Affiliations:

Coaching for Seaholm High School and Oakland Debate.

Email: Jenniferantonn@gmail.com - please include me on your email chains.

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Specifics

Non-traditional –

Not my cup of tea and my recent decisions back that up. Debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction for me. Given that, I'm a good judge for T/framework. One might even say it makes the game work. The affirmative is better off counter-defining the words in the resolution and using their offense to prove that their vision for the topic is better, rather than impact turning T. I don't think the correct palliative for inequalities in the debate community is to take a break from debating the topic. When I deviate from this predisposition, the affirmative has usually proven that there is a lack of access to the game for X group. I think these arguments are good, but not that hard for the negative to answer.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not very good for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to role playing as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest.

Kritiks –

Ks that do not engage with the substance of the aff are rarely reasons to vote negative. I'm really not here for your generic batailledrillard business and to be honest I only have a cursory understanding of it. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. You probably think this doesn't apply to your very special kritik, but I bet you it does.

Unless told specifically otherwise, I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K.

Theory –

Theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed.

I've flip-flopped on "judge kicking" - if the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team.

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points (updated 10/13/17 because inflation is reaching Weimar Germany levels) - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 26.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks. I absolutely HATE when debaters steal prep. If I notice you're taking prep AFTER the timer has gone off, speaker points will be dramatically lowered.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision.

Inspired by Brad (I'll add more as I think of them)

Doug Bandow ------------x-------------------------------------------- Doug Husic

brad-----------------------------------------------------x---brud

Koch Industries x-------------------------------------------------------- John Koch

Katrail x--------------------------------------------------------Jenny

horse-traders ------------------------------------------x-------------- horse-traitors

Cats -----------------------------Bats--------------------------- Insects

Monster Zero Ultra x-------------------------------------------------------- Brad

conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

I believe that I come into each debate as a first time observer. Convince me. I believe in professional, respectful decorum. I do not adhere to bullying behaviors. I look at support for contentions and I don’t disclose.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

Competed in high school public forum for 3 years, from 2014 through 2017, primarily in Michigan state and local level competitions, with a few national events including Glenbrooks, Blake, and NSDA nationals. Judged a few tournaments afterwards, also in 2017.

I should still be comfortable with debate jargon unless there have been big changes in the last 7 years. And even if there are new terms, I imagine context will make them clear enough.

I intend to keep a thorough flow for every round. I care more about the strength of arguments than your presentation style. As long as I can understand the words you're saying, delivery is unlikely to affect my decision, although it can affect speaker points.

To decide the round, I will look at the impacts each side has carried through to the end, and weigh them. You should tell me how and why I should weigh competing impacts in your favor. If you don't explain why your impacts are more important than your opponent's, I am forced to make that evaluation myself, which is not ideal, because my decision will be more dependent on my subjective preferences.

I'm open to a wide variety of round strategies and arguments.

In crossfire, do not speak over your opponents.

Also ensure that crossfire is constrained to asking and answering questions. Don't ask a 10-sentence "question" that's just you trying to extend your rebuttal time, and keep your responses focused on the question asked. Excessive crossfire violations will result in docked speaker points and may even impact my ruling.

Please ensure you remain respectful of your opponents at all times.

I have been in the debate world for 7 years as a head coach, a public forum debate and forensics speech student, a judge, and a state board member.

In a round I prefer road mapping (organized speech pattern), evidence, and follow-through. DO NOT road map outside of speaker time. You are in public forum, not policy, don't steal extra time. If you do a road map outside of the speaking time, I will take speaker points. Don't scream in the crossfire, be nice to each other. Please keep track of your own prep time- I will only give you an indication as to when you have used all of it. Framework is for policy, you shouldn't need it in pf unless it's paramount to your case (hot tip: it's not).

During crossfire be civil. Per NSDA rules, judges are not supposed to be voting based on crossfire, so I will only take comments in crossfire into consideration if it is brought up during a timed speech before the final focus. (Exception to this would be statements from grand crossfire.)

I hate writing down my RFD's so I will likely just do it verbally. I am a scientific and statistical judge- that being said you have to follow through with impacts to win. Laying down 5 warrants and pieces of evidence and not following through on why it should matter to the judge will NOT win you the debate, be sure to ALWAYS bring through your impacts and weigh them against your opponents.

Be polite. I vote on good arguments that prove your claim with valid evidence, analysis, and impacts. Please state your claim, contentions, and impacts slowly and clearly. Speak clearly throughout the debate, especially during the final focus.

I am a critic of argument, not a blank slate. 

If when you are speaking I cannot consciously register the words that you are saying, then they do not count in the debate. 

If you make a claim that I find to be unsupported by analysis or evidence of any kind, then that claim does not count in the debate. 

A card is not worth more than an analytic unless you make a persuasive argument for why it is.  

The resolution says "should," which means that the debate is about what should be done. The debate is not about what is politically feasible.  Nor am I likely to be persuaded that the debate ought to be about what might be done by those who currently hold power as a result of hypothetical political bartering.  

Without macro-systems-level-thinking, we are all quite liable to get bogged down in potentially irrelevant details and digressions. If we spend all our time focusing on macro-systems-level-thinking, we are unlikely to come up with any good solutions to the very real problems the world faces today.  

If the other team is proliferating the debate with unreasonable and unsupported claims, I advise tastefully and humorously disparage the arguments instead of engaging them substantively (do not disparage your opponents as people. Decorum matters!), Policy debaters could learn a lot from this video:  https://www.vox.com/2017/4/3/15163170/strikethrough-comedians-satire-trump-misinformation

I have been coaching debate since 1983. I was a policy debate coach and judge for 30+ years. In 2012, I started coaching Public Forum debate. I vote on clear impact calculus, politeness, clarity in speaking style and well cited sources. One of the reasons I left policy is because it became a ridiculous spewing of words much too fast for anyone who was not familiar with the evidence to understand.I prefer debaters who tell a "good story" rather than give me a bunch of numbers and blippy arguments. I am looking for real debate in conversational speeches in the round.

I believe crossfire should be where debaters clarify and explain. Answering questions so that we can look at the arguments and evidence honestly is important. Any kind of rude behavior in crossfire could very well lose you the round if I am the judge. I'm looking for an exchange of information in crossfire.

I try to go into each round without preconceived opinions, and I try hard not to intervene. I will look for the easiest place to vote in the round, especially if there is not clear impact calculus in the final two speeches.

My email is marshd@dexterschools.org

As an old school judge I tend to make my decisions on the clash in the round and how well/clearly the arguments are developed/responded to. A dropped argument does not mean an automatic win for the team if it is not key to the main argument being presented. Evidence is important to me and arguments based on quality of sources, analysis on importance of post dates info, etc are acceptable but should not be the main focus of the debate. I also consider how well the teams treat each other, and rudeness can impact how I view the round. Finally, the last two speeches should be narrowed to winning arguments and articulated in such a way to be convincing. I will make my judgments based on what you say in the final speech, not what I think you meant.

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain. Please do email chains instead of sharing in the zoom chat/NSDA classroom! PLEASE no google docs if you have the ability to send in Word! If you send docs as PDFs your speaker points will be capped at 28.5)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

Piper Meloche [she/her, last name rhymes with "josh" not "brioche"]

Groves + MSU

pipermeloche@gmail.com [all email chains, questions]

grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com [high school only]

What I expect from you

1. Non-negotiables - Racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, or other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated. Nor will cheating. Unless the tournament rules tell me otherwise, I will not let an ethics challenge be "debated out." If there is an instance of discrimination in a round I am judging, I will allow the impacted person to decide whether the debate continues. I cannot adjudicate what I did not directly witness.

2. Strong preferences - flow, keep your own time, and frame my ballot at the top of the late rebuttals. Whenever possible, prioritize evidence quality - good cards and smart re-highlights will be rewarded with high speaks.

3. Be nice to each other and have fun - the people we meet and the ideas we learn in debate are far more important than the result of any individual round, tournament, season, or career. I am very sensitive to condescending and rude cross-ex questions - especially when the two students have a power imbalance.

What to expect from me

1. Tech over truth - but the two are far more interwoven than many debaters think. I often grow frustrated when teams give their opponents' best arguments the same attention as their opponents' worst arguments. Truth exists and should determine how you execute tech. Arguments also must not be morally repugnant - death good, oppression good count as morally repugnant, and hot take, global warming good is pushing it. All below preferences assume equal debating.

2. Much better for policy arguments - I was a K debater in high school, but my research now exclusively focuses on the policy side of college and high school topics. The purpose of this paradigm is not to constrain what you do in front of me but to give you the most accurate understanding of my predispositions and how I try to judge debates.

Topic Things

College --

1. D4/5 will be my first time judging this semester. If some community norm about the coolest cards to read or the worst advantages has developed since then, please take the time to explain that to me.

2. Many debates on the college topic will be an assurance or deterrence disad against an aff claiming to solve these impacts. Love that for y'all, but you need to do more link comparison. Asserting that you clearly solve prolif, but your opponent clearly doesn't without warrants gives the same vibes as "I know you are, but what am I?" and almost forces me to intervene.

High School --

1. FSPEC...I don’t get it. SPEC arguments are likely only true if dropped unless you can convince me I’m missing something.

Whatever happened to strategically vague plan texts?! Funding mechanism advantages are whatever, but you are opening yourself up to annoying PICs and process counterplans that change one tiny thing about that funding mech you specified in your plan text or in cross ex! “Normal means” is the best answer to “how is the aff funded” because “Perm: do the counterplan” is the best answer to counterplans that change funding in a way that still results in a JG, BI, or social security expansion.

2. Love that people are going for T, but I think there are more convincing options than “taxes and transfers.” I am unconvinced that the word “and” can never mean “or.” Piper likes to eat chicken shawarma sandwiches with extra garlic and mint chocolate chip ice cream. Did you read that as I like to put ice cream on my chicken shawarma sandwiches with extra garlic? I sure hope not. In this instance, “and” does mean “or.”

Policy v. Policy

1. The politics disad is good, actually. It's only "bad" if you're bad at storytelling. Know the major political figures and forces involved in the disad.

2. A smartly constructed advantage counterplan can solve most affs.

3. Counterplans should compete. Creative permutations can and should check counterplans that do not compete.

4. Conditionality is good, and all other theory is a reason to reject the argument. Conditionality ends after the 2NR if there is equal debating on judge kick or everyone is silent on the issue.

Clash

I'm far more familiar with identity Ks than Baudrillard and friends.

K affs v. Topicality --

1. Neg teams should answer case.

2. K affs should have a substantial tie to the topic.

3. Creative TVAs are an underrated part of the T debate - they should be something you actively research, not an afterthought.

4. I would prefer that aff teams provide and defend a clear counter-interpretation for the topic.

5. Everyone should avoid making gross exaggerations on the topicality page. K affs, for example, will not cause everyone to quit the activity.

Policy affs v. K --

1. Aff teams are most successful in these debates when they invest time in link comparison and flesh out the perm.

2. Neg teams are usually in a better spot when they prove that the aff is worse than the status quo and invest a substantial amount of time into the alternative.

K v. K

I have not judged enough of these rounds to give insight into how I evaluate them. Please prefer and provide judge instruction accordingly.

Random Hot Takes

1. The state of the high school and college wikis is disheartening. If you are scared that your entire strategy will collapse if others have your evidence, your evidence is probably not that good to begin with.

I think posting cites instead of Open Source is perfectly fine. BUT you have to check that you’re uploading complete cites! That includes the full tag, author, date, qualifications, a link to where we can access the text if available, and the first and last 3 words of your card.

2. Inserting rehighlights is *usually* good practice - read better evidence if this makes you sad. Rehighligted evidence will only be considered to the extent that it is explained. "Meloche goes neg" is not an explanation. At some point, introducing excessive rehighlights makes the level of explanation I need impossible.

3. A phenomenal 2AR cannot make up for a 2AC with sloppy mistakes - taking a few seconds of 2AC prep to make sure everything is in order is more valuable than saving those 15 seconds for the 2AR.

4. Your breath control sucks - easiest way to fix it is to try and take breaths at the end of sentences like we do in normal conversations. You'll sound and feel better.

5. After each tournament, I check how the points I gave compared to those received by the teams I judge throughout the weekend. This is my attempt to keep up with point inflation, but it doesn't always work.

6. Death by a Thousand Cuts is a fantastic Taylor Swift song - it is a mediocre neg strategy.

7. I am judging how easy to read, quickly sent, and aesthetically pleasing your judge doc is. Not in a win/loss way, but in a "I'm keeping a mental tier-list" way.

8. https://twitter.com/mcfuhrmann/status/1362452482165768193/photo/1

----

1. I've been trying to delete this numbered list for like 20 mins and gave up :(

Email: shannonnierman@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email - robbpluta@gmail.com - please include me on the email chain!

As an FYI, I don't coach for any teams currently, and last debated as a senior in high school, so I probably have a little less experience with the intricate details of a lot of arguments than other judges, especially as the season is starting. Explaining everything out to me, no matter how obvious it might seem, is a great way to earn my ballot.

Judging Philosophy - My default position is that debate is an educational competition, and that by exchanging arguments in this space we gain knowledge on the topic, the world, political mechanisms, activism, etc. I can be convinced out of this reasoning but sans framework it's where I default.

I am adamant that I vote only on the arguments presented to me in the round. If an argument is clearly abusive, doesn't link, makes no sense, has no supporting warrants - I am counting on YOU to be the one to point it out. This is a test of your skills, not mine. I've voted for DAs that clearly don't link simply because the Aff let's Neg get away with it - always call out the other team and don't count on me to do it.

A dropped argument is a conceded argument - but you need to point out why this wins you the round.

Slurs or abusive language/arguments designed to hurt others (racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc), is an auto-ballot against the violating team. "Fascism good" arguments fall under this category as well.

Sans above, I will be willing to vote for any argument, but historically, I've noted what I find more persuasive below.

Topicality - I'll be honest that I have rarely voted on T's that were not dropped in whole/in part. The neg needs to make the argument that T is a priori (as I will not assume this). The Neg should attempt to prove what education/ground has been lost by the aff with actual examples, otherwise I tend to be unconvinced. If you're going for T, make it the whole 2NR.

DAs - always cool (Unless you're going for "climate change good / isn't happening" in which case I will laugh you out of the room)

CPs - always cool - Neg run what you want, aff run theory it's abusive. Arguments that tell me "this is what debate will look like if we allow ______" are a must if you're arguing abuse.

Ks - cool if explained well. A layperson's explanation is a must, especially on psychoanalytic Ks. It's not necessary for K's critiquing Aff's specific plan epistemology to have an alt, but is never a bad idea. Ks that critique the resolution/general format of policy (IE 'state bad') should absolutely have one. Aff - always question the link.

FW - super cool - needs to be in every round.

Theory - cool - I'm probably in the minority of judges who think so. But debate is a competition, and debating best practices that allow everyone to play the competition are intriguing to me. Statements like "Debate becomes _______" or "Debate will look like ________" are essential.

Performance Affs - cool, but should still be "topical". At minimum, a "plan text" that states "We [do the resolution] by ________".

Impact Calc - absolutely necessary. Probability / questioning the link always seems neglected in favor of magnitude, which would be a mistake for me.

General Things I like:

- SLOW DOWN on your Tags! and tell me NEXT when moving on!

- Explicitly contrasting FW/Role of the Ballot.

- Explaining the benefits or drawbacks of the world of the alt

- Questioning the warrants of cards

- Reading more than just the T or Theory shells.

- Theory debates where we are having honest discussions on game theory/what is best for debate, and moving beyond shell arguments.

Things I'm not the biggest fan of:

- Running Condo with less than 4 off case

- 5 or more off case

- Elections DAs more than 6 months before an election

- Sticking ONLY with T or Theory Shells

- Reading off standards/voters in T/Theory without explaining what they mean (What the heck is "reasonable"? Or "education"?)

- Not explaining the warrants/alt of the K to me.

- Heck, reading any K and not being able to explain it with current / relevant examples outside the space of the round

- Be respectful of our opponents.

- Please speak at a moderate pace. Do not speed read.

- Make your case and make it very clear to me.

- Pretend I know nothing about the topic and you must

EDUCATE ME ABOUT THE RESOLVE.

- Clearly state your sources including the publication, author and date.

- Think of Crossfire as volleying back and forward with questions from one

team to another. You may ask a follow-up or for a clarification of an answer.

DO NOT make a speech ending with a rhetorical devise like, "isn't that true? or

"do you agree?"

- DON'T LIE OR MAKE UP FALSE/FAKE EVIDENCE!

- During the Summation and Final Focus speeches clearly state why you believe

your team is winning.

1. Talk about how & why your impacts are greater.

2. Tell me the contentions, evidence and impacts that you

believe you have blocked in your opponents case.

- Pretend that you are presenting to a Town Hall meeting with an audience of

50 to 100 citizens and you're trying to persuade them to follow and adopt

your side PRO or CON of the Resolve as the policy that they (the majority)

will vote for.

- Smile a lot, have fun, after the round is over even if it was super intense;

thank you opponents for being an excellent team that pushed you to be better.

I prefer policy maker framework. I am not a fan of K and prefer case arguments where teams can actually explain the arguments not just pull across cards.  

I am a parent judge. I weigh accuracy and persuasiveness high when I judge.