MacLean Andrews—Gonzaga Prep

I debated policy in high school and NPDA/NPTE parli at Point Loma. I then coached NPDA/NPTE at PLNU. I am now the Director of Forensics at Gonzaga Prep in Spokane, WA. I mostly coach and judge high school CX and LD now. I see debate as an academic game and that’s how I will judge the round. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round or email me if you have questions while filling out pref sheets (first initial last name at gprep.com)

1.Speaker points

1. 28-29.9 usually.

2.Critical Arguments

1. I think there are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. I am more than willing to listen to any type/kind of arguments but nothing will make me cringe more than a bad K debate. In the end it is up to the debaters in the round to tell me what framework I am to use to evaluate the round.

3.Topicality.

1. I tend to see T through a competing interpretations framework unless told so otherwise. I used to say that I have a fairly high threshold for T but I am finding myself voting for it more and more. If it is the best strategy you have to win the round go for it.

4.Theory

1. I am willing to listen to all theory arguments as long as a team can give me a reason to vote on the position. Theory positions should have a framework/interp, arguments for your position, and voters/impacts. Simply stating fairness or education as voting issues usually isn’t enough to win. Impact out why fairness or education or (insert voter) is important.

5.Weighing Arguments

1. I will default to Net Bens…but if you want to use an alternative weighing mechanism please explain and provide justification for it.
2. I appreciate it when weighing is done in the speeches. The last thing you want is for me to have to weigh your arguments for you.

7.Random Thoughts

1. Speed is great if clear.
2. The round is for the debaters, do what you have to do to win. I will try to adapt to you instead of you adapting to me.
3. Impact calc wins debates
4. Debate should be fun.

Hey I'm april I use she/they pronouns

did cx in high school (w/ some national circuit) + one year in college

haven't thought about debate in awhile so:

-no discriminatory rhetoric/misgendering/anything along those lines

-please speak clearly when spreading, especially if you're reading off your comp

-assume I know nothing about the topic

-k's/ k affs are fine, so is framework

-follow ethics on ev cutting and stuff (i.e. no clipping)

-I don't like voting on theory unless it's incredibly egregious

-tell me why you win

-extend args if you want them to be considered in the last speech

idk that's pretty much about it can ask me any q's you have in before round

Rewrite 11/5/2020

Please include me in the email chain in policy debates: Alecbellis8@gmail.com.

Experience:

4 years college policy, 2 of those years with national circuit competition. Graduated in spring of 2020.
Read whatever you want and I'll evaluate it. I'm more interested in K's, but I do a lot of policy research for JMU still. I'm up to date on the 2020-2021 Policy topic. Liberty will be my first time judging this year. I've judged before, but not varsity.

Speed

I consider myself a good flow, but top speed (among very fast teams) is probably going to be too much for me. My hearing got fucked up this summer and I'm not sure how that's going to translate to online debates. I will do my best to communicate with you during the debate. I will say clear and slow.

Truth v Tech

Man this is so hard. A conceded argument doesn't make it true, but it does make it truer. A highly true argument still needs to be applied. My goal is to do as little work as possible for you.

Policy vs Policy

*A lot of your affs are blatantly miscut and/or double turns. Don't make me have to drop you for an ethics challenge.

If you want to read 8 off, fine. I don't think that's a good strategy because case debate is cool and more educational but you do you.

Condo is fine but I'll vote on theory if it's good.

More likely to vote on conceded args in these debates than any other.

These debates are boring, so please try to make them less so.

DAs -- I am probably more likely than an average judge to evaluate well warranted analytic arguments. this doesn't mean that you don't have to read carded impact defense, but it does mean that if you point out logical contradictions in their evidence, use historical examples you can get far efficiently. Uniqueness matters, but it is difficult to assess in absolute terms because there are many warrants for why, say, the economy is high low now. If your uniqueness ev kicks ass and you're up on it by a mile then the DA probably doesn't matter, but the direction of the link is more important in debates where uq is contested.

CPs -- Tricky/smart CPs can/should be the fulcrum of a policy based negative strategy. Again, don't change your wheelhouse for me. Textual and functional competition is important. Fake CPs like the states counterplan or ESR are uphill battles and I like theory against them.

T -- underused against policy affs.

Policy AFFs vs K NEGs

I debated 2 ish years of policy arguments, so feel free to run them. I will evaluate them and I still do topic research for JMU, so I'm pretty versed in that side of the 20-21 topic. That being said, my ideological leanings are heavily in favor of the K.

AFF -- I will do my best to be impartial, but I have a big problem with the way that policy affs try to make framework arguments. Arguments about plan focus are nonsensical. If the K doesn't have specific links to the aff, you will probably win -- that isn't a question of framework. Fairness arguments don't make sense because you read your aff and you still get to defend it. They aren't mooting the aff by disagreeing with your scholarhsip. Your framework should be about what education you produce and what my role in the debate is. Am I a policymaker? Ethical decisionmaker? What does that mean for how I approach impacts?

NEG -- You need to outweigh the affirmative's impacts. You can filter them out through a framework that limits what I evaluate, you can have a reject alt, an alt that legitimately solves portions of the aff, etc. Be flexible. I don't have a problem with kicking the alt -- I did that all the time. But you have to preface what that means in the debate. Ie: what does your link and impact mean in the world of the alt/without it?

If you have a reason to distrust their scholarship writ large, that should be articulated in terms of what it means for me as a decisionmaker. Pulling lines from evidence and explaining why their scholarship doesn't match their explanation of the evidence is very persuasive. Let's be real, most policy evidence is imperialist schlock.

Your biggest challenge is probably going to be defeating the util o/w + perm route.

Policy NEGs vs K AFFs

Cruel optimism vs "you're too pessimistic" debates are very tired and largely irresolvable. Both require winning a theory of power.

AFF -- I like topical K's with plan texts and nontopical affs as well. I prefer if the aff is relevant to the topic, but it doesn't have to affirm the topic. I think you are benefitted by clear counterinterpretations rather than tricky we meet arguments. Engaging the state bad is kind of a generic, I would prefer offense about how those debates produce violence for you and why they enshrine bad forms of education. IE: why your starting point is significantly better than the TVA/their model of education.

NEG -- Framework is the easiest argument in debate. You get to read a ~1 minute or less shell and give a 9 minute 2nc. I did this, so I'm not biased against it. That being said, FW offense should be about how the affirmative creates a bad standard for debates, why it hurts their education, why it hurts broader approaches to critical education. Topical versions of the aff and a detailed explanation of both a caselist in your world of debate and what arguments you lose are important. I don't care if you lost your generic CP and DA because if that's all you needed for a policy team then it's probably on you for not spending more time prepping K teams. You need to be able to articulate what engaging strategies you lost.

If your cap K link is that they didn't engage the state hard enough, what distinguishes this from FW? It's not that you can't make cap args, or this style of K. I did this stuff as well, but you should be heavily in the aff's literature base with your examples in links.

K vs K

Both sides will be benefitted by making distinctions between strategy and tactics when necessary.

My opinion has shifted on critical debate somewhat since I graduated. I think I am significantly better versed in antiblackness literature and more sympathetic to it than before. I was a cap debater -- now am less sympathetic to that K being mutually exclusive with antiblackness after reading more Wilderson. I think I was already pretty well versed in settler colonial and indigenous literature, and very well versed in security and cap literature.

Alts in KvK debates are often very squishy, so I think kicking the alt or just reject alts are a better bet for me. The permutation is just so often a devastator here. Something unexplored is what Baylor did last year by framing their alt as diagnostic analysis of the aff. In that world, links are more difficult for the aff to solve.

I am very open to presumption against these affs.

Updated 11/2018

Email chains: jeffbess.debate@gmail.com

I debated at Missouri State for 4 years (2010-2014). Since then went to law school and now judging here and there.

I usually went for policy arguments but I am generally of the "do your thing" school of judging. Keep in mind that I probably don't know your literature base beyond what I've heard while judging/debating.

Final rebuttals are a time to make key strategic decisions and fortune often favors the bold. If you think you're behind but you've got an angle, go for it. If you leave loose threads, you may not like how I tie them up.

I flow CX and you should use that to your advantage.

I follow along with speech docs, but I only flow speeches (the only way to get what's in your doc "on the record" -- charts excepted) and I defer to in-round explanation over my own ability to re-read your cards after the round and re-construct arguments.

Bottom line: I will do my best to vote for the team I think won, without fear or favor.

Feel free to email questions before or after debates if you have them.

Hi~
I debated for one year during high school for Interlake, and am currently a student at the University of Washington.
I'm relatively unfamiliar with this year's topic, so keep that in mind when you begin your debate! I know the resolution but I don't know what are common affs yet.

T- Go for it, but unless they literally drop it, I'm only going to vote on T if you develop your argument significantly and give real reasoning why it matters. Not just "oh no we lose ground! standard is fairness! D:<<<<", unless again they don't respond to it. Fairness/education are real impacts!

Case/Disads/CPs- Am most comfortable with this, but that doesn't mean I don't like seeing things outside of these areas. In regards to this, though, please provide clash and do not just leave me with the job of weighing completely unrelated advantages/disadvantages against one another.

K- I'll vote on it if it makes sense/sounds good to me. Since I am unfamiliar with critical authors, please do explain your K very clearly in the context of the debate. Don't believe a K necessarily needs an alt, but just know you have to be able to back it up somehow.

Run anything; if I understand it, I'm more than happy to vote on it. Be careful with buzzwords and jargon because if you're not clear, I won't know if I misunderstood something or if you did! Don't try to speak any faster if it means you can't be clear. Make sure I can differentiate between your card-reading and your own analytics throughout the debate, and try your best to organize your arguments in some coherent manner! A good story in the rebuttals can help me better evaluate how I should be voting. PLEASE do not intentionally misrepresent your opponent's argument-it does NOT make for a good debate. Speaks will almost always be between a 26 and 29.

Please feel free to ask more questions regarding my preferences! We can chat a little bit if we have time before the round so you get a feel for how I tend to see/judge things. Be nice to each other, or my ballot will not be nice to you!

chris, travis, and i are also coaching vaibhav dara

clarity = speed of delivery. pleaseslow down on tags, texts, interpretations, advocacies, analytical arguments, authors, or any argument you want me to get in detail verbatim on my flow. please keep in mind that your speed will always be faster than my keyboarding skills/flowcabulary. i do not flow off the document and will not backflow arguments from the document

i am a great judge for technical, mechanical line-by-line debate

judge instruction is axiomatic. most judging philosophies say "judge instructions please" because debaters rarely do enough of it and judges are left to decide debates on their own devices which leads to inevitable intervention and at least one unhappy debater. please - judge instructions! yes, go for your arguments, say how they outweigh, sure, magnitude timeframe sure, but tell me what to do with them/everything else at the end of the debate

what you debate is up to you - i do not have a preference for how you stylistically debate or which arguments you choose to read. this is my 20th year in debate and i have been around long enough that i have probably heard, debated, coached, and/or judged almost any/every argument you could say or do within reason. all arguments are fair game within reason - do not be violent, racist, et cetera. i consider myself an incredibly flexible coach that believes debaters get the most out of the activity through a student-centered model of debate where the debater is in the argumentative captain's seat and my job as a debate coach is to coach debaters at what they want to do to the best of my ability

i obviously have preferences - every debate judge does - but i try to keep those out of the decision calculus for deciding who wins the debate. given that, the following might help you out while either filling out your pref sheet or in the pre-round prep:

i am an awesome to great to okay judge for almost all arguments that come from policy debate - disads, counterplans, plans, not plans, performance, kritiks, k affs, theory, topicality, the politics da, conditionality bad, et cetera

i am an okay-ish judge for kant/phil - did a lot of academic research in uni on kant, but often struggle with how ld does kant. if you are going to read a bunch of dense cards about the categorical imperative, you are a-okay. if you are spamming a bunch of paradoxes, i would probably take another judge

i'm getting increasingly better for "tricks". a couple years ago this would have said no tricks, but i find myself increasingly voting on arguments like "role of the ballot spec", random ivis, and such when explained/impacted properly. i will only evaluate the debate after the 2ar

my voting record is historically bad for the neg on "t-usfg/framework/must larp/instrumentally defend the topic" and would advise engaging the affirmative

the aff is 29-0 in front of me over the past 5 years when the nr goes for "t-nebel/whole resolution/cannot specify/no plans"

some judge intricacies:

i will not judge kick unless you explicitly make judge kick an option in your speech

team no risk - there is zero risk that i will win the gold medal in the 100m dash at the 2024 paris olympic games

debaters must speaketh the rehighlighting - you can only re-insert text that has already been read

speaker point floor typically 29.0

i do not have a "poker face" and am unabashedly human

Name: Kara Dillard, PhD                                                                                               Affiliation: University of Washington

Years experience: 6 (2002-2005 [college], 2008-2010 [HS], 2016 [HS])

 Background:

I’m a former District 9 competitor, having debated for Southern Utah University in the late 90s-early 2000’s on topics like Title VII, removing sanctions, and Indian Country. From 2003-2005, I was a graduate assistant coach at Eastern New Mexico University.  While working on my PhD at Kansas State University, I spent three years assistant coaching Manhattan (KS) High School. Since 2010, my judging record has been spotty, volunteering to judge when friends or my partner needed me to cover random rounds. I have judged a few high school debates this year, but none at the collegiate level.  In short, I have significant experience coaching and judging college-level debates, but I haven’t done it in awhile.

 What this means for you:

*I don’t get paperless debate. My debate and coaching careers were fully in the paper era. I may be slow in asking you for evidence or will do something perplexing like ask for specific cards when that practice doesn’t happen anymore.  My preference is to flow your speech as you read it, not to follow along your email chain.  Also, I flow on paper. Don’t judge; it’s hard to break old habits.

*I am not as fast at flowing as I once was. Based on the HS debates I’ve judged this year, I can keep up with moderately speedy debates as long as they’re clear (see above – I don’t follow along your email chain, I listen and flow your speech). If you’re a faster team, I probably can’t keep up and you’ll need to adjust accordingly and make it a point to highlight items that I may have missed.

*I’m not as involved in the topic and the content of debate as others in the judging pool. That doesn’t mean you should dumb down your debates if you happen to have me in the back of the room. It does mean that I am not privy to the developed consensus about the way the topic works, which may be important if you go for topicality or if you’re a non-topical/no plan affirmative, for example. If you do go for topicality, it would be good for you to spend additional time at the top of your speech explaining the violation in explicit terms. Same is true for critical arguments and how they link as well as any hyper-technical disads. In short, you may need to do a little more explaining to me than you would for other critics. With that said, my PhD is in Political Sociology and I teach courses in politics and political practice. I would consider myself very competent in evaluating politics and economics disads and even some foreign engagement disads. 

*I am not up-to-date on the latest argument and theoretical innovations. I don’t believe that there’s a substantial difference in base knowledge between you and me, but it’s possible that there’s some items that may be lost in translation.  Again, taking time at the top of your speeches to explain things more clearly, especially if you are going for a theoretical argument, is wise. If you have questions, please ask before the debate.

My argument preferences and philosophy are:

I have experience coaching and judging a wide variety of argument styles. I competed and then coached in an era where teams had both disad/counterplan strategies and critical strategies in their tubs. As a coach, I helped my teams do both as well. As a judge, I ended up being preferred by performance and identity based teams, especially toward the end of my coaching career.  The obvious downside is that I was never highly proficient at one style as many are today. For you, this means that I will be generally familiar with whatever format you choose to debate in.  

 Given my academic background and judging qualifications and caveats, my preference is to hear a plan vs. disad and counterplan debates. I’m quite capable of hearing critical arguments, too.

I did policy debate in high school and college. I coached policy debate for several years and judged a bunch of debates on the western Washington and national circuits. I’m now in law school, I do some light LD coaching and judging for Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate, and I occasionally judge policy debates for the Chicago Debate League.

Here are some thoughts on how I judge. Where relevant, I’ve separated LD- and policy-specific comments.

1. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I think the best advice for debating in front of me is to be explicit about each of these things. I’m not afraid of saying that I didn’t understand the reasoning (warrant) or importance (impact) of an argument in my RFD.

a. Something that’s “dropped” only is presumed true, for the purposes of the debate, insofar as it was a complete argument to begin with. Suppose the negative doesn’t answer “states aren’t efficient” on the states CP, for example, and there’s no clear explanation (either in the 2AC’s explanation of the aff or in the 2AC’s CP arguments) for why efficiency matters in determining how well a CP solves. The 2NR doesn’t get to answer the claim that states aren’t efficient. But that argument won’t have weight in my decision without an explanation of why efficiency matters. If that explanation is in the 2AR, it’s new. If it’s in the 1AR, the 2NR gets to answer that particular part of the argument.

2. Clarity is king in normal debate times. On zoom, it’s a deity. I don’t read evidence in order to ascertain things I should’ve heard during the debate. I’ll usually yell “clear” twice—after that, I won’t flow what I can’t understand. Don’t read a bunch of analytics or theory arguments at full speed expecting me to flow them all. Make it clear when you’re reading a tag and when you’re reading a card.

3. Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.

a. (Policy-specific) I don’t think this means you have to read a plan. It does mean that you have to have some reason why whatever you’re advocating is an example of the resolution. I'm amenable to non-traditional - eg, identity-based - reasons why your advocacy is aligned with the topic.

4. I approach critical arguments technically. A rough approximation of how I think about K debate is: it’s a DA/CP to the affirmative’s rhetorical representations or ontological or epistemological underpinnings. A few thoughts on what makes me more likely to vote for a K:

a. Go beyond saying “all of our links are DAs to the perm.” Be specific—how does the inclusion of the aff’s plan trigger each link, notwithstanding the alternative also being enacted? I tend to think the perm solves many K links—so reading external disadvantages to the perm is useful in front of me.

b. Have a framework claim, even if the 2AC doesn’t make one. I find it difficult to weigh the policy effects of the plan against, for example, a bunch of epistemic-based impacts without some rationale being presented for why those impacts matter.

5. I think bad theory arguments are, well, bad. But I also sometimes am left wondering why a debater didn’t go for theory.

a. (Policy-specific). Conditionality and the proliferation of many abusive counterplans are getting out of control. If it steals the aff, go for theory and/or a perm argument rooted in competition theory (perm: do the aff).

b. (LD-specific). Most theory arguments in LD seem to basically foreclose any chance of the other side winning. Non-starters.

6. I tend to reward in-round debating over everything else. Spin and evidence comparison are both deferred to unless challenged. So make comparisons—comparisons win debates.

7. Debate should be inclusive. If you're debating a team that is significantly less experienced than you, try not to make the debate a technical arms race. Please slow down and endeavor to make the debate one of engagement. Technical arms races will get bad points, engaging debates get great points.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

Michael Elizondo

4th year debating for the University of Washington. Some things about how I debate that might help you out: I've ran both plan and planless affs (and currently don't read a plan). I usually go for the K or FW in the 2NR. I don't have a preference for arguments but I do have a preference for what I spend my time researching on, which is primarily identity politics and telling teams why they could have been topical.

Tag-team C-X is permitted.

You have 8 minutes of prep.

Speaker Points: I believe that speaker points should not just be a reflection of argument strength and strategic choice, but also on clarity, consistency, and the ability to persuade. Debate is still an activity about communication.

There is no such thing as a tabula rasa judge (sorry not sorry), so here are my defaults:

Affirmatives should defend a topical plan. Likewise, FW/T is a viable and important strategy against non-topical teams and should be viewed as such, regardless of which side of the spectrum you are on.

Negatives are allowed conditional advocacies, and personally, I don’t mind if they contradict in the 1NC. Making choices is what the block is for.

Not a huge fan of theory debates because they quickly devolve into cheap shots and one liners. If you are going for a theory argument, put some work on it otherwise, don’t waste your speech time and make better arguments.

I tend to think that nuclear war is a rather important impact, and that the aff gets to weigh the case against the K.

Tend to think that the permuation in K debates doesn’t get you very far unless you have some fire evidence that specifically advocates for the permutation. I'm not saying don't go for it but I am saying that if the neg provides an adequate response then the 2AR needs to either be focused on the perm or realize that they have to win another place on the flow i.e. case outweighs/alt fails/impact turn to the K.

John Gunn                                                                                                 Updated: 11/12/17

I was an assistant policy coach for Cornell after debating there as an undergraduate.  I also debated for Saint George’s in high school.

In my own debates, I preferred running semi-topical policy affs and taking a K or PIC in the block.  As far as K authors go, I am most familiar with Nietzsche.

I have run many different kinds of affirmatives and negative strategies.  I will vote for any argument if it is presented well, but I will default to a utilitarian policymaker framework if an alternative framework is not presented.

I think debates should primarily be about the resolution.  Affs that make no attempt to address the resolution will have trouble with T/framework in front of me.  That being said, I can be convinced that your particular aff should be included, and I am down to judge method debates.  Either side will have trouble convincing me that debate is bad.  I tend to think that the state can be an effective mechanism of change.

I am flow-centric.  This means that while I won't vote on an unwarranted rvi that was dropped, I will vote on a warranted rvi that was dropped.  This also means that I will (grudgingly) vote for an argument I disagree with as long as it was debated better than the other side.  I see this as a way to limit judge intervention.  On the flip side, I will not evaluate new arguments in the rebuttals (except the 1NR) unless they are justified with theory.  I can be convinced that some new arguments in the block (or even the 2AC) should also not be evaluated.  It is still helpful for the other team to point out new arguments.  I give the 1AR leeway when answering new K links in the block which do not relate to the original link or the 2AC.

I believe in neg flex.  Conditionality is usually fine and competing interpretations are usually good.  Floating PIKs are usually abusive and Consult CPs are usually not competitive.  Terminal defense can make me vote on presumption, but having offense is way easier.  On the aff, severance perms are usually bad.  Trigger warnings (if applicable) are usually good.

If you are paperless, I will stop prep time when you are done preparing and allow you to save and email/flash calmly.  If possible, have all your evidence in one document.

Experience: 3 years of policy, one year of Congress lol. Four years out.

Speed: I’m fine with speed (rusty so bear with me), but if you don’t slow down for the tags and authors I will most likely have trouble flowing your evidence.

If you're going to be racist/sexist/ableist/etc. please save everyone the pain and just concede the round at the start.

PARADIGM:

Topicality – I have a very high threshold for topicality. Unless there is obvious abuse, I find it difficult to vote neg on T. That being said, if the aff does not handle topicality well, then I have no problem voting neg. I don't really buy RVIs.

Kritiks – Okay with Ks, I've run cap, fem, and orientalism, so I'm relatively familiar with the terminology. Otherwise, you need strong analysis/OVERVIEWS for me to really understand. If you use jargon without defining it, I may not understand what you're arguing.

Framework – Bottom line, I need you to tell me why to accept/reject FW, and how that affects my evaluation of the round. Without framework/without clash on competing frameworks, I default impact calc.

Counterplans – If you’ve got a net benefit and prove competition, I vote for the CP.

Theory – I usually won’t view theory as a reason to vote down a team; I will more likely reject an argument. You have to prove actual abuse (unless it's dropped).

Tl;dr – I don’t like judging debates that are super heavily evidence based. I need good analysis and argumentation in your own words why you should win the debate. USE OVERVIEWS!!! Also I'm rusty so bear with me.

@ Varsity CX (and really every team tbh): I really want to understand all of your super kritikal and advanced arguments, but honestly sometimes I struggle. So if you want me to evaluate your case accurately, you've gotta have some pretty sick overviews by your second constructive or you've probably lost me.

editing for new tournaments

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

Assistant coach @ Washington. Molecular engineering PhD student @ Univ of Wash.
daniel.cg.lee@gmail.com

Debate history: Bronx Science HS. Cornell Univ. Only debated freshman year of college; qual’d to NDT and made it to octos of CEDA in 2011. It’s good to be back.

Things I appreciate:
CP and case. I think PICs are awesome but also think you need CP solvo advocates.

Things I don't appreciate as much:
1. Cloud clash (when you say a bunch of things in your overview and expect me to pick out particular arguments to apply on the line by line for you). I borrowed the phrase from Armands Revelins.

2. Having to use the speech doc to understand what you're saying because you're incomprehensible.

3. You not flowing. If you intentionally load up your speech doc with bogus cards to bamboozle your opponent, you're a jerk but I also think it's absurd for opponents to ask you to edit the speech doc to remove unread cards... everyone should flow.

K debate:
Links to SQ or descriptions of how the world works can be good but you should also win that you resolve those links.

I'm pretty inexperienced with Ks and body politics. Subjectivity debates and clash of civilization debates are hard for me to resolve. I try very hard but you may have to do more work for me. I also try hard to fight my biases but my general predisposition is that pragmatism is good.

I am unconvinced about going strictly for fairness in T - FW debates against K AFFs. I think fairness is an internal link to education and I think education is the best thing about debate. But I don't really care what type of education. I do think topic specific education is what makes debate unique, but so is the ability to challenge norms.

Theory:
I think fairness is an internal link to education.

My predisposition is that theory is better used as reasons to reject portions of args. For example, I am not strongly convinced by 50 state fiat is a reason to reject the team or even to reject the CP as a whole (but I can be). The way I tell my teams to read 50 state fiat is as a reason that we get our solvency deficits. We say 50 state uniformity fiat is abusive with a C/I must have solvo advocate, and the CP can be as uniform as the solvo advocate says (which I guarantee will be like 12 states at most). The AFF can go for theory as a reason they don't get uniformity and then read solvency deficits for lack of uniformity. Of course, this means that the AFF can spend less time on this than they would if it were a reason to reject the whole arg/team.

Cards:
I think analytics are awesome. I also think the debaters tend to read cards instead of debating with the cards... “you read this card, but here are three cards” etc. It ends up being “our authors disagree but we are right” with no explanation. Would appreesh you telling me how to evaluate which cards are right.

I think cards are useful and sometimes it's fair and strategic to let your cards do the debating for you. I like to reward good research. But there is a limit. Also, I like to read your cards throughout the entire debate and hold them to a high standard.

Affiliations and History:
Please email (damiendebate47@gmail.com and tjlewis1919@gmail.com) me all of the speeches before you begin.
I am the Director of Debate at Damien High School in La Verne, CA.
I was the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX from 2020-2021.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
Author of Suburba(in)e Surrealism (2021).

Yearly Round Numbers:
I try to judge a fair bit each year.
Fiscal Redistribution Round Count: About 40 rounds
I judged 75 rounds or more on the NATO Topic.
I judged over 50 rounds on the Water Topic.
I judged around 40 rounds on the CJR topic.
I judged 30 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020)
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
LD Protocol:I have a 100% record voting against teams that only read Phil args/Phil v. Policy debates. Adapt or lose.
NDT Protocol: I will rarely have any familiarity with the current college topic and will usually only judge 12-15 rounds pre-NDT.
Please make your T and CP acronyms understandable.

Front Matter Elements:
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.

I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.

Decision-making:
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.

The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.

I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.

Reading evidence only happens if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).

I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge). I do not think the act of reading FW is necessarily constitutive of a violent act. You can try to convince me of this, but I do start from the position that FW is an argument about what the affirmative should do in the 1AC.

If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education. Subject formation has really come into vogue as a key element for teams and honestly rare is the debate where people engage the questions meaningfully--keep that in mind if you go for subject formation args in front of me.

In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.

I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.

While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.

I am 100% DONE with teams not showing up on time to disclose. A handful of minutes or so late is different than showing up 3-5 min before the round begins. Punish these folks with disclosure theory and my ears will be open.

CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'

Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand

Email chain: little.pdx@gmail.com

Affiliations

Current: OES (Oregon Episcopal School) 7 years

Past:

- Cornell assistant coach

- UW debater

- Interlake debater (long time ago)

TL;DR

1. Open to any argument.

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

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

4. Don't steal prep.

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

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

Comments on specific lines of argument:

T

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

Theory other than T

I vote for and against theory args.

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

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

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

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

CP/Disad

Straight forward. A couple of pet peeves:

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

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

K

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

*last updated March 2018

please add me to the email chain! zmagdb8[at]gmail.com

-Ingraham High School policy coach (2016-)

-Part-time University of Washington novice policy coach (2017-18)

-University of Washington alumni (3 years policy, 2014-2017)

-Puyallup High School alumni (3 years policy, 2010-2013)

general things:
- talk to me before round if you have specific questions about my philosophy or need accommodation
- i like the debate. i want rounds to be enjoyable for both teams -- you should read arguments that you are most comfortable with
- respect your partner and your opponents. don't prevent others from debating. don't be racist, sexist, transphobic, etc.; by extension don't make or attempt to justify those arguments
- to me debate is primarily an educational space but it is also a competitive space. what you say is important and it's how i make what i think is the best decision
- i'm pretty bad at summarizing my rfd so i will happily answer any questions you may have concerning it, or the round in general
- please don't cheat -- card-clipping, prep-stealing, flipping ahead in speech docs, etc. are things that i notice and will negatively affect your speaks / please don't make me call it out

mckennamains@gmail.com

Competed 3 years of Public Forum Debate in High School

1 year + continuing Policy Debate at University of Washington

Have judged high school debate for one year

Prep Time can end when you say you're done prepping, but if I think you're not being honest we will have a conversation. 

I don't know if this is an annomoly, but in my short judging career I have had the misfortune of judging 3 rounds where the students made the round a joke. Please have respect for your peers, for me, and for the activity. 

Have fun!

Policy:

K: I mostly enjoy running straightforward policy arguments when I debate, but have debated with critical partners. On the neg the Kritik has to solve the aff and have a clear impact story. 

T: I think teams should be topical, but that just means the other team has to win topicality, not that you lose for being untopical. To win topicality you must have clear voters with specificically a topical version of the aff and ground loss to make it pursuasive. 

DA: Good to go. 

CP: In my limited judging experience, I have to call for the CP at the end of the round because the debates get very muddled.

• Multiple CPs are fine with me, but theory can also probably pursuade me why multiple CPs are bad.
• Multiple perms need to be differentiated and explained seperately with an adequate extension. 
• Obviously CPs are useless without a net benefit
• CP needs to solve the impacts of the aff and have enough risk of the net benefit to outweigh 

Pufo:

Judging public forum after competing in policy debate has changed a lot of ways I view public forum. I think a lot of judges say it's half presentation, half argumentation, but as a judge that has definitely shifted to 10% presentation, 90% argumentaiton for me. The flow will be what I am judging off of. 

In terms of arguments, I think there is a perception that you can not "drop" a single thing in a debate. I think public forum can benefit from a narrowing of arguments in the rebuttals, and this can be achieved by not "dropping" arguments, but "going for" certain ones. A team would have a better chance of winning with one, good, in depth argument that outweighs the other team at the end of the debate. 

About me:

Email chain: cameronnilles@gmail.com

NEW EDIT: I have taken ~1 year off from debate and will be fresh to the topic as well, everything else below is still valid. Prior to the 2019/2020 school year though I was judging 50+ rounds a year w/ TOC & National qualifying teams on my squad.

----

I have competed and judged for a combined +14 years (averaging 40+ rounds a year) at the varsity-national circuit level.

If I debated in this current era I would be a framework debater. Tech > Truth, up until the point where I need to evaluate directly two objective claims (this happens less than you would think).

I have not read every piece of critical literature that you have read to write your arguments.

I will vote on 0% risk if there is dropped defense or even much better warranted argumentation, but I default to a 1% risk calculus most of the time.

Communicating:

I am OK with any level of speed. I think it is worth reminding most debaters that I am (oftentimes) not looking directly at your evidence as you read it which means that varying tone/speed on tags is necessary. Only be rude if you can back it up.

What I aim for:

I believe that the debaters frame the debate round. Any RoB or Framework lens will stand and will guide my ballot unless contested. I will default to a policy maker/utilitarian if no one tells me otherwise. Overall, I aim to leave my biases towards positions out of an objective evaluation of the arguments as they are flowed.

Biases:

Debate is a game; create your own rules. However, ensure that they provide competitive fairness to both teams (I think fairness is intrinsic to debate/a competitive activity). I firmly believe that the K needs to provide a fair division of ground for the opposing team to argue - you need to explain what your alternative is doing well enough that I know what I am voting for, not simply that the plan is what I shouldn't.

If Framework wasn't applicable to a round I would be reading mostly a CP/DA combo. But that doesn't mean I won't hear your Kritik, just please make sure it follows the above two criteria (provides fairness, has an explainable alternative).

Things I like:

Make signing my ballot very clear and easy; take the easy way out. Creative topicality violations and well thought out theory debates. Uphold competitive equity. Don't use every second of your prep time if you are clearly ahead and don't need it. I believe some T debates can be resolved with only a bold "we meet (+ explanation)."

Pet Peeves:

Stealing prep and not realizing it. If no one is taking prep in the room do not be typing on your computer, flash/email time is not a free-for-all. Telling me a team dropped an argument when they didn't. The sudden shift of teams seemingly not flowing arguments makes for very poor line-by-line and that makes for worse quality debates. Card clipping will get you in a lot of trouble on my ballots; have integrity. If you say "cut the card there" I will ask to see your evidence (if not already on an email chain) and I will expect you to mark your evidence accordingly. I actively monitor for card clipping if your behavior makes me suspicious and I will drop teams that do any degree of clipping.

drmosbornesq@gmail.com

My judging paradigm has evolved a great deal over time. These days, I have very few set opinions about args. I used to think I had a flawless flow and a magnet mind but now I can't follow each little detail and/or extremely nuanced or shrouded arguments with 101% accuracy like once upon a time. Still pretty good tho lol. And that said, I believe I've come to prioritize debaters' decisions more than ever and try harder than ever to base my decision on what debaters are trying to make happen in the round, and how well they do it, as opposed to how I logically add up what occurred. No judge can totally eliminate their process of sorting things out or their lived personal experience but I try to judge rounds as the debaters tell me to judge them, and with the tools they make available to me. I do think debate is about debaters, so I try to limit my overall judge agency to an extent. But sometimes my experience with traditional policy debate matters and favors a team. Sometimes my lived experience as a brown dude effects my encounter of an argument. These things happen and they are happening with all of your judges whether they admit it or you know it or not. I competed with "traditional policy arguments" (which, frankly, I am unsure still exist #old) but by now I have voted for and coached stupidly-traditional, traditional, mildly-traditional, non-traditional, and anti-traditional arguments in high-stakes rounds for a ton of programs in high school, college, internationally, in different eras, dimensions, all kinds of shi*. If you think your reputation matters in how I see the round, don't pref me. If you or your coaches are used to attacking in the post-round, you're gonna play yourself because I'll either be 101% and crush you or I won't care and I'll just mock you. Debate's a game but we are people so we should treat each other with respect. Self-control is one of the hallmarks of critical thinking and a disciplined intellect; if you cannot make peace with results in a subjective activity, you are simply not an elite debater, imho. Take it or leave it. Good luck to all debaters, seriously -- it's a hell of a thing.

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

Hello I am currently with University of Washington Policy Debate team on my fourth year.

Here is mostly my policy philosophy – it can be applied to other forms of debate though.

Congress is a little different – don’t give speeches to just give a speech – make them good otherwise you are just wasting everyone’s time. Add something new to what has already been said and ask good questions. Know what you are talking about so you can answer questions.

Did a mix of soft left and straight up policy stuff for 3 years and now I am doing critical debate. 

I am willing to vote either way and generally think the role of the ballot is to determine the team that debates the best but if dropped I am willing to accept any other role. However role of the judge is always up for debate and something I think should be used instead. 

If you aren't T just say why what you are doing is more important and causes better education you couldn't have had otherwise. If you are going for topicality you need to have a clear impact and good TVA. 

I think that whatever you decide to do you need to have impacts and why you win because of those impacts.

Statements are not arguments unless they contain a claim and a justification for that claim.  “They dropped it” is not a justification. “Extend what my partner said” is not an argument. The ability for me to understand the structure of your argument is a prerequisite for me to evaluate it, so debaters have a positive burden to explain the function and operation of their argument. I find it difficult to endorse positions that require black-boxing to model.

For theory have an interpretation of what they should be able to do - for example, condo is a voter they get 1 CP and 1 K they read 3 CPs - I am much more willing to vote on theory args when framed like this because then they aren't so general. Also you need reasons why your interpretation is better.

If you don’t like my decision debate better – if you don’t want judge intervention do all the work for me and make it clear about when, where, and how I should vote. I may have some biases but I always evaluate the debate in front of me. If what you are saying isn't true it is probably going to be held to a hire standard than if it is clearly true. 

DON’T GO FOR THE BUFFET! As a debater you have to make decisions, sometimes they are the right one and sometimes they are wrong. Going for the buffet is ALWAYS the wrong one. The best way to lose a debate you are winning is to go for everything. I want depth especially in the last speeches if you want decent speaker points and want to win.

Don’t read new off in the 2NC – you’ll have this problem that you seem to forget there was a 1NC because they read some arguments on what you said. Answer their stuff on the line by line. If you want to read new things read add ons – so often people read add ons but then spend forever reading more cards about an uncontested impact that happens – use your time wisely – engage in the debate that is in front of you, not the one your coach prepped you for because you can’t know everything that is going to happen in the round, sometimes you need to read new cards and sometimes you don’t!

 If you are engaging well with the other team and what they are saying you will get higher speaker points.

Any questions email me @ rebeccapetrone96@gmail.com or ask before round!
 

Last updated 1/12/24:

I mostly judge policy, for other events, go to the bottom.

Please add me if you are starting an email chain: steve _at_ interlakedebate _dot_ org (i'm not at Interlake anymore, but still using this account).

CX / Policy Philosophy:

TL;DR:

Mt. Vernon will be my first tournament on this topic so don't make assumptions about what acronyms or specific knowledge. I do have a good public policy and economics background, but please explain things.

If you are a policy team, I am likely good for you. If you are a team that runs Ks on the neg or K/Soft left impacts on a policy aff, I am probably fine for you. If you run a K-aff, I may or may not, please read below.

First and foremost, I judge based on the flow. I will do my best to determine the winner based on what has been said. This makes line-by-line refutation and dropped arguments important. I will do my best not to impose my opinions and values into the round. That being said, I am not strictly tabula rasa. See below for exceptions. By default, I will take a utilitarian approach.

Style

I want to see clash. This means that negatives should not ignore the 1AC. Affirmatives need to respond to the negative positions as they are presented not just read a generic block that only sort-of applies. If you are merely extending your own cards and not responding to the other side’s arguments, your speaker points will be lower.

I am fine with speed, but you need to be clear. Remember that, as a judge, I often do not have a copy of the evidence and especially the analytics on my computer. If I can't hear the words as you read the cards, you are going too fast for your ability. If I am going to judge on the flow, you want to make sure my flow matches what you said. This is especially important when it comes to theory. Reading your theory block at full speed guarantees that I won’t be able to flow it all. Slow down on theory.

Be nice. I will react negatively if you are arrogant or rude to your opponents. This applies to your partner as well. I do not want to see the debate personalized. Feel free to attack and characterize your opponents’ arguments as you like, but refrain from attacking your opponents themselves. Their arguments may be *-ist. Your opponents are not.

My pet peeve is flowing. Rather, teams that don’t flow. If you have to ask about whether your opponents read each card or if you respond to positions and arguments that they didn’t read, your speaks will be docked.

Theory
I enjoy the occasional theory debate, but it must be developed well. Everything you say needs a warrant. Develop your arguments if you want me to consider them. I am unlikely to decide an entire round based on an issue explained or extended in less than five seconds.

I am unlikely to find *-spec persuasive unless there is in-round abuse. I do find vagueness more interesting each year as teams make their plans less and less specific.

Topicality

I will vote on topicality. I evaluate it as a technical argument, no more dominated by truth than any other type of argument. I find myself drawn to the definitional debate over other aspects of T. That means you should focus on standards, definitions, and the fallout from those. I’m more persuaded by limits than ground. I will be unlikely to vote for reasonability unless there is a standard to determine whether something is, or is not, reasonable. I am unlikely to be persuaded by arguments that tell me to ignore topicality.

Kritikal Affs

It is my belief that the resolution must play a critical role in scoping debate and allowing for clash. To that end, while I will vote for a critical aff, I expect it to be germane to the resolution. Affs which are anti-topical will lose if the negative carries a reasonable version of that argument through to the end.

Case/Disads/CPs

This is my home turf. I want to see clash. Spotting the affirmative their advantages and trying to outweigh them with disads is not a good strategy. Contest the internal links and/or impacts. Run solvency takeouts. These make your off-case much more persuasive.

Kritiks

I am happy to vote on kritiks. You need to explain how I should be evaluating the k versus the case. Teams should feel free to challenge the a-priori status of the kritik. There needs to be some kind of benefit to the world of the alt. At the end of the day, I will be weighing it against the case. A K without an alt is just a non-unique, linear disad.

I expect that critical arguments will be supported by the evidence. This should go without saying, but I have seen teams give entire 2NCs that are not based on anything but their own opinion. Analogies and extrapolations are fine, but the basis for the analogy or the extrapolation should be in found in evidence.

Running a kritik is not an excuse for sloppy debate. I see too many kritik debaters that rest on truth over technical and ignore the structure of the debate. Direct refutation and line-by-line are still important even in the kritik debate.

I was primarily a policy debater in my day. I have judged many critical rounds and read some of the authors. My knowledge of them is reasonable, but if you run something outside of the common ones, explain it clearly.

Rebuttals

I try not to impose my views on the debate, but that requires debaters do a good job in the last two rebuttals crystalizing the issues and telling the story of the round. "We win the entire flow" is not usually true and is not a good way to weigh the issues. Tell me why your winning of the disad overwhelms the advantage of case or why their rhetorical slight is more important than structural violence. Make sure there is a traceable lineage to your arguments. I am strict on new arguments from the 1NR onward. Tell me that it’s new and, if true, I’ll strike it. You must tell me though. If you don’t, it counts. I will do my best to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments.

Misc.

If you watch me, I tend to emote my opinions.

Many have asked: Tag-team CX is fine. I only request that the person who is “supposed” to be cross-examining be part of the conversation.

Background

I debated policy in high school and CEDA (policy) in college for a total of seven years, including four at Whitman College. I coached college policy for one year at the University of Puget Sound and have been coaching policy debate at Interlake High School since 2012.

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

Public Forum Judging Philosophy:

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

I don’t judge PF a lot so assume that I’m not deeply educated on the topic. That said, I read a lot of economics, politics, and philosophy so I am likely to be familiar with most arguments.

The best description of me is likely as a progressive, flow-oriented judge. I will be adjudicating the round based on who presents, and extends, the better arguments. I will try my best not to intervene. If you didn't say something, I won't make the argument for you. Sounding good making shallow arguments won’t earn you a win. In the end, I want to see clash. Don’t just tell me why you are right, you have to also tell me why they are wrong.

A few points that might matter to you:

1. Speed: Keep it easily comprehensible and you will be fine. In reality, I doubt you will exceed my threshold. If you do, I’ll yell clear.

2. Dropped arguments: There is no punishment for dropping your own arguments. Obviously, don’t drop something your opponent is turning.

3. I think definitions should be used strategically to define what interpretation of the resolution you will be defending.

4. I will reward clever debating. Show me how the arguments interact. Defend ground that avoids most of your opponent’s thrusts.

Mick Souders

Director, James Madison University

20th year judging NDT/CEDA debate

micksouders@gmail.com

Updated 11/2/2022

CNTRL F "Short Version" for a summary version.

CNTRL F "Long Version" for rambling long version.

CNTRL F "Critical Identity Team" for full views on that.
CNTRL F "Ethics Challenge" for full views on that.
CNTRL F "Speaker Point Scale" for full views on that

CNTRL F "Procedure Notes" for info about card procedures and humbugs about CX.

*SHORT VERSION*

Debate is game with a very serious purpose: teaching critical thinking, argument and research skills, subject knowledge, and tactical and strategic perspectives. I will take your debate seriously.

-I try to be objective, not neutral. I see job my as evaluating the disagreement in debate using my critical thinking abilities and, if necessary, my prior knowledge and experience.

-Disclosure is a courtesy, not a rule. I will not vote on an argument about a team not disclosing. I will only vote on a mis-disclosure argument if you can show its (a) factual and (b) intentionial.

-The topic is important to promote clash. However, I often vote for non-topical teams because topicality is debate-able and teams arguing for the topic must be able to win the topicality argument.

-I am not likely to be persuaded debate is a bad activity. Criticism of how we debate is different than saying debate is bad.

-I flow on paper. Iexpect debaters to flow/note take and do not think opponents are required to provide pristine speech docs or analytics.

-I do not usually read speech docs during the speech. I read lots of cards after debates/in prep time.

-I believe I am a good judge for a variety of K teams but most K teams disagree. This is probably due to my views on topicality. I think that establishing a negative framework for impact evaluation and alternative solvency are the two most important aspects of winning a criticism.

-I am burden of proof oriented. I expect claims to be supported, not presumed. That means I vote on no risk of a link or no solvency more often than other judges.

-I am not a good judge for self-referential/circular arguments (i.e., 'Vote for what's best for me and I'm the judge of what's best for me').

-CX is not prep time. Prep time is not CX time. I will end CX if you aren't using it. I will not listen to prep time CX. Blow off your CX and see the results in your points.

-I have of views on counterplans and counterplan theory. If that matters to you, see below.

-I often look and sound upset, annoyed or angry but I am actually rarely these things in any meaningful sense. My thinking face looks like an angry scowl. My slightly confused face looks like I'm seriously enraged. My 'slightly annoyed for 2 sec' face looks like I'm about to toss over a desk. Sorry about this. I was born with this face.

*END SHORT VERSION*

LONG VERSION

Mea culpa

I believe that I’m out of step with contemporary debate. I feel it almost every time I judge. It’s not about the type of arguments that are made, it’s about how I judge them. I try to be even-handed and fair to both sides, but compared to most debaters’ expectations: I’m too opinionated about what constitutes adequate support, I’m too willing to dismiss badly supported arguments, I have too high of standards of engagement between two teams, I expect extra-ordinary claims to have at least decent proof, I don’t think repeating a prior block is a respectable extension of an argument even if the other team didn’t respond, I don’t think 2-3 sentences is usually enough to win a major argument. I do think you need to explain the claim, warrant, data for arguments in rebuttals, even when dropped. I don’t think a dropped assertion is necessarily true for the purposes of debate. I will ignore arguments I cannot understand and I have a coherence standards for positions and arguments. I think lots of ‘defensive’ arguments end up being terminal for positions.

Which is all to say that I am probably far too opinionated and interventionist for most debaters’ tastes. I like to think of it as being a principled critic of argumentation, but call it what you will. Does that make me a bad judge? Well, I certainly don’t think I’m what debaters want. I don’t know. But I am this way because I feel like these principles matter and I find them impossible to ignore.

Philosophy

Debate is the kiln in which minds are strengthened into ever better forms. The goal of each debate is not necessarily to find the right answer to a question, but an exploration of ideas and an experiment with concepts, enabled by the unique forum of debate that protects us from the full consequences of the ideas we advocate. It is the freedom of debate which enables it to be so effective. Hence, debate is a political project as well as an educational one. It is a democratic experiment. In it, we exercise our freedom to advocate for ideas—and to oppose them—in the spirit of putting our minds to work on a wide set of problems.

As a judge, I try to evaluate the quality of ideas and argumentation that debaters present. I do not have a preference for policy debate, critique debate, non-traditional debate or whatever any wishes to call their format. I do ask that ideas are presented coherently, cogently, and be well-supported by epistemologically-appropriate evidence.

I do have some argument biases (charted, per others):

Killing/letting die on purpose good--------------------------X--Killing/letting die on purpose bad.
Children are good-X--------------------------------Children are bad.
Ha funny debate only stupidity good!------------------------X-Ha funny debate only stupidity bad!
Topic ------X------------------No Topic.
Conditionality Good--X------------------Bad
ESR good for debate--------------------X---ESR is nonsense.
Offense/defense paradigm yes----------------X----no.
Alt-less Ks yes-----------------------X---no.
Stupid contrived fiat on CPs yes!-----------------------X--no.
Asserting another person has no role in debate: YES good strat-------------------------X---no.
Fairness It's an objective truth--------X--------------------It doesn't exist & we shouldn't consider it.

Here's that in another form.

I tend to dislike misanthropic arguments that ask me to kill people or increase suffering. If you read any argument says people dying is irrelevant, mass suffering is good for people or that children should not exist or be killed, you simply do not want me as a judge.

I tend to dislike arguments that rely on ideas almost everyone knows are wrong or originate out of dubious sources.

I tend to dislike arguments that attempt to stop rather than promote the development of ideas.

I tend to think the concept of a resolution is good and affirmatives should be topical, although I vote for non-topical affirmatives when it seems warranted by the debate (see note).

I tend to err negative on many theory questions, except when it comes to fiat. In that, I believe that international fiat, state fiat, and object fiat are unfair to affirmatives but to be honest these don't seem like voting issues, just reasons the counterplan should be ruled out.

I do not believe your assertion alone constitutes an argument that I am required to respect.

I tend to place great weight on cross-examination.

I tend to dislike arguments or positions that indicate that the other team has no place in the conversation.

I’ll limit how much I inject my own ideas into decisions but I will not prohibit my evaluative skills from the debate. I demand greater argumentative power from what appear to me to be counterintuitive arguments. I try to be reflective about my biases but I will not defer to other persons to make decisions for me.

I fundamentally believe in standards of decency and respectful treatment of colleagues and a sporting attitude toward competition. I understand that debate is serious. I realize that civility is sometimes a policing standard and there are limits to its application. But I persist in believing debaters should be free to make their arguments free from undue personal insults, discriminatory remarks, interruption, intimidation, or slurs regarding their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, sex, sexual behavior, religion or socioeconomic standing. I am quite willing to step in and object or refuse to continue to participate in debates in which such activity continues.

Speaker Point Scale (novice doesn't follow this scale):

2021-Present Averages:
Open: 28.49; JV: 28.05; Novice: 28.31

29.5-29.9 Very to extremely high quality speeches that I would consider very good even for Copeland/Top 5 plaque competitors.

29-29.4 Excellent speeches that significantly advanced your team's chances of winning. Good to very good speeches for First Round-level competitors.

28.6-28.9 Above average speeches that I would expect to see out of clearing teams. Good to very good speeches for competitors at the NDT qualifier level.

28.1-28.5 Average to somewhat above average speeches that contributed to your team's chances of winning. Slightly above to somewhat below average speeches for the NDT qualifier level.

27.6-28 Mediocre to average speeches that only moderately advanced your team's position toward winning the debate.

27.1-27.5 Fairly poor speeches that did not significantly advance your teams position in the debate and likely did not sound good.

26.5-27 Poor speeches that had a negative impact on your team's chances of winning.

< 26.4 You did something very insulting and/or turned a near-certain win into a certain loss via your speech

**I am moderately hearing impaired. This should not affect you except that it helps if you enunciate clearly and project your voice. Rooms with echoes or ambient noise pose particular problems for me. If you see me moving around the room to hear, it's not necessarily you, it may be me trying to get a better angle to hear you.

Critical Identity Teams

Originally written in 2014 so maybe out of date. I haven't revised it in quite a while. Most of it still accurate to me even if the language and named arguments are a bit out of date.

I find it a nearly undeniable fact that the growth of critical identity arguments has dramatically increased the inclusiveness of our community in the past ten years. This is meaningful change. So I’m taking the time to write this extensive addendum to my judging philosophy because I think it’s important to recognize that there are terminological differences and stylistic differences in debate right now and I want to help the teams that are helping make our community more inclusive feel more comfortable in front of me.

Teams that make critical identity arguments are widely varied and so I’m reluctant to comment on them (or define them), except that I have noticed that those I think of *provisionally as critical identity teams are sometimes surprised by my decisions (for and against them). After some thought, I think it is because of a certain divergence in the judging pool. Critical identity teams, roughly speaking, share a common judging pool that emphasizes certain things, takes others for granted and has certain expectations. My background in traditional critique and policy debating has emphases and vocabularies different from this pool. In a few decisions that a few teams have not liked, I’ve explained my perspective and it’s sometimes been rejected or received push back and even dismissal. That’s regrettable. I want these teams (you, if you’re reading this) to see me as pointing them to the path to victory with me as the judge and I encourage these teams to see me as an opportunity rather than as a barrier.

So, rather than wait until a post-round to translate my views—which is too late—I’m going to post them here. It’s long, yes, but I put some effort and thought into this.

Overview over, here are my notes:

NEG:

It’s probably true that it’s easier for you to win on the negative because there’s no topical barrier for you. There’s a huge exception to this, noted in the affirmative section. Here’s my hints:

-Argue the alternative. This is the number one point of difference between myself (and judges like me) and the pool of judges I’ve noted above. Winning a link and impact isn’t enough. You’re going to need to focus on extending, arguing, and explaining how your alternative solves your link arguments, how it solves the case and/or how it is the ‘better’ choice in the face of affirmative case arguments. If your alt solves the case, explain how. If it doesn’t solve the case, explain why that doesn’t matter. Your alternative needs to solve the link to the case, because if not, there’s simply no uniqueness to your arguments against the affirmative—they are true whether I vote affirmative or negative. That doesn’t mean that you need to solve the WHOLE link. For example, if the law is fundamentally anti-black, then even if the alternative doesn’t solve the law being anti-black it might provide us with a path to a non-law based perspective or something of that sort. When I’ve voted AFF against critical identity teams, there’s often been a post-round attempt at a gotcha question: “So, you just voted for a law you agree is anti-black/queer/ableist?” And I’ve answered: “No. Voting for an anti-black/queer/ableism law was inevitable because the alternative didn’t solve any bit of anti-blackness/queerness/ableism.” I will say that 90% of the time I’ve come to the conclusion NOT because I evaluated a contested debate about the alternative but because the negative barely extended the alternative or did not do so at all. I'm generally unpersuaded by "reject" arguments without some value to the rejection.

-Argue the case. Affirmatives often solve impacts—and those impacts can outweigh. If you don’t just let that slide, the fact that they CAUSE another impact cannot be easily dismissed. I watched a debate at the NDT where the critical race team just slayed the policy affirmative by reading phenomenal cards that indicating the structural, racist roots of climate change and consumption patterns. It was excellent. However, that doesn’t happen very often. Being anti-queer is bad…but so is climate change that kills millions, particularly vulnerable populations. It’s easier to pick which one I must address first if the chances of the cases chances of solving climate change are either mitigated or critiqued in a fashion that undermines its solvency.

-Frame the impact. A certain group of judges might think that if you win “social death now” that means basically all the impacts of the case are irrelevant. I don’t think it’s nearly that easy. Think of it this way—you, the debater, are often in the population that your argument says is socially dead. Yet I think that your life matters. And I want to stop bad things from happening to you despite your state of partial or total social death. So, you must say MORE than social death. You may explain, for example, that social death perpetually PERMITS radical violence at a constant or increasing rate; that massive real violence is a terminal and immutable consequence of social death. This does not, by the way, mute the entirety of offense gained by an opponent’s policy action, but in combination with a won alternative provides a nice pairing of a systemic impact with strong empirical grounding and very high future risk with a method of addressing that risk. Some framing evidence helps here.

-Fiat is illusory isn’t a real argument (nor is the affirmative argument that the “The plan REALLY happens!”). I get the plan doesn’t happen but it’s a worthwhile thought experiment that enables us to discuss the merits of the plan. I don’t AUTOMATICALLY assume this, but if the affirmative team frames their case as an representative anecdote of how we can learn to engage in politics, or how this kind of debate informs politics, either in general or in specific, I tend to agree that’s reasonable since that is the whole reason I think debate is educational. THUS! The KEY is is not to argue, “Fiat is illusory, they lose on presumption”—which is a bad argument—but to argue that given that they are teaching a BAD politics and that you present a better one. Your better framework may include arguing for the abandonment of plan-based politics.

-Frame the meaning of winning a key premise. To some extent, I find that to be true of anti-blackness or anti-queerness or anti-intersex, etc. If you win that blackness is an ontology and anti-blackness is a political ontology (although, to be honest, I’m not sure I understand what a political ontology is) you’ve won a premise that gets you a long way in the debate. However, you haven’t WON the debate, per se (nor does losing this premise necessarily lose you the debate). If society is anti-black, does that means politics is irrelevant? My presumption is NO. If you are black and live in anti-black civil society, I still presume that it would be better to do things that blunt the force of anti-blackness with ‘liberal’ policies. Now, you have a huge advantage if you win your premise because in a larger sense you’re winning that liberalism is doomed—but you need to make that clear. Finally, you should work at backstopping this argument. I’ve seen teams go all-in on winning queer is ontological without looking at how they could win if they did not win this premise. I saw a team at the NDT nicely win a debate where they lost that blackness is ontological by arguing that even if its socially constructed, its so deeply embedded that it can’t be extracted and that the alternative resolved it best. Well done.

AFF

Most of this is about topicality because once you’re beyond that barrier you’re just in regular debateland and the above guidelines apply.

Topicality

First hint with me on this overall—persuade your opponent not to go for topicality. When negative teams don’t go for topicality against blatantly non-topical teams, I have a ridiculous affirmative voting record. The reasons are obvious: Links and competition are hard to generate when you’re not topical. That’s why topicality is vital for those teams. But let’s ignore that for a moment.

-Topicality: First hint: Be topical. I think it’s possible. I particularly think it’s possible to defend the topic from the outside—I think it’s possible for queer victims of police violence to argue police who harass queers should be arrested by the state without being or endorsing the state. I think you can be topical and argue that you shouldn’t need to answer process arguments. As the coach of repeated, successful topical K teams I don’t think topicality automatically means role-playing in the strong sense. I also think these debates are essential. Surely it can’t be the case that all critical identity positions of value require non-topicality and I’m very interested to hear the ways critical queer, race, gender, intersex values can be met with a topical plan. ***HOWEVER, if you have me as a judge and you’re NEVER topical, it’s probably a bad idea to just toss a plan in. It’s bad because you haven’t thought through how to defend yourself against arguments.

-Ok, so you’re not topical. Let’s talk about my presumptions on that. The main barrier for you here is that I don’t believe that any state action 100% pollutes any action. That doesn’t mean the state is good. Far from it. But considering the fact that many of the teams that refuse to ever agree with the topic attend STATE UNIVERSITIES with coaches receiving paychecks from THE STATE it’s hard for me to understand why talking about state action is impossible. That’s not a killer argument, but it does seem to hint that SOME state actions are not entirely poisonous. This is my own view and while it does color my T arguments, it’s not insurmountable. Here’s how you overcome that.

-Don’t be anti-topical. It’s a lot easier for me to vote for you if you’re not anti-topical. If you are anti-topical, say, your affirmative says (last year’s topic) that prostitution is bad (and implies shouldn’t be legal) then it’s going to be much harder for you to win in front of me. The reason is simply that you’ve staked out negative ground. You’ve admitted there’s a debate to be had on something and chosen NOT to take your assigned side. You refuse to take up the affirmative side yet you functionally attempt to force the other team to do just that.

- Being PRO-TOPICAL still requires you to be smart. The problem is that the other team will ask, “Why NOT be topical?” You need an answer to that question that isn’t just “State messed up, yo.” You CAN argue that. You CAN win that argument. But I’m going to want nuanced reasons that are specific to a particular to a place and time. Saying, “The US government is messed up and did bad things” seems to me to beg the question of what it SHOULD do to change. So, to overcome that you’ll need to explain why it’s better to debate about your adjacent discussion of topical things rather that government action AND you’ll need to explain why that’s an AFFIRMATIVE argument and not a negative argument.

-Answer their offensive arguments on T. Limits, ground, fairness, predictability, education—these are real things in debate and they matter. You will do well to answer these arguments with both offense and defense. I often see all offense (limits debate protect white folks) without any defense. PARTICULARLY answer their arguments about why topical/legal debating is good, in addition to the regular T argument set. These cards tend to be pretty good so your responses need to be good as well. “Fairness for who?” is a good question—but it needs to be answered rather than just leaving it open ended. On your education arguments you need to move beyond “All our arguments are educational” to explaining why you lead to good, predictable debates that are relatively fair and deeply educational. I am in agreement with the point that critical identity arguments are intrinsically educational (see my intro to this whole thing) but the bigger question is how do they create good debates where both sides explore issues in depth? There are really good reasons that this is the case—you need to make those arguments.

-Address topical version of the affirmative and understand that the legal debates good is a net benefit to this argument. A good team T will argue that you do not have a right to the perfect affirmative, just one that lets you discuss similar key issues. Also understand that “State bad” isn’t necessarily an answer. If can be, but even the anti-statist needs to understand the state. As a former anti-capitalist advocate, I still needed lawyers to get me out of jail and I still needed knowledge of the law to protect myself from the police as much as could be managed..

-Realize that “No Topical Version” is a trap. If you say no topical version, you are setting yourself up to link to the “this is anti-topical” argument, i.e., that your aff is wholly unpredictable and in the reverse direction of all of the regular topic negative arguments. The “no topical version of the aff” made by the 2AC sounds like, “Our whole affirmative advantage is illegitimate.” If you say “yes, topical version” then obviously you’ve also set yourself up. At the very least, so don't assert the 'no topical version' and set yourself up for this debate intentionally.

-Have an answer for the topical research burden argument. Critical identity teams are fond of arguing that there are many different versions of their arguments—TRUE! Which for teams going for T just shows how large the research burden becomes to prep for every single iteration—every different case is its own topic area. You need offensive and defense arguments. The argument that “You just don’t want to answer/research queer/black/feminist/trans/ableism arguments” is a good starting point but it’s not enough (and solved by topical version of the affirmative). “Case list” is also not answer to this argument, because research burden isn’t a question of predictability. Don’t fall into the trap of listing off a bunch of crappy positions you refuse to defend (state good, cap K) as neg ground.

-Find A CERTAIN TOPICALITY. Optimally, a strategic team will find a way to be topical, yet not defend the state. FYI, I absolutely do not think that having a plan that mentions what the US or USFG should do obligates you to defend “the State”. I think it obligates you to defend that particular state action. However, I think you can go beyond that. I think you can defend the plan as a critical intervention, as an imaginative starting point, as epistemological experiment etc. without defending state action in other ways. Now, you’ll have to defend your plan (or a topical advocacy statement—you need not have a PLAN, per se) in SOME ways but probably not a lot of different things.

-Impact turn topicality. If all else fails, impact turn and be extremely offensive against it. Disallow me from voting for T—you can complete this tactic by providing defense against their impact arguments while working on your own. Defense wins championships.

Hints not related to topicality

Once you’re past the topicality gate, you’re in the realm of normal non-procedural arguments and I have few suggestions in this area to avoid common errors (certainly not universal errors) I see in debates in front of me:

-Back up outrage with arguments. Excellent critical identity teams do this…but younger/lesser teams seem to struggle with this. Don’t get so wound up in your position that it stops you from making your argument.

-Antagonizing your opponent won’t sway me. There are reasons that you may choose to antagonize your opponent, some of which may be strategic, some not, some both. But as for how I view the debate, it will not contribute to me voting for you. See note in original philosophy about respectful behavior toward colleagues.

-Make the history lesson pay. Sometimes these debates collapse into scattered historical anecdotes that are only lightly tied together—get full credit for your analysis of history by investing time in explaining its application in this case.

-Don’t rely too heavily on enthymeme (don’t rely on me filling in the blanks for you). Too often, I hear judges (on MANY sides) say, “I guess I just know what they’re talking about.” No. You have an explanatory burden to help me cognitively grasp the situation. I grasp the frustration that comes with my lack of cultural connection to your argument, but I’m doing my best. If you think, “I’m tired of explaining myself to straight people, white people, cis gender people, able-bodied people, etc” and then don’t explain, it becomes really hard for me to vote for you (as well as making a bunch of assumptions that may or may not be accurate, depending on your judge). I won’t vote on what I can’t explain.

FINAL NOTE: You might be thinking, after reading this, ‘WOW, we’re NEVER preferring him. Look all the things he wants us to do—his presumptions are just too high. What a T hack.’

Maybe. But what I’ve tried to do is review almost every argument I find persuasive on T and flag it for you and send you in the right direction in answering it. In REAL DEBATES, teams won’t make all these arguments and they won’t always make them well. I ALWAYS evaluate the debate in front of me. But I wanted to flag all these so you could think through your answers and win my ballot. I wanted to flag these because winning my ballot is possible, not impossible.

I also think this can serve as a primer for winning in front of judges that are like me. To succeed in the big picture, you need to expand your judging pool. At the NDT and in national circuit elimination debates, you can’t hide from all the judges who think topicality is a thing or who have a grounding in traditional critique or policy debate. In my ideal world, you’d see me (or someone like me) on a panel against a non-critical identity team and think, “Good. Mick is a fair judge who sees the value of our arguments. He cares about our role in debateland and the world and even though he might not be our wheelhouse judge, we know the route to win with him.”

And, in the ideal world, your opponent would think the exact same thing.

Ethics Challenge

I want to say that I am not a fan of ethics challenges but they may be the only resolution to certain circumstances. In most cases, I prefer lesser solution from a team with a ethics-related issue: i.e., rejection of the piece of evidence, rejection of a position, rejection of all evidence with demonstrated problems, etc.

I have a relatively standard procedure on ethics challenges. Ethics challenges are accusations of academic misconduct against the opposing team that are outside the bounds of what can be adjudicated by the debate. Justifications for an ethics challenge include, but are not limited to:

1) Mis-representing evidence, i.e., “cutting out of context”--This includes highlighting, reading, or constructing evidence in a way that allows the team to present the evidence as supporting a claim that directly contradicts the intention of the author.

2) Fabricating evidence– This includes altering evidence by adding or deleting parts of cited evidence or wholesale making up evidence and presenting it in a debate.

3) Mis-representing what evidence has been read in the round, i.e., “clipping” or “cross-reading” or falsely claiming a piece of evidence has been read when it has not, or, alternatively, claiming a piece of evidence has NOT been read by the team when it has.

4) Refusing to provide your cited/read evidence to your opponent in the debate or intentionally leaving evidence out of a speech document in order to gain a competitive advantage.

5) Intentionally mis-citing evidence in order to gain a competitive advantage, i.e., leaving out an author or source that might be a liability in a debate. Incidental mis-citation is not subject to an ethics challenge.

6) Using ellipsis or leaving out parts of evidence that are part of the context of the evidence because the part excluded by the ellipsis would be a significant liability in the debate.

7) Intentionally mis-disclosing to another team in pre-round pre-round preparation in order to gain a competitive advantage.

8) If you generally accuse the team ‘cheating’ on any non-debate argument issue and try to make it a ‘voting issue’ (disclosure, speech docs, cards, etc), I will ask if you intend this as an ethics challenge.

This is not a complete list. Please note that some of these include a factor of intention and others do not. If you read a card that’s out of context or fabricated, it doesn't matter if you or your partner didn’t cut the card. In other cases, there must be intention.

Process and burden of proof for ethics challenges:
1) An ethics challenge will stop the round. I may pause once and try to talk through the issue briefly, trying to find a negotiating solution short of the challenge. But once the challenge is confirmed, it’s round over for me. If the tournament or organization procedures turn it over to the tournament officials, I will do that. If it is left to me to decide, I will ask for proof and defense and make a decision. I may give time for teams to produce evidence. For example, to provide a full length version of a card, article, book to demonstrate a defense. Moreover, I am NOT simply relying on team arguments. This is no longer a debate where I rely solely on the arguments presented. I will use any resource I can to reach a conclusion. If I am on a panel and it is not in my sole power to stop the round, I will adjudicate the debate based on the initial charge and defense. I will not evaluate the rest of the debate, even if the rest of the debate proceeds.

(2) I have a fairly high bar for voting on them. I must see clear and convincing evidence of the conditions above. Suspicion or even simply me believing it’s likely is not sufficient for me to vote on an ethics challenge against a team.

(3) If an ethics challenge is proven with clear and convincing evidence it’s a loss for the team challenged. If it is not proven to a clear and convincing level, it’s a loss for the team conducting the challenge.

***PROCEDURE NOTES.

1. I am worn out of looking through 6 different speech documents for cards. I am implementing a policy of asking that cards on positions that have been gone for in the 2NR/2AR be consolidated and sent to me). You don't need to sort out WHICH cards you went for, it's easier if I pick through what matters. Just consolidate them, organized by SUBJECT and SPEECH and send them to me. If you are paper team, you're are a cruel person who wants trees to die, but, on the other hand you make judging much easier :).

2. Most CX answers that given outside the 3 minutes of designated CX are not relevant to my decision. You want to get your argumentative question in? Fit your question and the opportunity to answer it into the CX time. You don't get to use some prep time to cover the argument you dropped, so you don't get to used prep time to ask the questions you forgot. Exception A: Filibustering to run out the clock will cause me to ignore this rule. CXer, you'll know you are free to keep asking because I will keep paying attention instead of getting up or walking away. Exception B: While answers might be non-binding, deception is misconduct foul, auto-loss. If the Cx-ee answers a clarifying question in prep like, "What's the status of the counterplan?" and then CHANGES it and thinks that's a clever trick, I see that as misconduct. Exception C: I think clarifying questions are fine in CX. Examples: What was your third argument on the DA? What's the status of the CP? Which card did you read? Answering these questions are matters of courtesy and fair play. Of course, they might just answer: "We didn't take a position on CP rules in the 1NC." And you'll be out of luck in arguing with them.

Unaffiliated

Previously coached University of Washington, University of Puget Sound, Interlake High School, Bingham High School.

Graduated from University of Puget Sound in 2013

Short version

All approaches (policy, k and beyond) are welcome. Do some good research. Be specific with your claims. Tailor your argument to your opponents. You can cheat, but not too much. I am probably about 50/50 on T vs the K aff.

I judge sparingly these days. It is a safe assumption that my knowledge of the topic is, at best, equivalent to a decent google search. What I've written below may no longer be of any relevance, but it's an approximation of what I thought about most when I was judging more often.

Miscellaneous pet peeves

- Saying "cut the card" without marking where it's cut

- Excessive (ie longer than :30) overviews

- Ending prep before clicking "send" on the email chain/before the flash drive leaves your computer

- CXes that don't go anywhere, or that get interesting and are promptly forgotten

- Cruelty/being unnecessarily mean/disrespecting people/using hateful speech

General

When I debated, I typically read a plan and tended to defend it, and went for both Ks and policy strategies on the negative. As a coach, I've worked across the spectrum, both with traditional policy squads and one-off/no-plan teams. I've qualified teams to the NDT and the TOC, and was a CEDA elim participant and NDT qualifier myself.

I have some thoughts about content and style, but at the end of the day, I think both sides of the k/policy "divide" are interesting and worthwhile. Fundamentally, I think debate is a game of research, in one form or another. In "policy" debates, author qualification, evidence specificity, recency, and conclusiveness are all worth referencing and comparing. In "kritik" debates, explanation and application to your opponents' arguments and evidence is crucial. Either way, I like it when debates are reflective of controversies in academic fields, and not just constructed out of ideas pulled from the back pages of newspapers or sketchy timecube-esque websites. I think reading evidence in the correct context and with minimal distortion of its authors' intent is important.

I think that you should respond to your opponents' arguments. How you do that is up to you, but it's much easier for me when you proceed in an order similar to that of your opponent, and make it clear which argument you're responding to. I've judged several debates that were pretty far from this, and while I enjoyed them, I think I'm far less predictable at deciding them.

Plan-focus debate

Excellent! I think well-researched and well-executed technical policy debate is awesome.

Particularly in this context, I think defense matters, and am willing to depart from the offense/defense cult. The last time I sat on a panel was because I assessed a 0% risk of a net benefit to a PIC. I think good internal link defense against advantages/DAs is an underutilized strategic element.

The politics DA gets a lot of hate from people, but if you think you can wordsmith your way through the logical oddities of the argument, I'm probably a surprisingly good judge for you. From an educational perspective, I think it's cool that debaters expend so much energy to keep up with news about federal legislation, and I'm more than happy to reward it as a judge.

Kritiks/etc

Academically speaking, this is probably my comfort zone, but that makes me much more willing to inject my interpretation about what an argument is supposed to say into how I evaluate a debate.

I think talking about the aff (when on the negative) is crucial. This is particularly true of how you explain the alt.

I think role of the ballot args are often arbitrary and self-serving. I think you're better off defending the relative merits of your framing mechanism, but I will probably disregard one-line interpretations that needlessly stack the deck in your favor.

I am open to and interested in alternative models of competition but will default to my interpretation of traditional opportunity cost absent any direction to the contrary. I have, in a couple instances, determined that the aff didn't get a perm, but that was usually because the block out-teched the 1AR on the theory debate, and not because I think that argument is particularly compelling.

Procedurals

I like neg flex. I think, as far as "the rules" go, that the neg probably should get to read a few conditional advocacies, and indirect "contradictions" between them (like the security k and a DA impact) aren't necessarily the end of the world. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, however, for both theoretical and critical reasons. Also, I'm not too keen on the "judge kick" conditionality argument.

I would rather reject the arg and not the team on theory, but I respect the value of theory as an element of a diverse strategy.

I think T debate is a good thing. Real-world relevance or engagement with core debates in topic literature is important. I like T debates that effectively use evidence.

The less generic a framework arg feels (vs the non-traditional/K aff), the more I will like it.

I have coached policy at Garfield High School since 2014. I have yet to encounter an argument I'm not OK with in a round; it's really about you and how well you explain your arguments and why they should win you the round. I think it's important to be responsive to the specific arguments in the round - don't just read your prewritten overview and assume it works for every debate. I enjoy both policy and critical arguments and have some background knowledge in theory, but don't assume I know your literature. In my opinion, it's your job to tell me how to vote in the round and why. If you leave it up to me, I tend to buy the argument that moral thinking is a prereq to policy making (but I can be convinced otherwise).

I am generally ok with most speed, but make sure I'm flowing if you're blazing through a bunch of analytics you don't want me to miss.

I don't know what "judge kicking" means - are you asking me to decide your strategy for you? I won't do that. Either go for the argument, or don't.

Bottom line: I'm a tabula rasa judge. Run whatever you would like to run, and tell me how you would like me to evaluate the round.

Email: jasoncxdebate@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated CX on the national circuit for 4 years in high school, did not debate in college. I've been coaching CX at Garfield HS since 2014. I judge ~50 rounds a year, split between the local and national circuit. We took a team to the TOC in 2021. My day job is as a social science researcher who does a lot of applied research with Indigenous, Black, and BIPOC communities. This keeps me pretty engaged with philosophical and critical theoretical literature, and very attendant to questions of power and equity. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male who was educated and socialized within a Western context, which undoubtedly shapes my epistemic view of the world.

Feelings about specific things:

T/FW: Excellent. Specific and creative violations are more fun to judge than generic ones
DA: Great.
CP: Awesome. Highly specific CP strategies (such as PICs) tend to produce more interesting debates than generic CPs, but they certainly both have their place.
Ks: Excellent. Especially if you can articulate specific links to the aff

Policy affs: Great
K affs: Awesome. I find that K vs K debates are often more interesting than K vs FW debates, but that isn't always the case

Theory: Good. If you want to win on theory, make it more substantive than a few warrantless blips
Disclosure Theory: Not very convincing for me. I think that the open source/disclosure movement within debate has been somewhat uncritically embraced in a way that doesn't fully consider how the open sourcing of knowledge reproduces new forms of inequity (often along neoliberal/service economy lines, wherein better resourced teams are better able to take advantage of the open knowledge economy).
New arguments in the rebuttals: Generally not a good idea. Completely new arguments should not be made in the rebuttals. I will strongly protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR.
Judge Kicking: Nope. Don't expect me to judge kick things for you. Make a strategic choice for yourself.
Overviews and impact calculus: Yes, please. Clearly frame my choice for me at the end of the round, and you are much more likely to get my ballot. Also, 'even if' statements can be super persuasive in the final rebuttals.
Backing up Claims with Warrants: Super important.
Impact Calculus and Overviews: Also super important - I like being told how I should vote, and why you think I should vote that way.
Clipping: Don't do it, I will vote you down for cheating.
Speaking: Please be clear! If you're clear, then I am fine with speed. Clarity is especially important in the online debate format.
Dropped arguments: These flow through as 'true' for the team making them.
Voting: I will vote for one team over the other. Don't ask for a double win (or loss).

At the end of the day, I believe that debate should be about the debaters and not about me. My job is to create a safe and educational space, and to do my best to decide the round based on the arguments rather than on my own beliefs. If you clearly tell me how you think I should be judging, then there shouldn't be any big surprises.