state the resolution though, that's unnecessary.

-Something most debaters forget is that as a judge I do not look to see what you are reading while you are reading it. I don't read the cards on the email chain until after the round. Therefore, be more specific in signposting then off the Martin card 1..2..3 etc. Don't just say Martin, say what Martin said as well, because I might not have gotten the author name Martin but I got the argument they made. Also, be clear about where Martin is on the flow. If Martin is a contention 1 card, say that she is in contention 1. Virtual/Computer debate note: I do ask to be on the email chain but I don't read the cards on the chain until after the round so this still applies.

- Policy style arguments have started to come more and more into LD and people like running them in front of me. That's fine, I really like them. However, if you are running them you also take on policy-style burdens. For example, if you read a plan then you have to fulfill the 4 criteria of the HITS (if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be running a plan. Also, considering the last person to lose on significance was Tom Durkin in the 1978 NDT, significance doesn't matter anymore). Most importantly, is that policy has a status quo whereas LD does not. That means that you need to orally give me the dates of evidence! If you're running a DA I need to know that the uniqueness is actually unique, if it's a plan that the inherency is actually inherent etc. Evidence without dates on it means that I won't give you credit for uniqueness or inherency claims that you need in the debate round. If your opponent points out that you didn't read those dates then I will give zero credit for any uniqueness/inherency claim and assume that your evidence is from 1784 and take away any offense that is based off of that plan/DA (I will also give said opponent at least a 29). So make sure to tell me those dates!

- I've recently read A LOT of social movement theory and have also been actively been involved in crafting strategy for a social movement. This has made me significantly more wary of most kritik alternatives. Kritik alts either make no sense, are not realistic, would never be adopted by wide ranging social movements, or are actively harmful to spreading social movements. It won't change how I vote, if the alt is won, but it does mean that common sense arguments against K alts will be considered more important. But if you look at my earlier stuff from Ks you'll see that I don't even think an alt needs to be read, so, you know, think about that risk.

- A priori/pre-standards arguments/other tricky-esque nibs. If you are losing everything else on the flow I need a reason to uniquely prefer your 3 sentences over the rest of the flow. If that does not happen I will find it very hard to vote for you over somebody else who is winning the rest of the round. Not that I won't evaluate the argument at all it will just be weighed against the rest of the round and if someone else is winning the rest of the round I will vote for the person winning the majority of the round. In simpler words if you go for an a priori, go for it hard. I'm not going to buy it simply because it is dropped.

- Metaethics. Basically, meta-ethics cannot be used as a "magic wand" to get out of framework debate. You still need to provide an ethic to meet your meta-ethic. Just saying my meta-ethical util comes before your ethical deont haha! is not enough. Language might be indeterminate but that doesn't mean we default to util (or deont) unless it's justified.

Since everybody asks me about how I evaluate theory here it is:

I don't mind theory, I will vote on it and I will vote on it in cases where I think no actual abuse has occurred or even times where the argument itself is patently non-abusive. But before you rush to pull out your three theory shells, I really don't like voting on it. Moreover, of all the decisions where people have argued with me after the round, 2/3 of them are because of theory. My paradigm seems to be different than other judges so I would say run theory at your risk. Now of course you're asking why is my paradigm different? Simple because I don't default to a monolithic competing interpretations framework, you don't need a counter-interp/RVI/etc. to win theory (though it is helpful and in a case of offense vs. no offense I'm going to default to offense). I'm not as technical on theory as other judges, simply saying my argument is not abusive, drop the argument not the debater, or even talking about reasonability will probably be enough to convince me to not vote on theory. In other words, I default to reasonability, though will be persuaded otherwise. Also, in a round between two equal theory debaters or even a round where both debaters have competent theory blocks, theory turns into a crapshoot (which, by the way, is most theory rounds) so while I will do my best to sort through it that doesn't mean my decision won't be somewhat random.

Also, I guess most LD judges don't evaluate theory this way so I should point this out. If you only go for theory in the NR/2NR or 2AR then the affirmative/negative does not need a RVI to win the theory debate because the only offense at the end of the round is on theory which means that I am merely evaluating who did the better theory debating and not worrying about substance at all. The RVI only comes into play if there is a contestation of substance AND theory at the end of the debate.

Policy Paradigm:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. My main philosophy is it's your round not mine so do what you want. I think a lot of how I judge policy is probably transferred from LD so look there for good stuff. One caveat to that, if there is something that seems very specific to LD (like saying "we" for example) do not bring that into a policy context.

Obviously I have some caveats for that:

First and foremost is that LD is most of what I've debated and coached. Though policy kids have this outdated version of what LD is, there is now every argument in policy in LD also with extra stuff too! I am fine with speed etc. Don't worry about that but I'm still a LDer at heart so be prepared. I've been mostly coaching policy since 2018 or so meaning that I've caught on to a lot more of the nuances of policy debate. At this point I coach more policy than LD so this is changing.

The other important take away is that social conventions of what you can and cannot do in LD and policy are slightly different. For example, RVIs in LD are not joke arguments but made in almost any theory round (though I don't like RVIs in policy). LD does not have the concept of overviews in the same way as policy and what is considered "line by line" is very different. I've been able to figure out most of these biases but occasionally I'll mess up. Just be aware.

I default to reasonability on T and theory issues.

I don't know why this has become a thing but apparently people don't say AND or NEXT after finishing cards in the 1AC or 1NC. You still need to do that so that I know when to flow.

I just learned what this term means but apparently I judge kick if that matters to you (and I think I'm understanding the term correctly)

Utilitarianism is moral philosophy that evaluates the morality of actions based on the consequences. This means that small scale/structural violence impacts are utilitarian because we care about the consequence of structural violence. Stop saying these arguments are not utilitarian or answering them as if they are not utilitarian. They are.

I feel the need to fix this huge communication issue in the debate community it will start with my judging philosophy. If you are a debater who say any of the following "Obama is president solves for racism" or "we are moving towards less racism cause of Obama or LBS" and the opposing team reading a racism arg/advantage or colorblindness I will instantly vote you down with 25 points for the debater who said it.

Jumping: Novice please don't but if you must which you all will you have 20 seconds after you call for prep to be stop till I consider it stealing prep and instead of restarting prep I will just measure it by the ticker timer in my head (which you do not want). I suggest that you carry a debate jump drive, viewing computer or the cloud system. For Open debaters I get even more angry with the lack of competence you guys have with being responsible when it comes to jumping files and card. I have a soft warmness for debaters who are mostly paper and may involve me smiling like a boy with a crush don't be alarmed it is just me remembering my old days.

Speaking: I believe that clarity comes before all other ideals of what we often fantasize a good speaker to be, a debater has to be clear so that I spend more time analyzing and processing what is said then trying to comprehend what the hell is being said. This helps in the rebuttals when there is more cross applying of arguments instead of me sitting there trying to ponder what argument reference is being made. Speed is something I can adjust to not my general forte yet if you are clear I can primarily make easier adjustments (look I sound like a damn metronome). I tend to give hints towards the wrongs and rights in the round so I won’t be put off if you stare at me every now and then. Debates should be a game of wit and word that upholds morals of dignity and respect do not be rude and or abrasive please respect me, the other team, your partner and of course yourself

The Flow: My hand writing is atrocious just incredibly horrible for others at least I generally flow tags, authors and major warrants in the world of traditional debate. Outside of that with all the other formats poetry, performance, rap, theatricals and so forth I just try to grasp the majority of the speech incorporating the main idea

The K: yeah I so love the K being from a UDL background and having running the K for a majority of my debate career, yet don't let that be the reason you run the K I believe that a great K debate consist of a in-depth link explanation as well as control of the clash. There should be Impact calculus that does more then tell me what the impact is but a justification for how it functionally shapes the round which draws me to have a complete understanding of the Alt versus the plan and there must be some idea of a solvency mechanism so that the k is just simply not a linear disad forcing me to rethink or reform in the status quo (K= reshape the Squo)

The T debate: First I find it extremely hard to remember in my entire debate career where I cast a ballot for topicality alone yet it is possible to get a T ballot you must have a clear abuse story I will not evaluate T if there is not a clear abuse story. Voters are my best friend and will become a prior if well explained and impacted, yet I do believe education and fairness have extreme value just want to know why.

The D/A: Well I actually find myself voting more on the Disad then the K I just think that the disad debate offers more tools for the neg then the K yet it is the debater who optimize these tools that gain my ballot, link debates should contain at least a specific link as well as a an established Brink generic links are not good enough to win a D/A ballot and any good aff team will destroy a a generic link unless there is some support through a link wall. Impact debates must be more than just nuke war kills all you have to place comparative value to the status quo now and after plan passage. Yet a disad is an easier win with the advantages of solvency deficits and the option of competitive counter plans.

The Counter Plan: Competition is key if there is no proof that the end result is not uniquely different from the aff plan it is less likely to capture my ballot. So C/P solvency and competition is where my voter lies on the C/P flow this involves establishing and controlling the clash on the net benefit. PIC's usually rely on proving that the theoretical value of competition is worth my jurisdiction.

Theory: cross apply T only thing with a theory debate that is different is you must be able to show in where the violation actually happens yet I find theory to be easy outs to traditional clash.

Framework: this is where my jurisdiction truly falls and it is the teams’ job to not only introduce the functioning framework but to uphold and defend that their framework is worth singing my ballot towards. I have no set idea of a framework coming into the round your job is to sell me to one and by any means my job is not to look at what framework sounds good but which is presented in a manner that avoids judges intervention (really just the team that prevents me from doing the bulk of the work if any).

In general: I love a good old debate round with tons of clash and where there is an understanding and display of your own intellect I find it hard to judge a round where there is just a display of how well a team can read and make reference to evidence, usually I hope that ends or is done less coming out of the 1AR. I'm a man who finds pleasure in the arts and execution of organic intellect and can better give my decision and opinion based mainly on how one relates back to competitive debate, if debate for you is a card game then it forces me to have to make decision based off my comprehension of the evidence and trust me that is never a good thing, yet a round where the discussion is what guides my ballot I can vote on who upholds the best discursive actions.

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

Hello, my name is Anchal!

I was a policy debater in HS and I am currently an LD/PF coach.

Treat me as a flay judge.

If you are sharing evidence you can add me @ anchal.kanojia@ahschool.com If you call out a card or would like me to look at evidence- make that evident in your speech.

For prep and your speeches time yourselves and your opponents. For speeches I usually keep a timer and I don't flow anything after my timer goes off.

Don't use debate jargon in place of explaining args.

Tech>>Truth

I'm cool with speed but your opponents should be comfortable with your pace. Always be polite and respectful.

For PF

It's a public forum- I'm not a fan of theory, unless there's actual in round abuse. Running disclosure theory against a novice team is abusive. Frameworks are fine.

WARRANTING - please explain your arguments. Do not say "extend this" without explaining why. And please refrain from claiming that you already proved something earlier on without explaining what you did.

As a strat- give me voters and essentially write out my ballot.

For LD

Theory, Ks, etc. are totally fine.

I'm a fan of Ks and cool frameworks :)

I was a policy debater in high school (Glenbrook North) and college (Georgetown) in the 1980s, which means I debated in an era where debaters didn't get to pick judges who they knew agreed with their arguments before the round started.

I have been on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Urban Debate Leagues for the last decade and I have been actively coaching and judging these past four seasons.

I'm a strict tabula rasa judge. Yes, I have my own viewpoints, but I leave them in the hallway and I have voted for and against every type of argument. I'm fine with well-articulated speed. Take CX and the obligation to be polite seriously, because not doing so will affect your points, but please make sure to have fun. Also, please include me on the email chain and include analytics.

Lexington '17

University of Vermont '21

Email: sanjnakrishnan@gmail.com

I debated policy for three years in high school, so I can understand spreading fine in terms of speed-just make sure you're not unintelligible. i will yell clear twice, and after that, if I cannot flow, it's on you.

Whether you're traditional or kritikal, I need impact calculus and round framing, especially within the last two rebuttals. If you can do all this, and do line-by-line, then i'll be extremely pleased and definitely give high speaks.

I do read a lot of kritikal literature but that by no means is to say that 1) I won't vote on policy teams, because I have run a policy aff before and I do understand policy arguments and 2) that you should assume I'm comfortable voting on the k when you haven't explained it. Whatever you run, you need to tell me the story, if it's an offcase, you need to do link analysis as well as any alt/cp explanation

especially for teams that tend to lean on the kritikal side: whether you're aff or neg, I need a clear understanding of how your argument works. you defaulting to jargon isn't going to win you the debate, but you showing that you understand what you're talking about can.

I'm a pretty laidback person, but if y'all make ethical violations (i.e. arguments like racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia etc. good/okay) then it will be an auto-vote down. there is a clear distinction between saying your impact outweighs, versus saying these structural issues are okay/good. also please don't be rude to the people in the round, it just makes the debate very very very unpleasant and makes for a displeasing round.

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.

I will vote on any argument. I prefer to listen to policy debates, but I will vote for kritiks if they are explained well. I am pretty familiar with this topic and most kritiks. Compare evidence and contextualize arguments to the round; if you maximize clash within the round, you will get good speaks. Go for arguments that you are winning, don't let them get away with dropped arguments which means you gotta FLOW. 

Topicality

This is one of my favorite arguments if explained well. There needs to be a clear articulation of why the affirmative team links to the Limits DA and why that is important. The affirmative needs to respond to this. Impacts are necessary for a neg ballot.

Disadvantages

I think DA's are underrated. Explain the story of the DA, do good impact calculus, and most importantly: articulate the link and contextualize the link to the aff. The affirmative needs to win the impact calculus since I find it very hard to win 0% link to the aff. Should be very easy on this topic to substantially reduce the risk of the link to the aff and go after the stupid internal links.

Counterplans

Advantage counterplans + impact turns is a good strategy. Other CP's are good but they should be as specific as possible to the aff. I'm not afraid to pull the trigger on theory. Affirmative needs to win that the CP doesn't solve the case. I've debated the States CP on the aff and neg multiple times, I'm very familiar with the arguments, this can be a very abusive neg position if run correctly and the aff needs to have specific solvency deficits to the States CP. 

Kritiks

I'll vote for them if they are explained well. I'm not a K debater so blippy K tricks in the 2NC and 2NR are not enough for me to vote on. I believe that the aff should get to weigh their aff unless you tell me otherwise. I will default to util unless told otherwise. LINKS NEED TO BE CONTEXTUALIZED. Alt needs to be explained, I'm not gonna vote for an alt if you can't explain why it solves the harms you identify. Don't spread through pre-written overviews. 

Framework

This is probably 50% of the negative debates that I have had. I will vote on all types of framework. Winning an external impact on framework is good. You still need to debate their method on case if you are going for framework. 

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.

I debated at Mary Washington and coached at Wake Forest, then for several national circuit high school teams. I have coached a DC UDL team for the last four years and judge around 100 debates per year. This season (2020-21) I have judged at Kentucky and GDS.

Overall, I will vote for the team that does the best debating. But I do have certain predispositions. That doesn't mean a good team can't overcome them - I've voted for lots of arguments I don't love over the years. But it is harder to win my ballot if you depend on those arguments. A few examples:

(1) Kritik Affs that are not centered on the resolution:

**You should probably strike me.**

I have voted for many K Affs over the years, but it's easier to get me to vote Neg.

Negative arguments I find interesting/compelling:

- Disads can link to the Aff advocacy. Does the Aff advocate universal gun control? That would require legislative action and would likely be extremely controversial/unpopular with a huge part of the electorate. May link to Politics. And so on.
- Existence of a Topical Version of the Aff means I vote Neg: I believe most K Aff teams are trying, at least in part, to avoid debating Disads and Counterplans. If the Neg can show me there is a policy or topical action that would allow for the same criticism or Alt, I'm much more likely to vote Neg.
- Forum selection: I'm still puzzled about why Policy debate is the right space to advocate non-policy actions. If you show up to a tennis tournament, don't expect to win because your Rook took the Queen. Tennis is not Chess, and Policy debate is about ... policy.

Merely saying the above won't win a Negative ballot. A good Aff can overcome these arguments. But I am predisposed to them.

(2) Kritiks on the Neg:

I'm much more open to Neg K's than non-topical K Affs. I have voted Neg on every K imaginable, even though many of them seem incredibly generic and frankly dumb. A few are topic-specific and much more compelling. Arguments that interest me include:

- Is the Alt a speech act or a counterplan? Just because the Neg advocates an Alt, I don't assume it will happen. It's the Neg's burden to explain how voting Neg in a debate advances their Alt worldview.
- Is "serial policy failure" an actual solvency takeout? Most of time time it is not. Neg teams should explain why AND HOW the Aff's flawed assumptions/process actually takes out their specific solvency mechanism. "State action always fails" is deeply unpersuasive to me. For example, if the Aff has credible evidence that US arms sales lead to human rights violations, generic "state action bad" claims are unlikely to persuade me that banning the arms sales can't solve. Of course that action may create other problems - and that's very debatable.

(3) Policy Arguments:

I like Disads with specific links and CPs with specific solvency. I'm totally open to Agent CPs and disads, and believe Politics DAs, while generic, are essential to Policy debate.

I believe a DA can have zero risk, either because there is no specific link, no uniqueness, or no internal link. All of these things should be explained and supported with evidence and analysis. I pay attention to dates on Uniqueness cards. If the 1NC is reading uniqueness evidence from Summer 2020, you should probably lose.

On the Policy Aff side, a lot of 1ACs lack internal links to impacts, and 1AC cards are highlighted down to almost nothing. There is value in pointing these things out.

(4) Other issues:

- ****MAKE ANALYTICAL ARGUMENTS. These are almost extinct, but I will vote on good ones.****
- Speed is fine. If I say "clearer" then you should SLOW DOWN.
- Organization of speeches is critical. Jumping around the flow = bad speaker points.
- Be civil. Don't be mean or overly harsh. Don't make the round personal.

High threshold for framework but don’t be afraid to read T in front of me.

Need to be sold on impacts for FW

dont be racist, sexist or homophobic, or it will be reflected on your RFD

and/or speaker points.

I have an extensive history in performative/Krikal debate but also in traditional policy. So no real preference for either side just enjoy judging competitive debates

Prefer clarity over speed just like most humans

This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.

I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.

Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.

H.montague1998@gmail.com

OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague

UNDER CONSTRICTION:

Tech or Truth?

I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.

I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.

LD PARADIGM

In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.

On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.

A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.

On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.

On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.

On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?

PF PARADIGM

In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.

General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.

On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.

POLICY PARADIGM

On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.

One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.

On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.

On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.

One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.

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!

In college, my debate style was left of center, but I was trained at Emory which means as much as I lean toward critiques and performance debates as my personal preference, I am equally as qualified to judge straight up policy debates. In debates where the policy framework meets the critical framework I vote for the team with the better argument even if I find the opposing teams position more interesting or entertaining, I can reward that with speaker points.
I don’t have any preconceived ideas about debate theory, so I tend to vote directly on the flow. If you win the theory argument and it has implications that you explain, I’m more than willing to vote there.
I am open to and willing to engage alternative stylistic practices and choices for debates.
I hate reading evidence after a debate because it means that the debaters have been sloppy and inefficient in explaining and defending their arguments. Thus, I only read cards if you have not done your job. That being said, if there is evidence you would like to be a part of my consideration because if I need to read evidence, I will only call for what has been directly referenced by you.
Important things to know about debating in front of me. I like smart asses, in general, but I think too many people cross the line in debate. So be forceful and aggressive, but watch the rudeness factor with the other team. I can be very supportive and will offer suggestions both for improving debate skills, but also in improving arguments, and pointing to interesting directions for more evidence.

CURRENT THINGS WITH JAYE:

I am currently working as an assistant coach to the Newark Science debate team. I am very much indebted to debate for the person that I am today. I find debate (and especially debate rounds) to be very much a part of life. This means that I would encourage everyone to understand that the things you say in a debate round have real implications even outside of the debate round. Fellow debaters and opponents in the past, present, and future are not just obstacles, but are other people whether that is outside or inside civil society. Debate does not allow the things you say to exist in a vacuum, so as a judge, coach, educator, and a petty black man I will not tolerate or evaluate the following ideas (LIKE EVER):

RACISM GOOD/ RACISM DOES NOT EXIST

SOCIAL DEATH GOOD

STOPPING WARMING WILL SOLVE RACISM

(These are the only things that come to mind at the moment, I know and will try and add more, but understand I put these first for a reason.)

BACKGROUND THINGS WITH JAYE:

I’m a proud member of the Eastside debate team senor class of 2014. I am the closest friend with Daniel Mendes (who all of sudden became a celebrity in HS debate) and Chaz Wyche (if you don’t know about him you shouldn’t worry about it to affect my judging.). From my time on the Eastside debate team (Eastside BR) I am a member of the few teams from Newark to ever get a TOC bid (Scranton 2013) in over a decade. All my time in policy debate has been devoted to traveling, and debating in national tournaments all over the country (Scranton, Yale, Georgetown, Emory, U-Penn, NAUDL, etc). During my travels I have had Elijah Smith (CEDA AND NDT 2012 CHAMPION), Chris Randall (CEDA AND NDT NATIONAL 2013 DEBATER, and also Elijah’s partner), and Willie Johnson (CEDA 2013 FINAL ROUND JUDGE) as my coaches and most influential to my success as a debater. I am luck enough to have even judged at the college level of policy debates at tournaments such as Vermont, and West point and look forward to judging the HS level. 

DEBATE THINGS WITH JAYE:

GENERIC THING WITH JAYE:

I’ll try and be quick and painless for the people who are waiting to know how they should pref me. Now I have judged policy, critical, and performance, but I find performance to be the debates I’m truly most comfortable with. If you could not tell by the three coaches I have stated above, I am very familiar with performance rounds and by coincidence I am also a performance debater. I ran an Afro-pessimist critiques in all my national tournaments my senior year (exception Yale and Georgetown: I ran Decolonaility, there is a difference btw). At all the other the tournaments I have read at least 2 Wilderson cards in every speech I’ve given. There are other authors that I read that talk about anti-blackness, but the point is that if you are talking about black people I have probably read the books/articles they came from. Now policy is by no means something I can’t judge. No performance debaters I know have started out running performance arguments, the same is true for me that I had to learn policy debate in order to be the debater I am today so I’ll talk about the specifics of policy first. 

POLICY THINGS WITH JAYE:

TOPICALLY

• AFF

You should pick up on whether the negative will truly go for the argument, and let that choose how you will answer in the 2ac and 1ar. Reasonability is a really strong argument in front of me, but that does not excuse you for dropping any arguments that can be used to make topically important.

• NEG

I do evaluate topically. If you are going for topically you need to go hard people. I will not vote for topically if you don’t hard for me in the block. I need in round abuse, topical versions of the Aff, and voters that are going to be impacted in the round in order for me to take topically as more than a time crew you thought of for the round. If you actually do go for topically in the 2nr (which I would be beyond shock and a little impressed if you do it well) to make me vote on topically you need to go for this argument for the whole five minutes. Topically is a prior question in the round it would only make sense to just go for topically in the 2nr. The way I see topically used now as a time screw for a very minimal infraction of the Affirmative that is probably resolved through reasonability.   

THEORY

• AFF

 The best thing you could do for me would to try and set up theory in cross x. A simple “What is the status of the off case position?” would help me to at least prepare for a theory debate. I also like theory on a separate flow so that needs to be in the order at the beginning of the speech.  That helps me evaluate the separate offense and defense on that debate. Theory like topically needs to have same time spent on it in order for me to vote for this argument. Your tagline will not be enough for me.  

• NEG

It is of the utmost importance for you to set this argument up in cross x for me if you can. Theory should also be on a separate flow, and similar to what I said on the Aff. You need to spend time on his to have me vote on this.  

FRAMEWORK

• AFF

For the Affirmative the framework is really helpful to how I should evaluate. I can guest that a utilitarian framework is the way to evaluate your impacts or you can tell that utilitarianism is the framework, and give some comparative analysis if the negative has their own framework.  A role of the ballot and judge is something you also want in any 2ac because it makes sense.

• NEG

I’m talking about the “Resolved means a USFG topical policy action”. This type of frame is the scorn of my life. You don’t know how many times I’ve heard this argument. I WILL CRINGE EVERY TIME I HEAR THIS ARGUEMNT. I will unfortunately listen to the argument, but no one will like this debate. I believe that you should probably just run the topical version of the plan against whatever Aff you didn’t care to engage with. You can still weight all the education and ground arguments, but we now have a better debate, and I’ll be a lot happier.

AFFFIRMATIVE

All Policy affirmatives NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR LINE BETWEEN THE INTERNAL LINK AND THE IMPACT OF EACH ADVANTAGE. I also need a clear line to the SOLVENCY AND HOW THAT WORKS FOR EACH ADVANTAGE. The Aff should tell a story and have a good flow to it. This means the Aff should not be you trying to read as many cards as you can in the 1ac. The 1ac should be slow on tags to contribute to the idea of telling a story. Even policy Affs can be creative. Don’t be afraid to something other than nuclear war/extinction and have some cool advantage with a framework behind how I should evaluate the advantage. The best example of this I can tell you is probably structural violence advantage that stops something like police brutally, but this will require work. I will be happy to see that effort in a debate round and be sure to recognize you in some way for that work.   (Probably a speaker higher)

DISADVANTAGES

They are ok, but make sure think is a clear link to the Aff. You also need to tell me how to evaluate this impact in round. The answer is YES! I would like a specific impact calculus for the round that compares all the impacts in the round.

COUNTER PLANS

If the counter plan doesn’t make any sense after the permutation then I will probably not vote for the counter plan. It needs to complete. That means a net benefit and a reason why the Aff is a bad idea. I believe that even if the counter plan solves the Aff it does not mean game over. The negative still needs a reason why the Aff is a bad idea on top of the net benefit or I will just vote Aff on the permutation. 

CRITICAL THINGS WITH JAYE:

• AFFIRMATIVE

This for the Affirmative that have a plan text, but have a very philosophical background:

YOUR AWSOME 

• CRITQUE

I LOVE CRITQUES, BUT IF YOU DON”T KNOW THE LITERATURE I WILL NOT LIKE YOU. This simply means if you read a critique you should have picked a book and read. Not just the introduction, but have read the book. You can easily tell an experience K debater from someone who is just beginning. I find that people can earn high speaks here, but with all high speaks they come to those who have a working knowledge of the hell they are talking about. Know Your Stuff. Links need to be as clear as possible. The better the link story, the better the speaker points. The alternative needs to solve the Aff or resolve the essential question posed in the debate. Make sure I know what the world of the alternative looks like. If you say that you end the work I need to know what the process looks like because my ballot will final end the world and I’ll take great pride in that.  

PREFORMANCE THINGS WITH JAYE:

• AFFIRMATIVE

As stated above I’m very comfortable with this argument. Be sure to have some clear connection to the topic. IF YOU RUN THIS ARGUMENT YOU ARE THE REASON WHY THE SUN SHINES (not really tho)

• NEGATIVE

I do believe that the negative can also have performances. These are really trick to deploy in a round sometime, but when done correctly they are one the most powerful arguments in debate. I prefer these debates to happen when the Aff gives there performance, and he neg provides a counter performance/methodology. These argument hold a special place in my heart as this was the only I ran on the negative of my senior. There is nothing special you get from me by reading this argument but that shouldn’t hinder you from reading this argument in front on me anyway.    

END OF THNGS WITH JAYE

I am a high school debater from Baltimore City College, so take what you will from that. I'm a senior and it is my fourth year debating on the national circuit. 

I primarily debate the k and k-ish policy affs and I love kritiks. I think kritikal debate is good for the sport and personally believe it to be good for the community. 

While I do admit to having a bias toward K debate, I will vote on almost anything if you win the debate. I wholeheartedly believe that debate should be about even competition that is based on what is said in round and how it affects the outside world, not the other way around. And while I do have a fondness for the k, if you suck at the k or seem blatantly apathetic to the argument you are making do not run the k. At least make me feel as though this activity is important to you. Same goes for if you are clearly reading something you don't know anything about-reading Nietzche and Baudrillard and Wilderson if you haven't actually read any of them is my biggest pet peeve.

Though I err on the side of k debate I respect and like policy debate too.  I will vote for almost anything as long as it is argued well. But if you are debating policy, don't lose the 1AC by the end of the round. Seriously. 

T: I really dislike this argument in 99% of situations. If the other team answers it reasonably I will not vote on it. Read something responsive. T is not responsive. If you plan on winning T it better be the whole 2NR or else I'll give the 2AR a lot of leeway on it unless the 1AR just straight dropped it, but you still need an impact T alone is not a voter. Also if you go for T, especially against a K Aff there damn sure better be some real impacts. I mean real world impacts. Weighing your "education" against systemic issues is not going to be an easy debate to win in front of me.

Framework: I don't really like this either, but I'll give it more weight then T. There better be a topical version of the aff and you have to really explain to me why it is a voter at the end of the debate. 

But really at the end of the day I am just going to vote for whoever does the better debating in the round, so make sure to have fun and be passionate. 

carolynsacco99@gmail.com

Email chain: kaisamng@gmail.com

Current Position: Debate Coach, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology

Debate and Coaching Experience: Stuyvesant High School; founder of UDL debate program at Capital City PCS (3 years). Urban Debate Coach of the year (2016).

What you should know about me: I try to be pretty fairly impartial, and have enjoyed most debates I've judged in the ~7ish years that I've judged, so I will vote on almost anything as long as you tell me how to vote, and you tell me why it's better than what the other team is saying. If you don't tell me how to vote, I default to my general philosophy, which is below.

I believe tech> truth, but within reason. If you drop a tiny warrant in a 3-second warrant, it's not game over. On the other hand, it's possible to functionally concede entire off-cases, and I just won't look at them.

I don't hide my emotions in-round. If I'm frowning, it means I think what you're saying at the moment is weird. Not necessarily in a bad way-- just that I'm thinking. Just be prepared for it.

As a math teacher at TJ, I believe structure is everything. Debate can and should be conceptually messy, but not technically messy. You should make every effort to structure your speech. (See pet peeves below)

My defaults on specific argument types:

How I view debate: debate is an educational game, and there are specific rules that everybody has implicitly agreed to when walking into a room. I believe procedural fairness is a better way to evaluate terminal impacts to framework, unless you give me a compelling reason why I should default to something else first. I take a cynical view on this-- ultimately, y'all are gonna leave with a speaker trophy and go home. If your advocacy is predicated on the opposite, it doesn't take much to convince me of the opposite, but you have to lay out the narrative. The terminal impact I almost always evaluate is education. (Define education however you want). Framework is always a prior question that must be evaluated first.

I believe that a policy simulation can be good, and is inherently unique to makes policy debate special. But it doesn't take much to swing me the other way, especially if you make the argument. Be prepared to debate it out, though.

Gonna be on a soapbox a little bit: policy debate has always traditionally favored schools with more resources, e.g. full time coaching staff, lots of travel expenditures, etc. I do believe that policy models of debate (with some exceptions, like identity fws) give a better access point for debaters from all schools, not just those that have a ton of money and time to cut critical literature. I do think the pivot towards high theory and critical debate has favored debate teams with structural advantages overall, instead of the other way around.

Impact framing: Do this. If not, I vote for the side that kills less people. I love moral obligation arguments, but you need to tell me why I should prefer moral obligation. I think sometimes blocks put you at a disadvantage because you miss the forest for the trees, and don't do enough impact calc (timeframe/magnitude/probability). Love impact calc, and it wins you debates.

Topicality: I default to evaluating competing interpretations, and while you should evaluate impacts, you also need to respond to the internal links of the other team! Too often T doesn't have enough clash (see how I feel about blocks sometimes). I hate messy T debates. If you know you're going for T on the neg, y'all better have some good structure.

I err closer to reasonability, especially if you're running T against a relatively popular aff for the topic.

Disads: generic links are okay, but you must do more work as a neg to substantiate your link through cross, empirics, etc.

Counterplans: I like counterplans, and am saddened they're not as utilized this topic! I think running condo bad is dumb, unless the neg runs like 2+ conditional counterplans. It is the aff's burden to prove that their perm is functionally competitive.

Kritiks: generic links are okay here too, but you must do in-round work with c-x and empirics to prove the link. If your link story is weaksauce, I'm not voting on your K. Love root cause arguments, and usually am more inclined to vote on those.

Please contextualize your alt in terms of my ballot. Give me a good story about what happens after I vote neg. I honestly think that 80+% of teams do a terrible job of explaining an alternative and, while I will begrudgingly vote on it (tech>truth), I will definitely mark teams down on speaker points. When neg teams can't explain what the alt is, it's not functionally competitive to the aff and I'm more likely to vote on any non-abusive perm.

Foucault, Bataille, and Nietzsche have a soft spot in my heart. Okay with D&G and Baudrillard, just make sure you explain yourself.

When you run a K because it just sounds cool and you didn't take the time to comb through the literature base, it's really obvious. I don't like teams that run Ks predicated off of winning because the other team would be unfamiliar with the criticism, as opposed to actually believing in the criticism. Again, I will begrudgingly vote on it (tech>truth), but I will definitely mark teams down on speaks.

K Affs: Your K aff is fine, and I have no problem with them-- I like a good K aff! Historically, in K aff debates with framework, I've voted for framework ~60% of the time.

Theory: Well constructed, well formed, and well-extended arguments are a compelling reason for me to vote for you. But don't run some 3 second argument and expect I'm going to vote for you on that. Your cards are a tool for you to explain your arguments, not a blurb you read to cover your bases.

Death Good/ DeDev: I will vote on this if I have to but I hate death good and dedev arguments. They often expose how privileged and out of touch policy debaters (with their full time coaching staff, expense accounts, and casual dropping of $100+ in entry fees) are.

Pet peeves:

Don't be mean to each other.

I'm fine with people using USB drives and emailing speeches to each other, but if you take more than 30 seconds, you should throw out your computer and go back to using paper.

If you slur while spreading, I prefer you just speak slower.

Please give a roadmap before you start your speech. Please tell me to switch flows. This is the thing that I deduct speaker points for the most.

Open c-x is fine but don't dominate your partner's open c-x.

First of all +1 for actually reading judging paradigms. You've already started off well.

Add me to the email chain: devon.debate@gmail.com

Experience: I debated for three years in high school at Baltimore City College and now I'm one of their coaches. This is my fifth year judging HS debate.

Paradigm: Just a general overview of how I judge debates: I'm fine with spreading as long as you are clear enough. I will listen to almost anything and as long as it's argued well. A dropped argument is a true argument (within reason). I like competitive spirit but don't be a terrible person. By that I mean you can get fiery in your speeches and cross-ex but personal attacks are not cool unless they are really out of line (i.e. they said something outright offensive: racist, sexist, patriarchal, heteronormative,etc.). I want to see a good debate so run what you're comfortable with and know what you're talking about please.

Specifics: Now I'll talk about a few things that are more specific to argumentative style and my own preferences.

DISCLAIMER: Everything beyond this point is my point of view so you should take it with a grain of salt. I'll always judge a debate based on what happens in the round not based on how I feel about the arguments ran. However I will tell you how I felt after the round.

K: I primarily debated kritically during my debating career so that is naturally what I prefer to hear and I know more about. If you run a K, you can trust that I'll probably have a good idea of what you're talking about unless you are running something really obscure.

I read a lot of Deleuze and Foucault myself so I have a higher threshold for these arguments. I really hate generic answers to these arguments...but they can win the debate if they aren't answered well.

Race, so this is an interesting subject. I have read some of the literature behind most classic race arguments and my team has read(or is currently reading) most of the better kritical race theory arguments so I am used to hearing them and I understand them very well. Thus likewise, I expect them to be run well or you are already starting off from behind in my book. If you are an all white partnership, be careful what you say. I'm not going to vote you down for being wrong but being offensive can affect speaker points. So I will listen, just don't say anything that will make me regret that.

Policy: I wouldn't say that straight up policy is something that I love listening to but I will listen to it. Keep it clean. Keep it understandable. Otherwise I have no issues.

T: I really dislike this argument in 99% of situations. If the other team answers it reasonably I will not vote on it. Read something responsive. T is not responsive. If you plan on winning T it better be the whole 2NR or else I'll give the 2AR a lot of leeway on it unless the 1AR just straight dropped it, but you still need an impact. T alone is not a voter. Also if you go for T, especially against a K Aff there damn sure better be some real impacts. I mean real world impacts. Weighing your "education" against systemic issues is not going to be an easy debate to win in front of me.

Theory: I have nothing for or against theory. Be articulate and make sure I understand all the parts of your argument and why what they're doing is bad.

At the end of the day when I'm judging I really just want to see a good debate so if you give me that you can be sure that I will judge it fairly and unbiased.

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.

jon sharp

Director of Debate @ GDS (the actual GDS, not the camp, not the affinity group, not the cultural phenomenon...well, maybe the cultural phenomenon...)

(Relevant) Background: Debated in HS (program doesn't exist any more) and college (Emory); coached at Emory, West GA, USC, New Trier, Kentucky, and GDS; taught around 75 labs (including, but not limited to the Kentucky Fellows, SNFI Swing Lab, Berkeley Mentors, Antilab, and the forthcoming Quantum Lab). This is what i do - i teach, coach, and judge debate(s). This is both good and bad for you.

This is Good for You: One could say that i have been around, as it were. If you want to do something that people do in debates, i got you. If you want to do something that people don't do in debates, i won't freak out.

This is Bad for You: This ain't my first rodeo. If you want to do something that people do in debates, i have seen it done better and worse. If you want to do something that people don't do in debates, i probably remember the last time that somebody did it in a debate.

Are You For Real? Yah, mostly...i just don't think judging philosophies are all that helpful - any judge that is doing their job is going to suspend disbelief to as great an extent as possible and receive the debate in as much good faith as they can muster...but almost nobody is upfront enough about what that extent looks like.

Well, that's not especially helpful right now. OK, you make a strong point, imaginary interlocutor. Here are a few things that may actually help:

1 - Flow the Debate - I flow the debate. On paper. To a fault. If you do not take this into account, no matter how or what you debate, things are going to go badly for you. Connecting arguments - what used to be called the line-by-line - is essential unless you want me to put the debate together myself out of a giant pile of micro-arguments. You Do Not Want This. "Embedded clash" is an adorable concept and even can be occasionally helpful WHEN YOU ARE MANAGING THE REST OF THE FLOW WITH PRECISION. There is no such thing as "cloud clash."

2 - Do What You are Going to Do - My job isn't to police your argument choices, per se; rather, it is to evaluate the debate. If debaters could only make arguments that i agreed with, there would not be much reason to have these rounds.

3 - If you are mean to your opponents, it is going to cause me to have sympathy/empathy for them. This is not an ideological position so much as an organic reaction on my part.

4 - "K teams," "identity teams," and non-traditional/performance teams pref me more than policy teams - Make of that what you will.

5 - Stop calling certain strategic choices "cheating" - This is one of the few things that just sends my blood pressure through the roof...i know you like to be edgy and i respect your desire to represent yourself as having no ethical commitments, but this is one of the worst developments in the way people talk and think about debate since the advent of paperlessness (which is essentially The Fall in my debate cosmology). Reading an AFF with no plan is not cheating; reading five conditional CPs in the 2NC is not cheating; consult NATO is not cheating. Clipping cards is cheating; fabricating evidence is cheating, consulting your coach in the middle of the debate is cheating. An accusation of an ethics violation (i.e., cheating) means that the debate stops and the team that is correct about the accusation wins the debate while the team that is wrong loses and gets zeroes. This is not negotiable. Ethics violations are not debate arguments, they do not take the form of an off-case or a new page and they are not comparable to anything else in the debate.

Also - just ask.

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. 

David Trigaux

Former (HS + College) debater, 15+ years experienced coach / increasingly old

Director, Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

15 Sec Summary:

I judge 30 rounds at national circuit tournaments each year, cut A LOT of cards on each topic, and am somewhere in the middle of the argumentation spectrum. I often judge clash debates. I have some slight preferences (see below), but do your best and be creative. I am excited to hear whatever style/substance of argumentation you'd like to make.

Recent Update: 2/6/24

1. **New Pet Peeve** Plan / Counterplan Flaws: The plan text / advocacy statement is the focus of the exchange -- you should put some effort into writing it, wording it correctly, etc. I've found myself very persuadable by plan flaw arguments if a substantive normal means argument can be made, and heavily reward the wit and research to prepare such arguments. Obviously flawed texts just come off as lazy, sketchy, or both. This also includes circular plan texts -- "we should do X, via a method that makes X successful" isn't a plan text, it's wishful thinking, but unfortunately repeatedly found in 3-1 debates at TOC qualifiers.

Accessibility:

I run an Urban Debate League; debate is my full-time job. I work with 700+ students per season, ranging from brand new ES and MS students refining their literacy skills and speaking in front of someone else for the first time to national circuit teams looking to innovate and reach the TOC. Both debaters are equally valuable members of the community and accessibility is a big issue for me. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship and strategies as presented to me in round, but folks gotta be able to get into the space and be reasonably comfortable first.

5 Min Before Round Notes:

• Speed: I can handle whatever you throw at me (debate used to be faster than it is now, but it doesn't mean that full speed is always best) 75% Speed + emotive gets more speaks.
• Policy v Kritik: I was a flex debater and generally coach the same way, though I have run/coached 1 off K and 1 off policy strategies. Teams that adapt and have a specific strategy against the other team almost always do better than those that try to just do one thing and hope it matches up well.
• Theory: I often find these debates shallow and trade-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and show me why you don't have other options.
• Creativity + Scholarship: *Moving up for emphasis* I heartily reward hard work, creative thinking, and original research. Be clever, do something I haven't heard before. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat. (Read: Don't barf Open Ev Downloads you can't contextualize) Go do some research!
• Performance: “Back in my day….” Performance Affs were just being invented, and they had a lot more actual “performance” to them (music, costume, choreography, etc.). Spreading 3 lines of poetry and never talking about it again doesn't disrupt any existing epistemologies, etc. I have coached a few performative teams and find myself more and more excited about them....when there is a point to the performance. Focus on why / what the net benefit is of the unique argument / argumentation style.
• Shadow Extending: I intentionally don’t flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you. Novices get a lot of latitude here; I am always down to help folks develop the fundamentals. Try extending things even if it isn't perfect.
• Email Chains: This is a persuasive activity. If I don’t hear it/flow it, you didn't do enough to win the point and I’m not going to read along and do work for you. I’ll look through the cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your evidence.
• About "the State": I was born and current live in Washington D.C., have a graduate degree in Political Science, and worked in electoral politics and on public policy issues outside debate. This has shaped a pre-disposition that "governance" is inevitable. The US government has a poor track-record on many issues, but I find generic "state always bad" links unpersuasive, historically untrue, and/or insufficiently nuanced. I think you are better than that, and I challenge you to make nuanced, well researched claims instead. Teams that do usually win and get exceedingly high speaker points, while those that don't usually lose badly. This background also makes me more interested in implementation and methodology of change (government, social movement, or otherwise) than the average judge, so specific and beyond-the-buzzword contextualization on plan/alt, etc. solvency are great.
• Artificial Intelligence: I am going to flesh out these thoughts as the season goes, and as I talk to the great, thoughtful peers in the community, but initially, reading rebuttals written by generative AI seems to be cheating, and actively anti-educational, so if you are doing that, don't, and if you suspect the other team is, raise it as an issue.

Ways to Lose Rounds / Speaker Points:

1. Being Mean -- I am very flexible with speaker points, heavily rewarding good research, wit, and humor, and am very willing to nuke your speaker points or stop the round if you are demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.
2. Leave D.C. Out: Don't leave D.C. out of your States CP Text or other relevant advocacy statements. Its bad policy writing, and continues a racialized history of erasure and abuse of the 750,000 + majority black residents who live here and experience taxation without representation. Don't perpetuate it.
3. Make Debate Less Accessible: I run an Urban Debate League; it is my professional responsibility to make debate more accessible.
1. If you erect a barrier to accessing this activity for someone else, I will vote you down, give you the lowest possible speaker points, report you to TAB, complain to your coach, and anything else I can think of to make your time at this tournament less enjoyable and successful.
2. This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own) when in person. This is a big accessibility question for the activity that gets overlooked a lot especially post pandemic, many of our debaters still use paper files.
4. Rude Post-Rounding (especially if it is by someone who didn't watch the round): I will contact tab and vigorously reduce speaker points for your team after submission.
5. Multi-Minute Overviews: Don't.
6. Extinction Good: Don't be a troll, get a better strategy that isn't laced with nasty racial undertones. This is a place where theory makes sense -- show me why they don't give you another choice.
7. Intentionally Trolly High Theory or Technobabble Arguments: If you just want to demonstrate how good you are that you can make up nonsense and win anyway, strike me. There should be a point to what you say which contributes to our understanding of the world.
8. Highly Inaccurate Email Chains: Unfortunately, some folks put a giant pile of cards they couldn’t possibly get through in the email chain, and skip around to the point of confusion, making refutation (and flowing) difficult. It’s lazy at best and a cheap move at worst and will impact your speaks if I feel like it is intentional.
9. **New Pet Peeve** Plan / Counterplan Flaws: The plan text / advocacy statement is the focus of the exchange -- you should put some effort into writing it, wording it correctly, etc. I've found myself very persuadable by plan flaw arguments if a substantive normal means argument can be made. It just comes off as lazy, sketchy, or both. This also includes circular plan texts -- "we should do X, via a method that makes X successful" isn't a plan text, it's wishful thinking, but unfortunately repeatedly found in 3-1 debates at TOC qualifiers.

In the Weeds

Disadvantages:

· I like DAs. Too many debates lack a DA of some kind in the 1NC.

o Do:

§ Research! Cut Updates! Quote a card from this week! I am a huge sucker for new evidence and post-dating, and will make it rain speaker points. Have some creative/Topic/Aff specific DAs.

o Don’t:

§ Read something random off Open Ev, Read an Elections DA after the election / not know when an election is, or be wrong about what the bill you are talking about does on Agenda Politics DAs. I wouldn't have to put it here if it didn't keep happening folks....

o Politics DA: Given my background in professional politics, I am a big fan of a well-run/researched politics DA. I read Politico and The Hill daily, enjoy C-SPAN, and many of my best friends work for Congress -- I nerd out for this stuff. I also know that there just isn't a logical scenario some weekends. Do your research, I’ll know if you haven’t.

Counterplans:

· I like a substantive counterplan debate.

o Do:

§ Run a Topic/Aff specific CP, with a detailed, well written/explained CP Texts and/or have some topic specific nuance for Generics (like Courts).

§ Use questionably competitive counterplans (consult, PIC, condition, etc.) that are supported by strong, real world solvency advocates.

§ Substantive, non-theoretical responses (even if uncarded) to CPs.

o Don’t:

§ Forget to perm.

§ Fake a net benefit

§ Default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses too.

Procedurals/Topicality:

· Can be a strong strategy if used appropriately/creatively. If you go into the average round hoping to win on Condo, strike me.

o Do:

§ Prove harm

§ Have qualified evidence and intent to define

§ Slow down. Less jargon, more examples

§ Creative Violations

o Don’t:

§ Use procedurals just to out-tech your opponents, especially if this isn't Varsity.

Case Debate:

· More folks should debate the case, cards or not. Do your homework pre-tournament!

o Do:

§ Have specific attacks on the mechanism or advantage scenarios of the Aff, even if just smart analytics.

§ Make fun impact and link turns that aren't arguing that racism / sexism, etc. is good.

o Don’t:

§ Concede the case for no reason

§ Spend a lot of time reading arguments you can’t go for later or reading new cards that have the same warrants already in the 1AC

Kritiks:

· I started my debate career as a 1 off K Debater and grew to see it as part of a balanced strategy, a good strategy against some affs and not others.

o Do:

§ Read a K that fits the Aff. Reading the same K against every Aff on a topic isn't often the most strategic thing to do.

§ Read Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links.

§ Have coherent Alt solvency with real world examples that a non-debater can understand without having read your solvency author.

§ Tell a non-jargony story in your overview and tags

o Don’t:

§ Read hybrid Ks whose authors wouldn't agree with one another and don't have a consistent theory of power.

§ Read a K you can’t explain in your own words or one that you can’t articulate why it is being discussing a competitive forum or what my role listening to your words is.

o Literature: I have read a lot of K literature (Security, Cap, Fem, Anti-Blackness, etc.) but nobody is well versed in all literature bases. Explain your theory as if I haven't read the book.

o Role of the Ballot: I default to serving as a policymaker but will embrace alternative roles if you are clear what I should do instead in your first speech.

· Update: I find myself judging a lot of psychoanalysis arguments, which I find frustratingly unfalsifiable or just hard to believe or follow. I'd love to be proven wrong, but run at your own risk.

Public Forum: (Inspired by Sim Low, couldn't have said it better)

I'm sorry that you're unlucky enough to get me as a judge. Something went wrong in tournament admin, and they made me feel guilty enough that I haven't found a way to get out of judging this round.

I did enough congress and LD in high school to assure you I am not a policy debate supremacist from a lack of exposure to other formats, but because peer reviewed research says that it is the most educational and rigorous format that benefits its participants. I also find the growing popularity of the format that is proud of its anti-intellectualism and despite research that shows it is discriminatory against women and minorities reprehensible.

As a judge, I'll be grumpy and use all of your pre-round time to tell you how PF was created as a result of white flight and the American pursuit of Anti-Intellectualism far more than you want to hear (but less than you need, if you are still doing PF). If you do not have cards with proper citations, you paraphrase, and/or you don't have full text evidence ready to share with the other team pre-round, I will immediately vote for your opponents. If both of you happen to ignore academic integrity, I will put my feet up, not flow, and vote based on.....whatever vibes come to me, or who I agree with more. I also might extend my RFD to the length of a policy round to actually develop some of the possibilities of your arguments. Without academic integrity, this is a Speech event and will be judged accordingly.

Patrick Waldinger 

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School 

10+ years judging 

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I, as the judge, have the option to kick the CP for them. You may think this is a mere semantic difference. That’s fine – but I DON’T. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it post-round (3NR?).

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area.  The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree. 

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for. 

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making. 

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.

It's cool frfr. I'll judge your round. Don't be a racist or w/e and make your arguments well.

-See Devon Schley's Paradigm, we're basically the same person but I like Afropess less-

Lexington '17

Emory '21

4 years on the national circuit, broke at most octas-bid tourneys senior year of high school.

I've judged 15 rounds on the immigration topic so far. That being said, immigration is still a pretty complex topic so please don't assume I'll know every single law or policy you're referencing, or minute distinctions right off the bat. I tend to read along to the 1AC and 1NC. I flow straight down on paper so please do good LBL

CPs: I evaluate CPs by starting with the perm. If there's no perm, I evaluate solvency deficits in relation to risk of net-benefits. I haven't thought much about CP theory so when evaluating "cheating" CPs although just based off of the theory arguments against cheating CPs I might be slightly aff leaning, but I don't think CP theory would be a reason to reject the team, but definitely willing to use it as leverage to get rid of certain parts of the CP because those parts might be abuse e.g. kicking uniformity planks on 50 states because they're abusive.

K: I'm familiar with most "policy" kritiks which would be security, neolib, anti-blackness, liberalism, etc. Senior year of high school my fall back option was always security, and all the other people on my team read neolib or anti-blackness. I only have trouble when you get into the realm of very dead and very french people like Baudrillard. In terms of evaluating Ks I start with framework to determine if the aff gets to weigh the aff (usually they do...). If there's a perm I'll then evaluate the perm, if there's no perm then I'll evaluate the impact calc of the aff vs the impacts of the K. This is where the dead french people usually run into trouble. I need the neg to do a good job of explaining specific manifestations of how the K turns/outweighs the case. Example: if you make a communication overload argument and tie it in relation to serial policy failure, I need a specific example of how the affs problematic participation in the symbolic exchange blah blah blah recreates violence beyond just communication overload is the root cause of violence. Contextualize it to the aff! The most persuasive links to me are when you can pull lines from the 1AC ev to demonstrate how they fall into whatever discourse your K authors would kritik.

DAs: In my opinion, they are potentially the worst 2NR option to go for without a CP to mitigate the case, just simply because affs are designed to mitigate the status quo. What I've noticed is that most of the time when the 2NR is DA and case the 2AR will stand up and grand stand about a specific warrant from the case that was dropped which would end up creating large discrepancies between the impact calc and quality of ev of affs vs DAs. In my opinion, if the 2NR is just DA vs case, the block needs to do a very good case debate and the 2NR typically needs to have good extension of all the case debating from the block. If there's a CP, I've found that most of the time it comes down to evaluating risk of the solvency deficit vs risk of the net benefit.

T: My biggest problem with T is that the aff never defines what reasonability is and the neg never bothers to explain what reasonability is either. I really enjoy these debates, when both teams are very clear about what they include AND what the exclude. This means providing specific examples of aff/neg ground under either interp WITHOUT speeding through the examples so quick that I can't write them down and explaining why including or excluding those specific affs vs others is important. The aff and the neg in the 2NR/2AR need to highlight what impact they're going for in their final rebuttal, impact it out, explain how their interp best leads to their impact, and explain why your impact/interp outweighs/turns that of the other team. In this way, I like to think of T debates as very structurally similar to CP+DA vs aff debates or in a very offense-defense paradigm.

Framework: To quote Viveth, "go for T not framework. Framework is a control of form (i.e. you cannot present alternative types of evidence, you cannot perform, etc.) Topicality is a modest limit on content(i.e. we should be discussing the topic)". I don't think the skills arguments are very persuasive just because the aff has so many in-roads into skills arguments. I do think that "topic education good" arg is very interesting. That being said, I do think that procedural fairness is the best impact there is. In high school I enjoyed reading other positions besides T vs K affs, but in college I've found myself transitioning more to T. I think the best way for affs to beat T is to make arguments which criticize key assumptions that T makes e.g. nothing happens after you vote aff or neg, the subjectivity of the participants in the debate is irrelevant, or that T is agnostic about the substance of the debate. To think of this in a more abstract form would be to consider a common argument that's made which is the form vs content argument. T likes to gain their offense off parts of the debate that are purely about the form of the debate. However, the aff best gains inroads by exploiting the parts of debate where form inevitably influences content e.g. our social location inevitably impacts how we approach the topic and engage in the form of debate. Also I find that the aff is in a very good spot if the 2AC at the top devotes some time to explaining the aff and key phrases, and its relation to the ballot. Don't assume I'll know what you're talking about. Fairness is an impact

Theory: Almost nothing is a voter besides condo. Although I'm willing to consider CP theory as a reason to reject certain planks. e.g. 50 state fiat could be a reason to reject a plank of the CP which fiats out of a logical solvency deficit. For condo, 2 is fine, 3 is meh. don't know what you're doing if you're reading more than 3. I evaluate theory very similarly to T except the main difference is that if the neg is reading more than 2 condo, I need them to impact out the key distinction on their interp about why having 3+ condo is better than 2 condo. If you build your offense around there I think you're in a good spot. But don't forget about impact calc. Pick one impact and go for it, don't go for multiple impacts, and explain how your interp best accesses the I/L to that impact, and why the other teams doesn't, etc etc. Fairness is an impact

LD

If you have any questions, assume I will default to policy norms

I know close to nothing except that in LD debate there's plan style debating and there's also value style debating. As a policy debater, I'm more comfortable with plan style debate. Basically, it's easier for me to understand what it's saying if it's formatted similarly to policy. With that in mind, you should assume I know nothing about the topic so make sure if there are any acronyms or nuances of the topic don't assume I know any of it. I will evaluate a value style debate similar to the way I evaluate the kritik section above. I will first evaluate which value criterion I should prefer, and from there, evaluate the line by line. In terms of plan style debating, I'll just follow my policy criterion as described above. I'm really not in the mood for tricks with blippy theory args such as "CPs must be topical". If it's something substantive I'm fine with it (maybe, spreading bad, assuming you don't spread).

Random LD mannerisms which apparently are still in flux:

Making your opponent take prep time so that you can finish answering their question: okay.... or you could be a nice person and just answer it.

I don't like disclosing speaks

I don't like disclosing speaks

I don't like disclosing speaks

Debated for Washburn Rural, 2012-2016

Tl;dr: Mostly did policy, but you should debate how you're most comfortable. Speed is fine, but I'm not familiar with this year's topic so you should prob not go your absolute fastest. Prefer few, well-developed, smart args to a high quantity of shallower args. Very pro-topical affs/topicality. Fine for k's that prove the plan is a bad idea, meh for k's that do not. Framing issues are important. Buzzwords are bad. CLAIM WARRANT IMPACT. Dropped/conceded arguments are "true" but are not automatically "relevant." You still have to win an impact.

I believe debate is an incredibly valuable and life-transforming activity. For this reason, I take every round 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.

I like: Rebuttals that paint a clear picture of what an aff/neg ballot means, Evidence comparison, Debaters who are funny/having fun, Warranted args/smart analytics, Well thought out strategies

Do not like: Reading args you don't really understand, Topicality=genocide, Death good, Ambush-y args like wipeout, General rudeness, Affs with shaky internal link chains (but if neg doesn't poke holes, I'll give aff the benefit of the doubt)

Case/Disads/Counterplans:

I've been a 2N my entire debate career. Most of my 2NRs have been the politics DA, topic DA, topicality, and the occasional kritik. My favorite types of debates are ones where the neg has prepared a specific strategy and is well-versed in the technicalities of the 1AC. 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 neg on the case in favor of generic impact defense. Make sure to use your DA to turn the case at the impact and internal link level. This means impact calc is essential. Zero (negligible) risk is a thing. Not a fan of politics theory args. If the DA's so bad, beat it on substance, not on "the neg dropped intrisicness". These CPs are usually fine: PICs, Advantage, States. These are susceptible to theory: International fiat, consult/conditions/recommend, Word PICs. I can be convinced either way. Delay CPs are probably cheating. I can easily be convinced conditions and consult CPs are cheating, but having a solvency advocate helps. I'll reward you for specific CPs that are well-researched and prepared.

Kritiks:

I'm not well-versed in K literature. That doesn't mean I won't vote on it, you'll just need more explanation. I'm fine for generic or topic specific K's. I'm not great for complex/high philosophy K's. My biggest problems with K's are usually that the alt doesn't do/solve anything, the links are triggered by the squo, and most importantly they don't say the plan is a bad idea. If you decide to go for the K, make sure to explain your args very clearly to me. This means being explicit in how the alternative functions and how the alt resolves the links to the K and probably portions of the affirmative. Otherwise you will be susceptible to losing on the aff outweighs. I am not familiar with "K-tricks", so don't expect me to recognize your argument and vote on it absent a clear explanation. Weighing the aff is good - it is difficult for me to ever believe a framework which holds the aff to a perfect standard (in terms of epistemology, representations, etc) is one that is fair. 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.

Framework/Topicality:

I have a very strong bias towards the need for a stable, predictable advocacy. K affs can gain a lot of leeway with me by being in the direction of the resolution and defending at least some links in the realm of topic literature. I am not a great judge for affs that have no resolutional basis. I usually default to competing interpretations – which is why I think T 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?). I think the best impacts to T are competitive equity and process-based education from deliberating with a well-prepared opponent. Both of those impacts are about the existence of a predictable topic as opposed to the merits of any particular topic. Limits are good.

Theory:

Don't particularly like theory debates because it's usually just reading blocks back and forth. I typically default to rejecting the argument and not the team. Conditionality is a potential exception to that rule. 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.

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

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.