https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Armitage%2C+Dan

College student who did PF, LD, and Policy in middle and high school. Email for sending cases is jacobjunk1@gmail.com.

- I will vote on Theory if you lose it, even if you win on every other flow.

- Theory always supercedes Kritiks, no exceptions.

- Ks and DAs must have a solid link to the case, with a non generic preferred.

- No spreading in PF.

Email: thomasjunk1@gmail.com

Did CX, LD, and PF in HS.

I will not extend your arguments for you. You need to time yourselves.

Give me an off time roadmap.

PF

Give me a reason to vote for you.

For Cross-Fire, please try to be respectful, but don't ask if they want the first question. On the other hand, don't take all their question time from them.

Really, I just want a couple solid impacts and some clash.

LD

Same as CX

CX

As long as you explain it to me thoroughly, I will take it. Give me an impact. Give me a reason why your plan works. On a side note, I don't like performance or K AFFs, although I will vote on them if you explain it to me. I am ok with most of the more basic K's, but I will struggle to understand advanced stuff. Explain those to me. You may spread, I would prefer having the speech docs before hand.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and the Informative final at NIETOC. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

******EXTEND FULL ARGUMENTS******DO COMPARATIVE WEIGHING******HAVE FUN******

^the holy trinity

Hey! My name is Seb and I love debate.

.

My pf debate judging preferences

• I flow, but above all else I want to be persuaded
• I like when speeches are filled with jokes, analogies, and metaphors
• I dislike roadmaps, you can just tell me where you are starting and signpost the rest
• I like when rounds move quickly and debaters speak slowly
• I think the simplest strategy is usually the best strategy
• I dislike card dumping strategies, and more broadly prefer depth to breadth

.

My pf debate philosophies

I think that:

• Paraphrasing is good
• Disclosure is a bad norm
• Theory should only be used when necessary
• Non topical k’s are unfair
• I should only flow what I hear

.

My pf debate advice

1. Collapse on your most important argument. If you are winning your entire case, you have no reason to go for all of your offense in Final Focus- extend the best offense you have, because it'll outweigh the rest of your case anyways. If you're getting up in FF and telling me that there are four voters in the round, you are doing it wrong.

2. Have a consistent narrative throughout the round. Everything that you go for in your Final Focus needs to have been in your Summary, and you cannot introduce new arguments after Rebuttal. I should be able to flow your arguments from Constructive all the way to FF.

3. Treat your opponents with respect. Debate has a tendency to get heated, which is perfectly fine. However, being in the zone is not an excuse to be rude in CX or any other part of the round. Please be courteous and chill when speaking to one another, even if it means that you wont have time to get to that one GaMe ChAnGiNg crossfire question you have.

4. Debate in the style that you are the most comfortable with. I am familiar with everything from very traditional to very technical pf. While my judging philosophy is on the technical side, every round can be won with smart debating, no matter what style that is. Don't feel the need to go fast or use more debate jargon just to win my ballot.

5. Signpost Signpost Signpost. I should be told exactly where the arguments you are making need to be flowed. If there was an argument that you thought won you the round but I don't have it on my flow, you probably didn't signpost it well and I had no idea where to put it. Bad signposting is the #1 cause of debate judge migraines.

6. Do comparative and meta-weighing. Claiming that you "win on magnitude because your impact is 3 million lives" or that you "win on probability because it's gonna happen" is bad weighing. Comparative weighing is making a weighing analysis directly between your impact and your opponents' impact. Meta weighing is comparing two different weighing mechanisms against each other (like saying why probability is more important than scope, etc.). Using these methods to weigh your impacts properly will go a long way.

7. Be Personable! At its core, debate is a game of persuasion. To me, the best debaters are always smiling, engaged, friendly, and working to simplify the round the best they can. Charisma and critical thinking are the most portable skills that you develop in this activity, and they are the fundamental to both your performance in round and interactions outside of debate.

Hi.

I've been a debater for 2+ years, debating PF and LD for San Marino High School. I currently do circuit LD, but I also debate "traditionally" at local tournaments. Qualified to California State Championships in 2018. Basically, I am a flow judge.

PF

I love PF topics, but one of the reasons I stopped doing PF was because I hated the way arguments were (and still are) generated in PF.

Don't throw evidence/numbers etc. at me and expect me to do impact weighing for you. Basically, in terms of evidence debate, I believe it's the debater's responsibility to tell the judge which arguments to prefer e.g. why extinction as a terminal impact outweighs this other piece of evidence talking about x number of deaths. This is a HUGE problem in PF and it makes my life so much harder when I am confronted with a debate in which both teams just throw evidence at each other.

Also, no useless FW debates please, util and CBA are the same thing.

RESPOND to your opponents arguments- make no warrant/impact/link arguments, instead of only reading 234536 cards against every card in the case. Also, when reading cards, don't just only read the text of the card. Give me a good explanation as to how this card interacts with the card you are responding to. ALWAYS make turns against your opponent's case, and extend these arguments through every speech. I do not buy ghost extensions.

In the last speeches, don't go through every argument in your case and extend them- simply collapse the debate down to two or three cards you are winning on and crystallize.

I'm relatively progressive when it comes to PF, but since there are no "norms" in progressive PF, here are my ground rules:

- Plans can only be brought up in the 1AC.

- CPs and T can only be brought up in the 1NC. K's/DAs etc. can only be brought up in the context of a plan.

- I evaluate theory only in the context of a clear abuse story.

If anyone asks the question, "Can I have the first question?" or "Now can I have a question?" at any point in crossfire, I will drop their speaks. Just ask the question, dammit.

LD

In terms of FW, I am most familiar with util, Kant, and Deleuze. I can buy every other FW not listed as long as your positions are flushed out, and as long as you have a clear understanding of what you are running.

Consult the PF paradigm for my argumentation preferences.

Just to clarify, for me, T and theory always come first. If you are evaluating between multiple layers, make spikes about why K comes before theory, theory before K etc. I also find PICs super annoying, and I am not too familiar with T debate.

I can flow spread if you are clear.

I don't have a low threshold for extensions unless the argument is blatantly conceded. But then again, unless you know FOR SURE that the argument is conceded, give me a clear extension structure with summary/weighing/argument interaction etc.

If you have any other questions, ask me during the round.

In the end, try your best and don't be abusive and rude. Debate feels like a game when you win, but it's absolute hell when you lose. jk

Email chain: eric.boxuan.gao@gmail.com

Stanford '25

Debated 3 years of Policy at Kudos, 4 years at Northwood. Have done all speaker roles at some point, mainly was a 2N/1A.

I've gone for both policy and kritikal arguments.

K affs should be at least related to the topic.

You should be timing yourself. I will stop flowing if your time goes too over.

CP/DA

Have ev comparison - this is usually the fastest way to win debates.

Explain why your cards being true means their theory is wrong.

A DA by itself can win a debate, as long as there's sufficient turns/solves case analysis.

T/Theory

Treat it like a disad - compare standards and weigh them against one another.

I'm not against voting for theory, as long as it's debated well. I personally kicked the aff to go for theory a bit more times than I should have.

Kritiks

K's I've gone for: Lacan, Cap, Security, Berlant, Puar (in that order of familiarity)

When going for the K, the most important thing is to have specific analysis regarding the aff. In a k debate, the team that talks about the AFF more wins.

Tie your story together, instead of just "aff is like [x concept] and [y concept] is bad".

PLEASE EXTEND YOUR IMPACTS.

I've seen too many debates that are much closer than they should be because of a lack of extended impacts. The best link story without impacting it out is ultimately still not a reason to vote for your side.

I appreciate strategic argumentation instead of reading blocks - if they drop a turn, go for it instead of some other piece of defense.

I am a lay, parent judge.

Please make it EXTREMELY CLEAR why you should win IN COMPARISON to your opponent, do not leave the weighing up to the judge.

I will drop progressive arguments (Ks, theory, other things like that). If you run progressive arguments, you should have a second, more straightforward case as well.

Speak slowly and clearly.

my email is huanghazel65@gmail.com

Conflicts: San Marino

Experience: HS/Circuit- LD 2 years, PF 3 years, CX 1 year (2016-2020)

As of 3/13/2024: I have not been involved in debate since 2020. Most of my knowledge of debate has atrophied; if you plan on running technical arguments be prepared to explain them thoroughly.

Send me speech docs: j4ng.debate@gmail.com

discord: j4ng#0099

If the panel includes other lay judges - I am a lay judge. Please adapt to the other judges.

Speed is OK but don't exceed 350 WPM. I can't vote for a team if I cannot understand what they are saying. Spreading is not accessible and I prefer that everyone in the room can actively participate in the round :)

I ran generic, stock, LARP, and Ks in HS. If you are running anything else, I will do my best to evaluate them.

This is the paradigm that I wrote in 2021. It is wordy and extends into debate lore that I barely remember today. You can use it as general guidance. here

Feel free to ask any questions. I do not consider myself the most impartial judge, but I promise everyone that I will do my best to facilitate a fair and educational round.

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

1. Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
2. Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
4. Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
5. Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

• Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
• Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
• Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Please no spreading. I can flow debates;however, when speaking extremely fast it becomes hard to follow and as such I will probably miss some of your points and impacts which can affect my decision.

I've done Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas along with a number of other speaking events.

You can run theory just make sure you understand what you are running.

Spreading (Speed Reading) if completely fine.

Public Forum

-Explain the links scenario and what the impacts culminate too.

-Please don't spread as its PF.

-Be nice during CX

Lincoln Douglas

-Theory, Kritik, Topicality, etc. are all fine (Just don't run high theory case tricks)

-Framework debate is extremely important.

I spent 9 years as a debater at the college( Diablo Valley College and CSU Long Beach) and high school ( De La Salle HS, Concord, Ca) levels. I am now in my 10th year of coaching and my 9th year of judging. So I've heard almost every argument out there. I mostly competed in parli and policy, but I did some LD as well. I am ok with Kritiks, Counter Plans, and plans. I like good framework and value debate. I am cool with spreading but articulation is key!!! I am a flow judge so sign posting and organization is important. Please weigh impacts and give me voters. In LD make sure you link to a framework and a value and explain why you win under those guidelines. I prefer a more traditional LD debate and I defiantly prefer truth over tech.

Notre Dame '21, NYU '25

Chain/questions: debate.nikhilnavare@gmail.com

1A/2N

Scroll to the bottom for LD specific things.

Very short version

- Ok for Ks

- Better for planless affs now that I don't have to debate them

- Impact turns make me happy

- Organization is good, line-by-line is better, both is best

- Condo good, yes judgekick are defaults

General biases

Truth is tech, and vice versa, given that a true argument is much easier to win technically, and technically debating meta-level framing issues is important to convince me of the truth of the arguments you are going for.

Debate is not about the arguments themselves, but rather the execution of those arguments. This does not mean arguments don’t matter; arguments have different burden of proofs, but every argument is valid until proven otherwise.

Presumption goes to the team that advocates less change. If teams don't debate what that means, and if the 2NR includes a competitive alternative, presumption flips aff.

Clipping and other ethics violations/accusations will result in an automatic zero and loss for the team that does it or falsely accuses the other team. These need an audio recording or I need to hear it. I won't intervene if it's not egregious or there isn't a significant difference in the quality of debaters.

I will not vote on things that occur before the 1AC starts.

The following is a list of predispositions I have — they go out the window if you make an argument otherwise (or at least I try).

Planless Affs

For the aff:

Have a connection to the resolution. Convince me your advocacy is good, better than the (competitive) alternative, and actually resolves your impacts. On that note, actually have an advocacy. If the voting for the advocacy is only an in-round affirmation, I am a lot more sympathetic to negative “burden of rejoinder” T arguments. 

I think debate is a game, but it might be more. Explain why the "more" part outweighs the "game" part. I don’t think debate is not a game.

Please do actual line-by-line, counter-define words in the resolution, don't go for counterinterps like "direction of the resolution," don't just read [Spanos, Lundberg, Antonio, other silly authors] but have aff specific impact turns to fairness, pedagogy, etc.

The perm is a convincing argument especially if your aff doesn’t defend anything.

For the aff and neg:

Disads can link! Planless affs must be ready to defend against all possible disadvantages to their advocacy, physical or metaphysical. The argument “no link - aff is not fiated” is nonresponsive because all affirmatives, by the nature of the thought experiment of debate, are “fiated”. If neg teams can out debate aff teams on the DA then I will vote for it.

For the neg:

T-USfg is a possible 2NR. Defend only what you have to. Impacts that are more persuasive to me: procedural fairness, clash. Less persuasive: advocacy skills, fun, movements. Fairness is probably an impact but you need to do work telling me why that is the case.

The argument that K affs don’t get a perm doesn’t make sense. Be sure you have a very, very good link to their theory of power or the way they actualize their advocacy.

Word PICs are ROFL.

Solvency takeouts/presumption are very convincing and underutilized.

Topicality

Precision frames debatability: big but precise limits probably outweighs good but imprecise limits. That being said, more precision comes with diminishing marginal returns.

Competing interps > Reasonability. You have to invest some time explaining how to determine what is reasonable.

”T - Embodiment” is absurd. Broadly, any neg nonresolutional theory argument has a higher burden of rejoinder. 

Kritiks

A prerequisite to voting for you is if I can explain the link and alt mechanism to the other team by the end of the debate.

Links to the plan are probably good, and most of the time the aff gets to weigh their aff, and the neg gets their links. Neg teams need to invest heavily to convince me to disregard the aff entirely, and aff teams similarly need to invest heavily to convince me to disregard the K entirely.

You can probably read whatever you want to in front of me, granted you understand and can explain it well.

Advantages/Disads

Zero risk exists when you prove the chance of the impact scenario is indistinguishable from statistical noise. For you, this means yes, there is always a risk, and yes, sometimes it is worth rounding the risk down to zero.

Make good arguments, even when you don’t have evidence to support your claims. Smart analytics are convincing.

Turns case is important but matters insofar as you win a relatively higher risk of the DA. 2NR/2AR impact calc is not a new argument.

The politics disad, done well, is a fun debate to watch. Most of the time the neg wins, it's because they sheer out-evidenced the aff. Keep in mind how insanely unlikely the disad is, and use that to your advantage.

Case-specific disads are best, but are never read.

I’ve grown more tired with teams that have framing pages with “probability first” type arguments that use them to completely dismiss the DA. You still need to answer it. I’m more fond of offensive framing arguments, i.e. critiques of DAs. If you’ve mostly ceded the evidence debate to the neg and you’re really in a tough spot cardwise, analytics are still convincing arguments! Use that to your advantage.

Counterplans

Evidence which says the counterplan solves the aff is best and can be used to justify its theoretical legitimacy.

If the status quo is a logical option, then a 2NR which goes for a counterplan is not forever bound to the counterplan. I will compare the aff to both the status quo and the counterplan. I can be convinced otherwise.

Textual and functional > Functional only > Textual only.

Theory

Condo is most likely good, is definitely good when there's a new aff, and is questionable if there are performative contradictions and those are used to the negative's advantage in round. Qualitative > quantitative interps, but I can be convinced of a number if there’s a good reason behind it.

Probably good — PICs, 50 state fiat, agent CPs, politics DAs, counterplans without a specific solvency advocate. Arguments about the presence of a solvency argument are more convincing as a solvency push than a theory push.

Might be good — International fiat, counterplans which compete off immediacy and certainty, 2NC CPs in response to new 2AC offense (impact turns, straight turns, add-ons)

Probably bad — Counterplans which are not policies (against policy affs), floating PIKs, affs/alternatives which fiat entire structures out of existence

I default to reject the argument and not the team for most theory except condo, but can be convinced otherwise.

I can see myself voting on procedural arguments such as spec/vagueness, given it's not like 2 seconds and there's substantial time invested in the debate, or it's dropped. New affs bad is :/

Miscellaneous

Stolen from Aron Berger’s paradigm — "Ethically repugnant arguments will not make me want to vote for you. At the same time, however, if you cannot defeat ostensibly “bad” arguments, then you are a bad advocate and you should lose."

If you have impact turns, run them. In the words of KHirn, “Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life here you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable.”

Speaks

Speaks have been, are, and always will be arbitrary. I will inflate or deflate speaks according to the tournament and division of that tournament that I am at. This means a varsity debater’s 27.8 could be a novices’ 29.2.

Make me laugh for better speaks.

No, you may not have a 30. The ballot is yours to take, but speaks are mine to give.

27.5 or more --- U probably get this

26 or less --- You clipped, were violent in some way, etc.

LD Version for UNLV

- If you exclusively go for skep and tricks or whatever you call them nowadays, strike me. I want to see good, quality, substantive debate that somehow resolves around the resolution.

- Conditionality is very much a voting issue in LD. Debate your interps; I can't tell you the amount of times teams just justify their own interp but never do comparative or framing work. Everything else is default reject the argument not the team, but I can be convinced otherwise. Theory is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Don't even try to convince me otherwise. Neg theory is farce, and I'll give the aff a lot of leeway on dropped ASPEC spikes.

- Phil arguments are interesting, but never used in policy. I'd require more explanation than other judges to vote on these arguments, but please don't discount them just for that reason. Go for what you go for best.

Email: a.sinsioco1@gmail.com

-Peninsula' 21 - USC' 25

Have fun. Be nice.

I have little specific topic knowledge, so don't take for granted that I understand any topic-specific jargon/am keeping up with the debate meta.

tech>truth

Very hard pressed to vote on presumption type arguments. Absent any offense, even the smallest chance that the aff does something positive for the world is enough reason to vote affirmative

Other than that, any opinion I have about arguments can be overcome by better debating.

Thoughts

The first 30 seconds of the final rebuttal should write my RFD.

K Affs:

Probably read a plan tbh, but I will enjoy K affs with a strong explanation of what the aff actually does clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework.

I often find defensive arguments weaker and think the counter interpretation solves little of the actual neg offense. impact turn framework standards and the neg's model of debate.

Fairness > Education/Skills > whatever else. Focus on using your framework arguments to engage the substance of the aff and the da's to framework. It's very easy to vote aff in these debates when the negative spreads through framework blocks and fails to directly address the often more developed affirmative case and da's to framework

I really enjoy and prefer judging substantive offense against the K itself. Don't be afraid to go for the heg da or cap good or whatever.

K:

If your K is able to disprove thesis of the aff and the assumptions it relies upon, I will love your K.

I will default to weighing the aff versus the K.

I have an aversion to strategies that solely rely upon winning framework and arbitrarily disregarding huge swaths of the debate. I will assign less weight to these arguments unless they are dropped. K debate is case debate. The kritik should engage with the affirmative and disprove its thesis.

Your links should reference a specific line/assumption which the affirmative's scenario relies upon, explain why that line/assumption is flawed, impact out why I should care/the material implications of that flawed assumption, and how the alternative resolves the link. The more specific the better.

Ideally, you should be leveraging your answers on case to bolster your argument otherwise I'm willing to grant the aff the truth of their scenario which makes it difficult to win that their assumptions are flawed.

CP: I dislike cp's that compete off immediacy and certainty and find them a bit harder to adjudicate personally.

DA's: Enjoy most flavors of disads, but generally dislike ones whose links are predicated on silly interpretations of fiat.

T: Clearly explain what debate looks like under each interpretation and the implications of your impacts, as well as how your interpretation solves your impacts. I generally feel predictability and precision often guides the way I adjudicate these debates on a top level. What I should prioritize is certainly debatable

Case: I find well-researched, dissections of the affirmative case to be the coolest things to judge and will reward the effort.

Theory: Condo is good, and I don't see value in interps that numerically limit the number of conditional advocacies. Either all condo or no condo

Most theory arguments are reject the argument unless you specifically explain otherwise

I'm a coach.  Blank slate.  I'm pure flow in all formats.  I'm fine with speed.  Fine with anything pre or post fiat in LD and policy.  Team or debater who wins the flow wins the round.  No intervention.  I will vote on topicality.  I will vote on theory.  I will vote on case.  I will vote on K's.  Depends who better sells that I should prefer their voters.

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

About:

Hi, I’m Asher (he/him). I competed in LD from 2017-2020 and qualified to the TOC twice. Shortened my paradigm for efficiency – feel free to email/message me if you have any questions about my opinions on specific arguments. Other events at bottom

Email: ashertowner@gmail[dot]com

Online Debate:

1. It’s in your best interest to go at 50-65% speed for analytics and 80-90% speed for cards. Slower on tags, conversational pace for short tags that are 1-3 words/plan texts

2. Record your speech locally to send in case there are network/wifi issues. I will not let debaters regive speeches – if you didn’t record it locally I will vote off of what I have on my flow

Judging philosophy:

1. I will vote on anything as long as it is won, not blatantly offensive, and follows the structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact). My decisions are always impacted first and foremost by weighing, no matter what style of debate you choose. I value argument quality and development – I’m unlikely to pull the trigger on cheesy, one-line blips and reward debaters that perform quality research and explain their positions well.

2. You must take prep or use CX if you want to ask your opponent what they did/did not read

3. I will not vote on anything which occurred outside of the round (with the exception of disclosure) or use the ballot as a moral referendum on either debater. Genuine safety concerns will be escalated and not decided with a win or a loss.

4. "Insert rehighlighting" - you should be reading the card if you're making a new argument distinct from the one the evidence made when it was initially introduced. Insertions are okay if you're providing context, but you should briefly summarize the insertion. I'm unsure how to enforce this besides being a little annoyed if you go overboard, but if your opponent makes an argument that your insertion practices are toeing the line I'll be inclined to strike them off my flow

Preferences:

1. I think theory can be an invaluable check on abuse and enjoy creative interpretations that pose interesting questions about what debate should look like. The more bland and frivolous the shell the more receptive I am to reasonability. Reasons to reject the team should be contextual to the shell – otherwise rejecting the argument should be able to rectify the abuse. Counterplan theory is best settled on a competition level

2. Kritiks should be able to explain and resolve the harms of the affirmative - the less specific the link arguments, their impact, and the alternative the more likely I am to vote aff on the permutation and plan outweighing. Impact turns are underutilized. 2NR fpiks = new arguments unless clearly indicated earlier in the debate

3. I have no strong ideological predispositions against planless affirmatives. However, in a perfectly even matchup I would likely vote on framework

Evidence ethics:

I will end the round and evaluate whether or not the evidence is objectively distorted: missing text, cut from the middle of a paragraph, or cut/highlighted intentionally to make the opposite argument the author makes (ie minimizing the word “not”). For super tiny violations like powertagging I’d prefer you just read it as a reason to reject the evidence.

Misc:

Be nice to your opponent! Will nuke your speaks if you are too rude, especially if your opponent is a novice or is making a good faith effort to get along

PF stuff:

PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES.

I'm comparatively less involved in this event and so I'll try not to impose my opinions on its conventions. For varsity, I'd prefer both teams share their evidence prior to their speeches, and I dislike paraphrasing as a practice but won't automatically penalize you for it. Speed is fine but not ideal given the norms of the activity. Generally speaking, I would prefer you not read progressive-style arguments given this format's time limitations. Other than that, just weigh.

Hello!

I debated at Marlborough School for four years and I now attend UChicago. Please be nice to your opponent. I do not like framing arguments that would indicate that the holocaust or any other atrocity is good. Please explain to me the implications of your arguments and signpost! If you keep speaking after time is up, I will stop flowing. I like a good plan v. cp debate; however, I also like ks, DAs, etc. Whatever you decide to run, please make sure you have clear extensions and weigh the debate for me. If you are emailing cases, please put me on the chain. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

I'm a traditional judge.

4yrs LD Experience 2 Years Varsity

Speak Clearly and I would prefer if you don't SPREAD (I'll tank your speaks).

Clash a lot

Make sure to say why I should prefer your value over the opponent and to really emphasize this. The framework is very important when I take into account everything to vote for. The framework tells me what I should value most. If you have identical values, just say " I agree with my opponent." At the end of the round, I'll start weighing arguments based on how well they achieve their value. Or if you were to tell me to prefer prob > magnitude then I'll give priority to prob arguments in the round and give the round to the debater who showed him impacts are more likely to happen. Of course, I want solid justifications for this - you cant tell me to prefer prob over the magnitude and not explain the reasoning. I won't do the legwork for you

Make sure to weigh your impacts and extend them throughout the round. The argument has to appear in all your speeches and I won't take into account an argument that you dropped in the 1AR but bring back in the 2AR.

I am very a traditional judge, No k's, theories, and etc.

Edit: 2021: I haven't participated in LD Debate in about 2 years — will certainly be slightly rusty.

I am a lay judge.

Please do not spread. I find it distracting and unproductive.

I appreciate sign posting.

I don't enjoy theory, but if you're going to run an argument, make sure you are very clear.

Manners and respect matter; attack the argument, not the individual.