cps 2014 (3 years of debate)
cal 2018 (not debating)
kevin.attiyeh@gmail.com

cal updates

most important. the lack of line by line debating is getting to me. I'm not going to reconstruct the debate after its over so if you don't go line by line chances are you will lose. there are two teams that I keep watching and one always win. there's the team with the huge overview and theres the team that cleans up the debate. I bet you can guess who wins.

If you are decisively winning. We have all been there, please don't use up all my time. I like when the debate ends earlier. You will get higher speaks. If the neg drops conditionality in the block, perhaps the 1ar should be one minute of conditionality and sit down.

Other note. I despise it when teams waste time during the debate. Prep does not stop until your email is sent. I really don't like waiting for emails to be sent. if you have a tech problem then we can make some accommodations, but I am in the clock is always moving boat. I will not actively enforce this rule, but I will take note of it and it will affect your speaks. If you are one of those teams that are super organized and doesn't steal prep I will like you and want to vote for you that much more.

update 2017-2018
its been awhile since I've judged. almost two years at this point and I don't miss it very much.


things to know about me
- you are better than me at debate.

- I don't know the topic like at all. as of today (December 13, 2017) I don't know the topic of any form of debate. I will know it before I enter your round
- please assume I know nothing about your argument. with some judges there is inside context, with me there is none. so please no acronyms, no jargon, no screaming
- I am uncomfortable with speed. when I was a debater speed was really difficult for me. when I say speed I really mean lack of clarity but those two usually go pretty hand and hand. if I can't flow you or write what you say down you will not win. please be clear especially with quick arguments.
-its important to me that the debate remains interesting. this means it is educational and not just a place where two teams speed through a bunch of blocks
- MOST Important: write my ballot. control the framing of the debate. if you do this you will probably win. the team that wins the big picture usually wins for me. this doesn't mean avoid being technical, this just means I want you to put together some narrative.
- I am uncomfortable with hostility. please be funny but don't be mean. greet each other with smiles and hugs and respect. I hate meanness especially when it sounds condescending

Argumentation

- I am probably a lot more comfortable with the critical theory than I am with policy argumentation that this point. I was never good enough at debate to develop what I considered to be my strength of argumentation, but I definitely kept up with criticisms after college for than I did with whatever policy thing you are talking about.
- I am comfortable with performance.
- I am okay with fw, I regretfully went for it. I don't like it but I understand its utility.
- to get good speaks use warranted evidence with strong explanations. deep and detailed, I am a sucker for that
- think of me as a parent judge that understands tech

Mike Bausch

Director of Speech and Debate, Kent Denver

Please include me in email chains; my email is mikebausch@gmail.com.

Thanks for letting me judge your debate. Do what you do best, and I will do my best to adapt to you all. Here are some tips for debating in a way that I find most persuasive:

1. Flow the debate and make complete arguments. I care about line-by-line debating and organization. An argument must have a claim, evidence, and an impact on the debate for me to vote on it. I must understand your reasoning enough to explain to the other team why I voted on it.

2. Be timely and efficient in the round. Nothing impresses me more than students who are prepared and organized. Please conduct the debate efficiently with little dead time. Don’t steal prep.

3. Focus on argument resolution after the first speeches. Impact calculus, developing specific warrants, identifying what to do with drops, answering “so what” questions, making “even if” statements, and comparing arguments (links, solvency, etc) are all great ways to win arguments, rather than just repeat them.

4. Feature judge instruction in the final rebuttals. The best tip I can give you is to go for less distinct issues as the debate develops and to focus on explaining and comparing your best points to your opponent’s arguments more. Begin your final rebuttal by writing my ballot and explicitly saying what you’re winning and why that should win you the debate.

5. Remember that this is a communication activity. Speak clearly, I do not follow along with the speech document and will say “clear” if I can’t understand you. Use your cross-examination time to persuade the judge and prepare for it like a speech.

6. Talk about your evidence more. I think a lot of teams get away with reading poor evidence. Please make evidence comparison (data, warrants, source, or recency) a significant part of the debate. Evidence that is highlighted in complete and coherent sentences is much more persuasive than evidence that is not.

7. Identify specific evidence that you want me read after the debate. I am more likely to read evidence that is discussed and explained during the debate and will use the debater's explanation to guide my reading. I am unlikely to read evidence that I didn't understand when it was initially presented, or to give much credit to warrants that only become clear to me after examining the evidence.

8. Develop persuasive specific links to your desired argument strategy. I think the affirmative should present an advocacy they can defend as topical, and the negative should clash with ideas that the affirmative has committed to defending. I think that the policy consequences and ethical implications of the resolution are both important to consider when debating about the topic. For all strategies, it starts for me with the credibility of the link.

9. Develop and compare your impacts early and often. Impact analysis and comparison is crucial to persuading me to vote for you. In depth explanation is great and even better if that includes clear comparisons to your opponent’s most significant impacts.

10. I prefer clash heavy instead of clash avoidant debates. I am most impressed by teams that demonstrate command of their arguments, who read arguments with strong specific links to the topic, and who come prepared to debate their opponent’s case. I am less impressed with teams that avoid clash by using multiple conditional advocacies, plan vagueness, generic positions without topic nuance, and reading incomplete arguments that lack clear links or solvency advocates.

*Note: Because evidence comparison is a valuable skill, I think all formats of debate benefit from evidence exchange between students in the debate and would prefer if students practiced this norm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. keep track of your own time.

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

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

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

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

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

Rowland Hall-St Mark's '17

Georgetown University '21

Berkeley Law '26

Put me on the email chain: dwbdebate@gmail.com

Judging Habits of Mine:

--Treat me like a stock issues judge that can keep up with speed and is in the weeds on topic literature. Only caveat to stock issues is I’m fine with CPs, conditionality, and Ks. But that K has to address at least solvency and harms.

--Quality of arguments matters more than quantity of arguments. Debaters win in front of me when they slow down and thoroughly make strategic arguments with clear implications for my decision, rather than throwing out inconsequential arguments and hoping I will put the pieces together for them.

--I tend to follow the Dallas Perkins view of evidence: "If you can't find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me." I am going to start more aggressively enforcing this premise. If I decide your card is gobbledygook from the highlighted words, I will not evaluate it. Similarly, you don't need to answer a card if you point out that the card says nothing as currently highlighted. That can have significant impacts for the round when unpacked, such as a 1NC failing to read a coherent link card to a DA.

--Relatedly, evidence quality is paramount. Please flag if your authors are writing in peer reviewed journals, if your opponent's authors have clear partisan affiliations that impact their scholarship, and the degree of specificity of your evidence.

--Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue. This is especially true when refuting contrived CPs and silly impact arguments.

--Debaters tend to rely on "extinction outweighs everything" far too much. I am not likely to vote for you simply because you are the only one to have a tenuous connection to an extinction level impact; I am likely to vote for you if you acknowledge relative degrees of risk and recognize that many impacts (e.g. poverty, disease, unemployment, regional conflicts with great power draw in, etc) are bad regardless of whether they will potentially lead to nuclear annihilation.

Operating Procedure:

--I flow on paper.

--I flow cross examination and will refer to that flow when making my decisions.

--I will not be following along closely enough with speech docs to enforce any sort of clipping violations by myself. Debaters should record debates and provide that recording when accusing the other side of an ethics challenge.

--Each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. If it is not your speech and you say something, it will not be on on my flow.

--Not interested in arguments about issues from out of round. Also not interested in hearing arguments about how former debaters are either good or evil people (may make an exception if you actually know the person and can speak to their character, but I'm not interested in hearing you insult someone you don't know).

Theory Issues

--Conditionality is good. I will still vote aff on conditionality bad if debated well.

--I am very open to voting neg on plan vagueness arguments.

--Limited intrinsicness can be very good.

CPs

--I'm increasingly in the camp that CPs need solvency advocates (albeit not hard and fast with that rule). CPs grounded in opponent's solvency advocates are frequently an ideal 2NR in front of me.

--I'm getting bored of the States CP, especially in the iteration of "all 50 states uniformly do the plan" and/or "all 50 states should uniformly force the federal government to do the plan." I am open to consider 50 state action (if debated decently), but I don't see why the affirmative shouldn't be able to make solvency deficits about non-uniform implementation.

--I judge legitimacy of CP's on a case by case basis. In the magical world of fiat, it feels tough to categorically exclude specific varieties of CP's.

--Literature determines predictability. If your "cheating" CP is clearly in the lit, I will be more likely to listen to it and allow it in the debate. That also necessitates the literature clearly distinguishing it from the plan.

--If no one says a word about it, I will judge kick for the neg.

Ks

--I heavily prioritize framework in these debates, especially when framed in terms of the "win condition" for both teams. Generally, I find that assumptions/justifications underlying the 1AC are fair game for both aff and neg offense; however, I still require clear framing devices for how to determine who wins the debate should those assumptions be the primary consideration.

--I am open to vote on an alternative that includes the plan or other arguments that may be considered theoretically illegitimate by many. Just be up front about it (preferably in the 1nc) so the aff can respond and so you can have a real debate.

T

--T debates are fun when they focus on evidence, rather than purely abstract discussions of limits or ground.

No Plan/K Affs

--I like it when the aff has a robust defense of what debate looks like in their model, particularly a clear role for the negative team.

Misc:

--Do NOT read evidence written by undergraduates. I will not evaluate it.

--Tweets from experts can be effectively used as evidence in front of me. Two illustrative examples:

1. In response to evidence that says the Russian invasion of Ukraine was precipitated by NATO expansion, a debater reads this thread from a University of Chicago International Relations Professor: https://x.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1630305966674640896?s=20
2. A 1AR responding to a politics disadvantage reads a tweet from a Senior Congressional Correspondent to indicate the current state of negotiations on a bill and its prospects of passing.

Matthew Beyer
Email chain: matthewbeyer415[at]gmail[dot]com

Short Version:

Read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with/think are most strategic. Tech over truth in most cases. Speed is fine, be clear. Warrants, clash, framing, and impact calc are all appreciated. The debate is about you, not me, so do what you do best.

Some specific things

Ks/K affs:

• - Framing is important. Love kritikal affs, but I have to understand what I’m voting for and why I’m voting for it.
• - I have a basic understanding of some critical theory but don’t assume I’m familiar with the nuances of more obscure or specific literature.

DAs

• - The more specific the better
• - Impact calc and turns case arguments are appreciated

CPs

• - I generally think CPs should compete functionally and textually but I can be persuaded otherwise
• - Well researched, advantage CPs were some of my favorites arguments to read in HS

T

• - I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise
• - The impact debate is important. “The aff explodes limits” is not an inherent impact.

Theory

• - Generally, a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but I can be persuaded to pull the trigger on theory if you give me a compelling reason to.

Background:

I did LD for a small high school in SC and policy at Vanderbilt ('15). I had some reasonable success my senior year through clearing at various tournaments and winding up at the NDT. I was a 2A for the vast majority of my rounds.

I judge probably 1-2 tournaments a year and am not actively involved in the activity otherwise, so I have zero idea what new acronyms/trends/drama has emerged recently. This probably can help you for two reasons: 1. I have no prior on "rep", so repping out is a nonissue 2. I will not lose any sleep from voting on a particularly uncouth argument

Big Picture- 2018 Update:

The longer I'm out of debate the less I care about what arguments you make. Whatever position I may have had on the "ideal" round is based on pre-2015 data which may no longer hold true. I encourage you to read whatever argument you're most comfortable with. As long as you can justify what you say/do, I am theoretically okay with voting on it.

Full disclosure- I read exclusively plan-based policy arguments on the aff and was about 50/50 on policy vs. K on the neg, so I might have a slight bias towards "traditional" arguments, but I wouldn't say its dramatic enough for you to alter your strategy.

In general, the more you adhere to the belief that debate is a game and that arguments are just tools, the more likely you should pref me. If you instead feel that debate serves some other primary purpose, you'll probably have to do some work on framework explaining it.

I generally reward strategic risk taking with high speaks, even if you don't necessarily win.

Everything else (updated 2015):

Evidence

I am probably far more concerned about evidence quality than the average, I’d imagine. I took debate really seriously and value hard work over anything else. If you can demonstrate a good comprehension of your (or your opponents’) evidence and just all-around topic knowledge, it could really help you out. I won’t read every card after the round, but there’s definitely a threshold for how much spin you can get away with that isn’t grounded in what your cards actually say. Powertagging cards is way too common and is a pretty bad practice.

Also, please for the love of God stop reading terrible impact cards. You know the ones (Khalilzad 95, Diamond 95, Strait Times 2K, etc…). All of these are highly outdated and lacking in warrants. Especially in the era of free camp files and open-source, there really isn’t much of an excuse anymore.

Counterplans

Advantage CPs are severely underutilized. 99% of aff advantages are not intrinsic to the plan, so doing it through a non-topical way is a pretty easy way to go. Teams should also bring back uniqueness CPs and 2NC CPs.

Conditionality- I don’t understand why 2 conditional advocacies is the magic number to equalize the playing field. I think if you win condo good, then you probably get as many as you want. However, if they contradict, then I think they are probably bad. Reading a neolib K and privatization CP simultaneously is so much worse than 6 conditional advantage CPs. Showing how making an argument on one flow can be conceded to gain offense on another is a pretty easy way to show me that the neg is cheating.

Other CP Theory- I err neg on almost everything else, but barely. I won’t tank your speaks for reading delay, consult, etc. Debate’s a game, do what you want if you can defend it. Similarly, I think 2ARs need to be more willing to just go for theory as a reason to reject the CP. Both in the cases of the aforementioned CPs, but even with agent or process CPs as well. Even though I think those are probably good, 2Ns are oftentimes pretty terrible at the debating them, so take advantage of the almost inevitable under-coverage in the 2NR. I also have a soft spot for really old-school theory args like no neg fiat and topical CPs bad. I thought those were fairly fun to debate.

Judge-kicking for the most part seems far too interventionist for me. If 2AR goes for CP links to the DA or some external offense, then the neg is stuck with the CP.

Disads

Zero-risk is real. There’s a 1% risk of almost anything happening, so I can be persuaded the risk of the DA is so low I should just round down. The same goes for aff advantages

I did a lot of politics work and we went for it a lot, but I think the DA is outrageously over-relied on.

If you win a time-frame distinction, then I am extremely persuaded by DA turns case.

Kritiks

If you like “old-school” Ks like Nietzsche, security, biopower, etc. I’m probably great for you. These were pretty much the only types of Ks I went for when I debated. Although the link to the aff isn’t great, I understand them and think the aff definitely needs to defend everything they say, even on such an epistemological level.

If your first thought when your opponent breaks a new CTBT aff is “gee-whiz, we can finally read these nuclear policy links to our Bataille K!”, I am probably not a great judge for you. The fact that I’m not even sure what the nuclear policy link to Bataille actually is probably indicates my lack of knowledge/interest on the subject.

If you go for a K, pull out all the tricks out-tech the other team. If that means going for framework so I don’t weigh the aff, so be it.

Non-Traditional Debate

If your definition of a “critical aff” is one that defends a topical plan text with structural violence or other non-standard policy advantages, I’m a great judge for you. I love these debates.

Other than that, my main gripe with K affs is the fairness question. I think it's *probably* good for the neg to be able to read the Topic DA against an aff. What this means is that the aff may not need to have a "plan" per se and might not actually have to defend a US policy, but if the aff makes an argument in the topic area of marijuana legalization, for example, the negative should probably get a DA about why legalization is bad and a competitive alternative for why non-legalization options are better. If your aff wants to critique this question and can do a solid job on framework, I'm probably good for it.

I also think affs have a high burden to prove that they actually do something. I understand that the 1AC speech act might be a good thing, but why does that need to be tied to a ballot? Voting neg doesn’t mean that the 1AC disappears from everyone’s memory. I am more than willing to vote neg on presumption here if the aff doesn’t do an adequate job of proving that winning is key. If your answer to this is that “we need to win so our argument gets more exposure”, I'm probably not your guy.

If you want to win with a non-topical aff in front of me, it will 100% be because you out-debated the other team and are just better on the technical aspects of the flow. I am not persuaded by any pathos-based claims about your qualms with the debate community or your personal experiences. If your default 2AR includes a prewritten two-minute overview, I’m probably not the best judge for you. I am also thoroughly unpersuaded by claims that minorities can’t participate in traditional policy debate or that minorities can’t defend the state. If you do not understand why this argument in front of a brown judge who debated many rounds with a black partner is offensive, you probably shouldn’t pref me.


Misc. Things

Be nice—I understand debate can get heated and being aggressive in CX can be useful versus an uncooperative opponent, but there’s zero reason to scream, insult your opponent, or be rude in general.

Please stop using vacuous debate phrases like “cold-conceded” or “Pepsi challenge”. To paraphrase Nick Ryan, I might drop your speaks by a full point for the phrase “cold-conceded”, but I’ll add it back if you can explain the difference between cold, hot, and regular conceded.

I studied economics in college and worked in finance, so I think I have a decent understanding of economic arguments. I would kill for a good, technical econ impact debate.

My favorite argument of all time is “courts shield the link”.

My favorite judge was Hays Watson.


email me with questions: arbilgi@gmail.com

C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Brief update for Stanford LD competitors - I primarily judge circuit and CA-circuit policy debate, but much of the below should apply. I'm not primed for any category of LD arguments over another, and don't have an inherent preference for circuit arguments and styles, but I'm very open to them.

Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

I haven't been involved with debate for a few years. However, I debated in college at SFSU and I coached policy at both the collegiate and high school levels for over 20 years (on/off). I had my turn, now it is your turn. You should get to have the debate that you want, so you can run whatever args you want to run.

That being said, I do enjoy arguments that challenge the participants to examine the debate through a critical lens. But explain your high theory arguments and clearly articulate the applicability to the topic, the round, the other team, and/or to me as a human person.

I am more inclined to buy an alternative that has some practical call to action rather than conceptual alts. I will vote for a conceptual alt if you tell me why, but I prefer something concrete.

I am also good with straight up policy debates with good old fashionednuclear disads And counterplans. Or topicality and theory arguments if the aff doesn't choose to affirm the resolution. Tell me what the impact is and why that means you should win my ballot.

Don't expect me to vote for you, persuade me to...with critical thinking and strategy. Be smart and make good (read: well reasoned) arguments.

Like I said, it is your debate. If you have specific questions, ask me.

Officially dragged back into the activity by the pandemic. I'm doing some administrative work for the Sacramento Urban Debate League. Don't expect to find me on your pref sheet but feel free to contact me at sarabeth@sudl.org if you have research questions.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Officially retired. Feel free to contact me with research questions but I'm no longer actively involved in the activity. - May 2019

.

.

.

.

.

I debated policy for 5 years in college and qualified twice to the NDT for UNLV. I coached policy for College Prep (Oakland) for 3 years, and policy for Wake Forest for a year.

I also have several years of high school public forum experience and occasionally judge and coach those debates, but I am not actively coaching the 2018-2019 topics.

A little more about me: white, crip[pled], queer, femme, she/her or they/them pronouns.

Three Important Things

a. If you need to communicate an access issue to me before the debate, please send me an email before the round. This is a private way for you to give me information that you do not want to share with the entire room (for example, if nonverbal communication isn't accessible to you).

b. I have an auditory processing disorder. I can flow fast, technical debate but please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If I have to call clear repeatedly, I will just stop flowing. If music is a part of your arguments please turn the volume down a bit so that I can hear you (I understand that music/audio are important and vital to certain argumentation; you do not have to turn it off -- just adjust the volume in front of me).

c. I will listen to almost anything, with a couple of caveats; I am not interested in hearing arguments like racism good or rape good, etc, or in hearing arguments or jokes about suicide. Also if appropriating culture or literature that doesn't belong to you is the strat, please don't pref me.

Everything Else

Debate is a communicative activity. Pick an argument and defend it, and answer the other team's arguments. Be persuasive. Make claims, back them up with warrants, and please compare impacts. Make jokes. Speaker points will go up. Cards are good, contextual analysis using cards is better, comparative claims contextualized to the evidence in the round is best. I don't read much evidence so don't count on me to read the 16 cards you shadow extend in the rebuttal; it is your job to tell me why a few of them tip the debate in your direction.

As a competitor I read everything from elections to Baudrillard, but had the most competitive success with structural criticisms about ableism and disability. I valued fast, technical debate and I appreciate and understand those debates. I also did performance debate for a year and have read a lot of critical race theory, critical disability studies/crip studies, gender/queer theory, and colonialism literature. Yes I will vote on in-round rhetoric arguments, so do not use racist/cissexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic language. I will be very persuaded by a well-constructed argument about it from the other side.

I like all different styles of debate, so read arguments you are comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate the debate in front of me. Speaker points are almost always between 28 and 29, adjusted for division; above or below indicates a unique round. Please remember that I am an imperfect being in the service of the imperfect god of debate, but I do promise to be attentive, work hard to understand your arguments, and try to give an RFD focused on education and how to improve for the future. One last thing: I give long RFDs, #sorrynotsorry.

paradigm writing is confusing bc it ultimately will not tell u much abt how i evaluate debates.

i flow and pay attention to concessions (unless told not to by debaters AND offered an alternative system of evaluation). i wouldn't call myself a flow-centric judge but the flow is important for my decisions bc coverage and the interaction of arguments dictate who gets what offense. my decisions are almost always premised on an offense/defense paradigm (tho this can become complicated in models of debate where people don't 'solve' per se).

i don't believe that judges get rid of all our preconceived assumptions (or any of them tbh) prior to entering the debate but that doesn't mean i'll refuse to listen to ur argument if it's different from how i feel abt debate or the world.

framing and argument comparison is more important than (is also the same thing as) impact calculus-- ur blocks will not tell u much abt how arguments interact but u in the round can take note of their interaction. argument interaction is crucial for both aff and neg. how much of the aff does the alt solve, and vice versa? what disads to the aff/alt are u going for and how do they interact w the offense the aff/alt is winning? if u win ur theory of power, what does that mean for the debate abt aff/alt solvency? etc...

i like good cx. it doesn't happen often, but debates can be won and lost in cx. what does happen often is that arguments can be dismissed or proven in a good cx. strategize. if redirecting or diverting the question is ur style, do it, but please do it well.

ONLINE DEBATING— clarity and slowing down are critical to deal with internet lag. ur judges no longer have the same cues bc of the limitations of the screen. plz account for this when debating in front of me. be willing to sacrifice a little speed so that i actually know wtf u are saying.

chris, travis, and i are also coaching vaibhav dara

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

some judge intricacies:

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

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

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

speaker point floor typically 29.0

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

2a from New Trier

Be nice, work hard, have fun. arguments have claims, warrants, and implications. Evidence is important, but without explanation of it, it's hard to evaluate. Tech>truth. Smart analytics>bad ev.

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

Redistribution affs must tax----------------------X--------Not required to tax

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

ajbyrne1018(at)gmail.com

New Trier ‘16

Northwestern '19

Hierarchy of how I want you to refer to me: "AJ">>>> "Mr. Byrne" >>>>>>>>>>"My Dude" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Judge"

Background: I debated at New Trier for four years (2x TOC qualifier) and then at Northwestern for three years. I coached for New Trier from 2016-2019. Back coaching for New Trier for fiscal redistribution topic. In the “real world” I am a pursuing my MEd in School Counseling from Loyola University Chicago.

I have judged 70+ debates on the Fiscal Redistribution Topic

Judging is one of my favorite things to do. 99 out of 100 times I would rather be judging than have a round off.

I value debaters that show enthusiasm, passion, and respect for the game. I am eager to reward preparation, good research, and debaters WHO DO NOT FLOW OFF THE SPEECH DOC. I have nothing but contempt for debaters who disrespect the game, their opponents, or (most importantly) their partners.

Debate is a communication activity. I am not flowing off the speech doc and will not reward a lack of clarity or debaters who think it is a good idea to go 100% speed through their analytic blocks. I will be very lenient for teams that are on the opposing end of such practices.

Planless is fine but you absolutely need to defend that choice. I think that my voting record is slightly neg leaning but that is because I do not think aff teams go for enough offense or they struggle to explain what debate looks like under their interpretation.

I am not voting for any argument regarding your interp being “good for small schools”

Default is no judge kick – I need specific 2NR instruction for me to do that for you. “Sufficiency framing” is not the same as judge kick.

Process CPs are fine (except Conditions I mean c’mon). Probably neg on most theory questions but also not going to let the neg get away with murder just because they are neg. The less generic and more germane to the topic the CP is, the better the neg is. If you are thinking about reading commissions or an advantage CP, I think you should probably read the advantage CP.

Zero risk of the DA is real, zero risking a DA without needing to read evidence is possible.

Plan Popular is not an argument that link turns an agenda DA.

Kritiks are rad. Kritiks that rely entirely on winning through framework tricks are miserable. If I am not skeptical of the aff's ability to solve their internal links or the alt's ability to solve them then I am unlikely to vote negative.

Other things:

Tag-team CX is fine but also sometimes very frustrating to evaluate. If I think someone is not adequately participating in CX, their points will suffer greatly.

Only Mavs and Neg teams debating new affs get to use CX as prep time. If a team wants to use CX as prep time under any other circumstances, the opposing team will be able to read additional evidence during this time.

CX begins at the first question asked, even if that question is something like “What card did you stop at?” (The only exception is “are you ready for cx?”)

Debates need to start on time, please!

More Debate Thoughts

These aren’t intended to be relevant to your pre-round prep. Just some opinions after spending 4 years away from the activity and then judging over 70 fiscal redistribution debates.

1. Please stop starting your speech at 100% speed. It guarantees that I am going to be unable to flow you for the first 10-15 seconds.
2. To go off that, why is it considered common practice to have T as the first off in the 1NC? That basically guarantees that I won’t be able to flow an entire offcase position and that doesn’t seem good.
3. Debaters that try to go fast as possible tend to end up being very slow. Your debate speaking voice should be your regular speaking voice, but faster.
4. I usually flow on paper, so I take a second to flip between flows. This usually means in every 2AC I miss roughly six perms on the CP because it has become common practice to just dump all the perms at the top of the block instead of the MUCH BETTER practice of spreading them throughout your block.
5. Seriously, please slow down.
6. I don’t care if you highlight in purple. Standard highlighting and consistent formatting are a BARE MINIMUM for a speech doc. Otherwise I will assume that you did not prep well for the tournament.
7. If it can be demonstrated from your wiki that you suck at disclosing I will spend a significant amount of my decision making fun of you. People who suck at disclosure are bad and should feel bad.
8. From the 2AC onwards, if you are speaking from a computer and not even referencing your flow, you are not debating the right way.
9. If the 1AC isn’t ready to start at start time, a puppy dies.
10. Anybody who uses the term “Speaks” to describe speaker points should have more respect for themselves.
11. Thinking about making it my policy that if I think you are stealing prep, I just give you a 26 without telling you.
12. Why does nobody read add-ons anymore?
13. I am pretty sick of <2 minutes of the block being spent on the case pages.
14. Tournament days are less grueling than they used to be but that has been in spite of debaters best efforts to be as slow as possible. Filling up the debate with dead time means less decision time which is only bad for you. As a wise man once said: “Keep ‘er movin”

** Updated for the 2023-2024 Academic Year**

She/Her/Hers

Evidence: Apparently I need to put this on here now, but evidence standards will always be an a priori issue to evaluation for me. If there is a procedural argument that is brought up on the standards for evidence (example: distortion, not being able to access source for evidence, clipped evidence, or non-existent evidence). I will default to NSDA evidence standards unless there are other standards governing evidence evaluation. I will also only evaluate evidence that has been brought up on an ethics violation. Once an evidence ethics argument has been made, I will stop the round and vote immediately on that issue before anything else in the round proceeds. I see evidence as a core ethics argument that impacts the ability to go through anything else in the round and impacts my ability to trust any evidence that has been read by a team with evidence issue.

General Background: I’ve been in the world of policy debate for about 15 years, ranging from participation to coaching. Way back in the day, I debated at both Topeka High and Washburn Rural HS. I also debated in the regional circuit for University of Kansas for a few years and coached in Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi. I have a deep love for the activity. I am currently working on a Ph.D. in Political Science and I study immigration surveillance as part of my research.

Topicality/Procedural Issues: I vote on these. While I default to competing interpretations, it's important that you are answering all levels of the argument-- including the impact level of the debate. If you are negative and hope to win the round on T, you need to make sure you have a complete argument out of the gate to vote on. I should see a definition, interp, link, and impact level to your argument and I should see the aff responding to these. Cross-apply this to any procedural argument as well (such as ASPEC, condo bad, etc.)

Disads- There needs to be a terminal impact (or at least solid analysis as to why that impact outweighs aff impacts in the round), a risk/okay probability of the disad happening (otherwise, why does your UQ matter?), and a plausible link to the aff. Generic DAs are fine, but there needs to be a plausible link, even if just at an analytical level.

Counterplans-- I tend to be alright with CPs and lean negative. I think most are generally smart. However, that being said, the CP needs to be both rhetorically and functionally competitive. I think Affs can/should be held accountable for clarifications made on positions and that those links apply across both CP and DA grounds.

Kritiks-- I'm fine with these, however, keep in mind that I am studying political theory in a Ph.D. program, so if your whole knowledge of your K is from a long series of back files on the K or from reading a few paragraphs of Nietzsche, this might end badly for you. I tend to prefer Ks with wider reach (capitalism, feminism, racism, etc) and less so Ks of particular authors, mostly because they are generally done poorly. If you run a K, it is EXTREMELY important that you provide a clear narrative of a) the role of my ballot, b) the world of the alternative, and c) how I should prioritize impact calculus in the round.

General Notes:

- If you are going for more than 2 major things in your 2NR/2AR, there is a low chance you are going to win the round. Similarly, if you don't provide an impact calculus, you likely will not like the decision I make at the end of the round.

- Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

- Please don't be unpleasant during the round. I can almost guarantee that if you are, it's not aligned with the quality of your argumentation and it's just going to be a long round. For me this looks more like arrogance or intentional cruelness-- I'm fine with bluntness, anger, frustration, etc. If you are unsure what I mean by this, please ask.

- I pay attention to the rhetoric used in the round. Slurs and derogatory language will almost assuredly earn you lower speaker points.

- Both teams should start impact calc early, use this to frame your speeches and line by line, and use impact calc to prioritize voting issues and role of the ballot.

- I reward debaters who make an effort to deeply engage with the topic area and issues.

- Squirrel affs are rarely good affs. They generally have poor structure, poor solvency or advantage foundations, and generate poor debate. I would rather see a super mainstream topic that prompts a lot of clash in the round than an aff that is poorly written for an ambush factor.

- In more policy-centered debates, I may err more on the tech aspect of the debate. In other cases, I may give some leniency on tech if the arguments are "true" (understanding that truth can be a subjective value).

- I'm starting to realize through my working social justice that I'm more easily affected by detailed narratives of sexism, racism, ableism (esp. invisible disabilities), and sexual assault. Trigger warnings aren't very helpful for me as a judge (I don't have a choice to opt out of them and I don't think that I would want to) but know that I may ask for a minute to just breathe or get some water between speeches, so I can have a clear head for the next speaker if there is a particularly vivid or powerful speech. This is by no means a common thing that I do, but I did want to add this to affirm the value of self-care in this activity.

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

- I flow on my computer, so please make sure you take a beat at the top of flows before jumping in and please slow down to about 70% for analytical arguments, especially if they are fewer than 5 words. I have physical pain in my joints, especially at the end of long days of judging. This doesn't make my ability to assess your arguments any less, nor does it impact my competency. I will do my best to say "slow" if my joints can't keep up.

- If you think you might want my flow of the round, I'm happy to send it. Please try to give me a heads-up before the round starts, as I organize my flows a bit differently when they are being distributed. Also, send me an e-mail after the round to remind me to send it to you.

TL;DR: You do you. Have fun. Be a decent human in the round. Learn some things.

Put me on the chain email: mrkainecherry@gmail.com

Also, my sister is a film student at UCSF and is in the process of fundraising for the production of her short film Through the Woods to complete her senior thesis if you are able to donate you can do so here and if you are not able to do so if you could at least share the indiegogo link I would deeply appreciate it. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/through-the-woods-post-production-fundraiser#/ If you donate will raise you speaker points to the max of .3

Updates as of 11/28/23

Things to know off the top:

1)Please don’t call me judge but if you need to use a title feel free to use "Honored One" and if that is too much/odd you can call me by my name.”

2) I am not persuaded by new affs bad theory arguments, and while I appreciate open source and disclosure those things are norms that are practiced by the community, not rights guaranteed by the activity.

3) I've been in the activity since 2006 and competed both in High School(UDL and nationally for Baltimore City College HS) and College (2-time NDT Octofinalist/10th Place Speaker, 2015 CEDA Semifinalist) So I'm generally comfortable judging all styles of debate.

4) While old the information below is still mostly relevant. If you need me to clarify anything either shoot an email or ask before the round.

5) Presumption > Ballot "PIC/K" no seriously if you have to choose one presumption is generally more persuasive to me.

6) Highschool Stuff- the Longhorn will be my first tournament on this years resolution, however I did coach LD when they had their UBI rotation a few years back so I do have some familiarity with the content of topic. Regardless of debate styles I evaluate what happens between the students, I have start to judge more policy v policy debates since coming back to college policy debate even if its not what I debated when I competed. Please keep track of your time, it's a resource in the game of debate and youth should start to learn time management skills. If you are a novice I will gladly time with you to help you get into groove of things. Open/Varsity you are on your own. I'm not a particularly formal person so please don't call me judge(see #1) and I won't dock speaker points for using particular words etc. The more relaxed everyone is the better the round will go for everyone :3

Online Debate Stuff: While I will try to do my best to listen and follow along with the round, if you insist on spreading, I would like it if you include analytics in the speech doc(I watch everything with subtitles. I've noticed slight audio processing/latency issues listening to people talk fast in the few online debates I have either watched or judged. If you choose not to do so, I will in no way hold it against you. But "YMMV" in terms of what I get on my flow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Feel free to debate, just make it interesting although I specialize in critical arguments I am familiar with the fundamentals of debate across styles. Don’t call me judge.( see #1 above for suggestions)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking: General Clarity over speed paradigm that most people have, It is a good determinate of speaker points and important for effective communication. When you make an argument clearly I'm more likely to follow its development and depending on how the round goes works well for you. Versus If I miss and important argument and it costs you the round and then you ask "What about x argument" then people are sad.

Style: Is also very important and I think that can become lost in debate rounds, although some people shoot arguments as if they are a machine they still have personalities that I believe should be shown in a debate round. If you are funny, show it, if you can make being "assertive" work more power to you, if you are a geek I'll probably get your references, and so on. Style is not mandatory and should come naturally, but if shown will definitely improve your speaker's points.

Cross-X: Can be a very useful tool and can be both a fun and entertaining experience for me as a judge and a place for people to express some aspects of "style". Cross-X belongs to the person asking questions, so if it seems like someone isn't asking a question let them ramble it really isn't your concern. Of course, there is a threshold that will become really clear, in that I'll probably stop paying attention and start finding something else interesting to pay attention to.


Evidence: Pieces of evidence are like a bullets to a gun. They can be devastating only when aimed properly, I think evidence is a tool to support your arguments and the way you articulate them. So if you extend evidence with little to no explanation to how it functions you are shooting blanks that can probably be easily refuted, evidence comparison is also really important in this regard as it allows you to control the framing of the debate which leads us into. . .

Macro-level issues and Framing: I think these are very important in both debate as they ultimately determine how i look at the flow(s) and situate who is controlling the direction of the debate. So if someone has an overview that contains an impact calculus,framework, "politics" or frontloads an argument on the flow and it doesn't get answered either directly or somewhere else on the flow then it becomes damming to the other team. This is even more essential in the last two speeches that ultimately determine how i should look at the round. Good framing also should happen on the line-by line as well and will also help me write the ballot.

Theory: As someone who's into competitive games I've grown to like theory a lot. It's probably something that should be argued in a CLEAR and COHERENT manner, which means you probably shouldn't speed through your condo bad and agent cp blocks as if you are reading cards, I'll vote on dropped theory arguments as long as there is a clear impact to it when extended. Otherwise, it should be developed throughout the debate. General question that should be resolved in theory debate for me is "What does it mean?" i.e If you say best policy option, what does that mean in terms of what a policy option is and how does it work in terms of debate?

Specific Stuff

Topicality: Its very situational depending on the violation and how the definitions play out. I think a lot of T interpretations can be contrived especially if they are not grounded in codified law or precedent. Interpretations that come from legal academics serve to help lawyers in the event in which they feel they must argue a certain interpretation in front of a particular judge and may not necessarily good for debate(although a certain level of spin and framing could convince me otherwise). Topicality comes down to clash and ground, and is normally resolved by several questions for me; "Is there clash in round?" "What ground does BOTH sides have?" and "How does ground function to create educational debates?" I tend to have a very high threshold for fairness. Just because a K Aff makes a no link argument to you politics disad doesn't mean that it's unfair, negative ground isn't something that is so clearly drawn out. I think there are better arguments that can be made in those situations. That being said I am very sympathetic to aft weighing their case against topicality and see k's of topicality as substantial arguments on the flow.

Just saying you are reasonability topical isn't an argument and makes their competing interpretation claims all the more legitimate. Like all things you have to make a warrant to why you are reasonably topical, may it be that you are germane to the resolution or that you still allow for alternative ways for the neg to engage the aft.

Counter Plans, PICs, and DA's: Not really a generic counterplan person, I think counter plans when researched properly and specific to the aff with a good net-benifit can become a good interesting debate that I would love to see. I don't really like silly "PIC/Ks" and think people can make very convincing, smart arguments about how stupid they are, but I'll still vote for them. It's a question of how the counterplan competes with the aff and makes better room for theory arguments on the aff. I really don't like the politics DA and generally think the link arguments are contrived, strong attacks on the link story of the DA are very convincing and will probably help you on the CP debate.

"Performance": **http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_n1FHX3mBw** Just do your thing- by this I mean I'm in no way hostile to performance debate, but that does not mean negatives can't make arguments as to why that performance is potentially bad or problematic.

K's: I would love seeing a good critique debate more than seeing a bad one that does surface-level work. A good K debate includes specific links to the aff that go beyond " you do state action dats bad judge" or "you sed observation= ablest discourse" as it allows affs to use simple questions to make your links seem stupid and their framing arguments stronger. A strong defense of the alternative, and realistic impacts that are explained and benefit the neg. I really like K's that deal with politics and how we formulate political action and agency in relation to institutions or the State, a good framing of the alternative politics and how that politics can function through the debate round and the ballot is very. Smart questions and simplification of the alt/ K will probably allow it to be more persuasive and stop the k from becoming the blob it normally becomes.

Have fun!

~Kaine

he/him/his

email: jchoe001 at gmail

Notre Dame 2012 - 2016
Northwestern 2016 - 2020

Judging/coaching for: Notre Dame, New Trier
Overall experience: ~100 varsity policy debates judged including a dozen or so elim rounds

ETHS note: ***I've judged a single tournament on the 2019-2020 topic*** so pls try to avoid acronyms and spend a bit more time than usual on t if you want me to understand your arguments (goes for both aff and neg). This also means that I will be reading more cards after the round than usual - this is only bad news for you if 1. your ev is bad, or 2. your ev says something different than what you/the tag says

The information you came here for:

More Policy than K.

Other things:

Topicality

Neg should provide a caselist and impact out their standards (ground is not an impact it's an internal link to terminal, portable impacts like research skills). Likewise, the aff should impact out their offense i.e. overlimiting and reasonability.

I like card-heavy techy T-debates.

Disads

Sure.

Politics DA's are ok. I love it when they're innovative/tricky, but not in the way that people usually define those terms. I don't really like riders, time/focus tradeoff links, and other versions that link off of fiat rather than the substance of the aff

I like reading cards - please have good ev.

Impact calc is my favorite part of disad debate so do that well and you will be rewarded

Counterplans

Anything goes if you can win that your counterplan is legitimate. With that being said, I'm a bit tougher on the neg with counterplan theory than others, so treat the theory debate like a T debate and define your standards, impact it out, explain your model of competition, etc.

I'm often persuaded by sufficiency framing but am not super persuaded by 1% risk of net benefit.

I don't default to judge-kick but I'm more than willing to hear a debate on whether that's a thing I should do.

Kritiks

K debates have been very hit-and-miss in my experience judging. The tend to be either really lackluster or really good. If Ks are your thing and has always been your thing then do your thing don't change anything for me. But also even if you're just experimenting with Ks you can still read it in front of me anyways and I'll make sure to give you lots of feedback. tl;dr not a "k hack"

"Non-traditional" affs

They're fine. They should probably have something to do with the topic but the meaning of that statement is up for debate. I think that k on k debates are fun and should probably include a discussion of whether aff gets perm. If you're neg, don't throw shit at the wall and see what sticks (I don't have a strict criterion for this but I'll know it when I see it).

I don't think framework is a "generic" vs. k affs. I think with the right nuances, it's probably the best substantive argument. Usually I find the impact debate very lacking from the neg, while it is way too heavily focused on by the aff. I think my judging record on framework vs. k aff is about 60/40.

Theory

As a default, I consider conditionality to be the only worthy theory argument to be a voting issue. Doesn't mean I won't vote on other theory arguments - just means that you have to explicitly impact them out more.

I also don't reward gotcha-type theory args that teams extend for 10 seconds every speech. Don't expect me to vote on them.

I don't like performative contradictions but I love perf con debates. I am making this position very explicit in my paradigm to discourage people from reading things like cap k + a politics DA with econ impact and legalism k + agent CP. But this doesn't mean I'll automatically vote aff if the neg reads performatively contradicting positions, it's actually somewhat opposite - affs have a good chance of winning on perf con in front of me but has to actually invest time developing and extending it.

For e-mail chains (both pls):

damiendebate47@gmail.com

mcclurecronin@gmail.com

About me - I debated for 8 years competitively, starting at Douglas High School (Minden, NV) before transferring to Sage Ridge (Reno, NV) where I debated with the incredibly brilliant Kristen Lowe. We were the first team from Northern Nevada to qualify to the TOC and had a pretty consistent record of deep elim appearances. I went on to debate at Wake Forest University (class of '17) with varying amounts of success on a wide range of arguments, finishing my career with Varun Reddy in semis of CEDA. I currently work as a legal assistant and lobbyist in Reno/Carson City when I'm not out and about judging and coaching debate.

I have also been published a couple times. I don't think any of it applies, but please don't read my work in front of me. That's just awkward.

2023-24 Update: I am just getting back into debate after a roughly 2 year hiatus. Please slow down a tad and know that my prior experience with the topic (camps, summer files, etc.) is pretty much nonexistent.

Generally - YOU DO YOU!!! I cannot stress that enough. Be aware of my general thoughts on debate, but I want to judge the debate that you want to have!! I have increasingly found that my role as an educator and adjudicator in debate prioritizes the debaters themselves, whatever argument that they want to make, and providing them with the advice and opportunities to be better that I can. It is extremely unlikely (but not impossible) that you read an argument that is entirely new to me.

Whether the 1AC has a plan, an advocacy text, or neither, truly makes no difference to me. It is up to you to explain to me why I should care. I have become increasingly frustrated with the people so quick to say "no plan, no chance at my ballot". This is a pedagogical question.

I consider myself a hard working judge. I will flow, I will read cards, and I will take the time to make the best decision I can.

That being said, the following are my thoughts on certain arguments and some pointers on how to win my ballot.

The kritik - Really dig K debates. I'm pretty well read in a lot of different theories and genuinely enjoy reading critical theory, but I still prefer clarity in explanation. The less jargon you use, the easier it will be to win a K in front of me. Overall, I find that framework args are increasingly irrelevant to the way that I evaluate these debates. Both teams will (hopefully) always win why their conversation is good, so just do the impact calc. But also answer critical framing args about ethics/reps/ontology/etc. For the aff - I find that permutations are pretty underutilized when it comes to mitigating links and find myself voting aff in policy v K debates on permutations more than I would have anticipated. Alternatives are usually the weakest part of a K IMO so leveraging bits and pieces that may not be mutually exclusive, in addition to winning some offense/defense, will go a long way. I also think impact turning is something that is truly underutilized by affirmatives that are facing off with a kritik. Digging in on certain points of neg offense can work wonders. DO NOT say things like anti-blackness, sexism, ableism, etc. are good though. PLEASE explain why your aff outweighs the K, especially if you have big stick impacts that are basically designed for some of these debates... For the neg - framing is absolutely essential. I like 2NRs on the K that guide me through my decision in a technical fashion. Links should obviously be as contextualized to the aff as possible. I am frequently persuaded by teams that realize the alt is a dumpster fire and shift to framework for the same effect. I am more likely to vote negative when there is case debating happening in line with the K, as well. Whether that is impact defense or some sort of "satellite" K, well, that's up to you.

The flourishing of performance debate has really effected the way that I think about form and content in the debate setting. I think these arguments are extremely valuable to the activity and I thoroughly enjoy debates about debate as well.

The DA - I think these debates are pretty straight forward. Do your impact calc, win your link, answer uniqueness overwhelms, etc. I like power plays where the aff straight turns a DA, especially if the 1NC was a lot of off case positions.

The CP - don't judge as many of these debates as I would like. A good counterplan with a specific solvency advocate will impress me. I think these arguments are relatively straight forward as well. In terms of theory issues like PICs bad, condo bad, etc., I truly don't have much of an opinion on these issues, but that doesn't mean I will let you get away with shenanigans. I would prefer arguments to be contextualized to in round abuse claims and how the role of the affirmative became structurally impossible. Rarely do I judge a theory debate, but I would be interested to hear more of them.

I do not default to kicking the CP for the negative. I think the 2NR needs to make that choice for themselves and stick with it. That doesn't necessarily mean I cannot be persuaded otherwise, however. This question should be raised before the 2NR for it to be persuasive to me.

Topicality - I like T debates. Limits isn't an impact in and of itself, I want to hear more explanation on how limits effects what should be your "vision of the topic" holistically, what affs and ground exist within it, and why those debates are good. Education impacts that are contextualized and specific will go a long way for me, whether it be in the context of the aff or the resolution.

I am increasingly persuaded by teams that give me a case list and explain what sort of ground exists within that limited topic.

Framework - I am an advocate for engaging with the affirmative and whatever it is that they have to say. I don't think framework should be taken off the table completely, though, and if you do plan to go for it just know that I require a lot more work on a topical version of the aff and some sort of in-road to how you resolve the claims of the 1AC. There are a lot of framework debates I have judged where I wish the 2NR did some work on the case flow -- ex: aff is about movements, 2NR makes arguments about why movements are coopted or repressed, therefore state engagement is essential.... whatever.

Procedural fairness is becoming less and less persuasive to me. I would vote on it if I have to, but I likely won't be happy.

I believe that debate is a game, but a game that has unique pedagogical benefits.

I may seem "K happy" but I promise my judging record proves that I am more than willing to vote on framework. But like I said, there needs to be more interaction between the affirmative and a limited vision of the topic. I have found that a lot of teams give case lists (both on the aff and the neg) but there is little to no clash over what those affirmatives are and why they are or are not good for debate. If you are trying to make arguments about why your vision of the topic provides a better set of affirmations, whether policy or critical, then there must be some comparison between the two. And those comparisons must have some sort of impact.

Other things - if there is anything else, please feel free to ask me. I know that some of this is vague, but my thoughts tend to change based off of the argument that is being presented and how exactly it is explained. I probably lean more on the side of truth over tech, but that doesn't mean I will make a decision wholly irrelevant to what is said in the debate unless I feel that it is absolutely necessary and something terrible happened. Plus I like to think I keep a clean flow so obvi tech still matters. I have absolutely no qualms checking debaters that are being rude or problematic. That being said, I look forward to judging you and happy prep!

Four years of national circuit policy debate in high school. I tried to keep this short, so if you have any specific questions please ask.

Some general points:

-Basic principle: Win an argument and a reason why that means I should vote for you

-I try to be as unbiased as possible regarding your selection of argumentative styles and regarding my evaluation of the merit of specific arguments

-You should therefore read whatever arguments you're best at and which give you the best chance of winning

-I probably lean towards the "policy" side of things

-Flashing is not prep but please know how to use a flash drive

-Clarity and good line by line are greatly preferred and appreciated; you should avoid overviews whenever possible

-Explain why your arguments matter in the context of the debate as a whole and why they're voting issues

Aff:

-I tend to lean slightly neg on framework questions; I think that most K affs are not particularly about the topic and I think that it's a huge bonus if your aff actually engages with a topical question

-I think that your aff should have some written statement of advocacy

CP:

-These are great

-I try to be neutral on CP theory but it's going to be an uphill battle to get me to agree that I should exclude from debate some large and common category of counterplans (e.g. Agent CPs bad). Theoretical objections which are more specific in nature are likely to be more persuasive.

K:

-Go for it

-Avoid using an excessive amount of jargon

-The earlier points about avoiding overviews, doing good line by line, and explaining yourself apply especially to this debate

DA:

-Yeah sure whatever

-Politics is fun but be good at it

Theory:

-I'll vote on it

-Try to clearly explain your arguments and slow down a bit to ensure you communicate them clearly

Style:

-Being funny is always a plus

-Be clear

-Do line by line and signpost clearly

Updated for NSDA ‘19:

This year I have judged fewer rounds than I have in years past. I’m not nearly as familiar with positions and the lit base. The biggest thing for me is overviews, both positional and global to explain your arguments and how I should be evaluating the round. Write my rfd for me.

I debated for four years in high school and have been a coach for three. In general, being clear about what you’re arguing (like giving overviews) makes me more comfortable voting for you. Assume that I am not familiar with the argument/literature of your 1AC, K, etc.

You can add me to the email chain (Parker.Davis23@gmail.com). I’m not going to sit and read through it during your speeches, meaning you still should make sure we’re on the same page and that I can understand you. If debate was just everyone sending speech docs back and forth we could all stay home and save a lot of time and money.

I find that my worst decisions come in two types of rounds: The first is when I’m not told what to evaluate and how to do it. In those instances, I may just have to pick what I see as the biggest disparities and start there, which may not be good if you and I see the round differently. The second is when I am in a round between two very good teams that are engaging at a high level (and generally pretty fast) on positions I am not super familiar with. In these types of rounds I still need clear and precise extensions in the 1AR and clear voters in the 2NR/2AR. The more time you devote to overviews and clear extensions/analysis, the more I'll actually be able to understand the argument.

Feel comfortable to do what you do best, but here are some specific thoughts:

Framework – If you are able to successfully frame the round in your favor, it can go far to help you win the round. It is important that both teams engage each other’s interpretations instead of just reading and extending.

Case Debate – Specific on-case arguments can be very compelling. I always have believed that smart analytics are preferable to just reading a bunch of cards.

DA/CPs – The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.

Kritikal Debate – Sort of like what I said under case debate, taking the time to evaluate why the K is the most important impact in round is preferable to just reading your cards and extending them in later speeches. I think 2NC attempts to gain inroads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency can be persuasive and is a helpful way for me to evaluate the K against the aff. I'm fine with kritikal affirmatives so long as you explain what exactly I'm endorsing by voting affirmative.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other stock argument. I think of standards/reasons to prefer as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means that comparative impact calculus is important for any 2NR going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative’s. That also means that proving in-round abuse isn’t necessary if you’re winning the standards debate, but it does make it a lot easier to vote on T.

Theory – Theory becomes easier to evaluate when actual clash takes place instead of just reading blocks and not engaging with the other team’s argument. If you expect to solely win on theory you should give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits a rejection of the team and not just the argument.

Non-Traditional Debate – If I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that both teams can reasonably meet, I don’t care what you do.

Speed – I think I’m slower than a lot of judges. Breaking up your cadence and tone between tags/authors/analytics and warrants will help you make sure I don’t miss anything.

Speaker Points – 27.5 is average. I’ll add points for things like clarity and efficiency and subtract for messy debating or getting too harsh with your opponents/partner.

Feel free to ask any questions.

Background info: I debated for Cal State Fullerton and qualified to the NDT twice. I have been judging and teaching debate for about 3 years now. I currently work for the Silicon Valley Urban Debate League as a head coach.

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it: itsberenicedelgado@gmail.com

How I judge all debates:

- I do not count flashing as prep. That being said, please be considerate of people’s time.

- Spreading is fine just be CLEAR. I will tell you to be clear but after the second time I will not flow if I can’t understand what you are saying.

- I am expressive – if you pay attention you can easily tell how I feel about arguments. I love cross-x and appreciate cleverness and wittiness.

- I am flow centered but I will vote on framing. Tell me how I need to judge the debate and which arguments should / should not be prioritized.

- IMPACT CALCULUS – if you do not have an impact calculus it is hard for me to vote for you if the other team explains to me why I need to prioritize their arguments/impacts.

- I have a high threshold for topicality – I enjoy creativity on the topic and do not think that a plan text is necessary. However, if you proficiently extend standards and tell me why I should prioritize your model of debate I will vote on T.

I’ve done both traditional and critical debate. Do whatever you want, just make sure you have a clear explanation of what your argument is with a warrant. Do not go for a K just because you think that is what I will vote for. I majored in philosophy and understand critical literature but if you are reading something dense like Baudrillard or Lacan please be clear and explain your method / alternative.

General: Graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2021 with a double-major in computer science and anthropology and now work as a product manager in the tech industry.

My email is amoghden@gmail.com - please add me to the email chain and/or reach out with any questions!

Debate Background: 4 years of circuit policy debate at Milpitas High School (2013-17). 3 years of NPDA Parliamentary and NFA-LD at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2018-21).

During my time in college, I coached a handful of high school policy/LD teams and worked as a lab leader (leading labs focused on K arguments) at the University of Texas National Institute of Forensics. Since I graduated and started working, I have been completely removed from debate.

GENERAL VIEWS:

DISCLAIMER: This paradigm was originally written for policy debate but is pretty consistent with how I evaluate ANY style of debate. Let's be real, every debate event seems to slowly adopts new "progressive" norms that make it closer and closer to policy anyway.

Debate is a game. It is influenced by (and often a microcosm of) the social, political, cultural, and libidinal constitution of what we might call the "real world", but is ultimately an argumentative testing ground for ideas.

The only thing I know to be "true" as a judge is that I have been tasked to listen, evaluate, and arrive at a decision based on the presentation and clash of ideas. The scope / nature / telos of those ideas, how I interpret and evaluate argumentation, and what influences my decision-making is entirely up for contestation. I can be compelled to vote for anything regardless of its simplicity, complexity, or absurdity without any preconceived biases as long as it is not racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

My personal debate career and involvement as a coach was primarily invested into kritikal styles of advocacy, but I do not have any fixed stylistic biases. I will not have a problem understanding and evaluating traditional arguments, but this is an area of research in debate that I did not have too much personal investment in. My policy debate background means I generally won't have a problem flowing speed.

I really do NOT care about trivial debate etiquette. Dress however you want. As long as you're not compromising the safety or access of people, say whatever you want, however you want. Call people out on their BS.

WHAT I LOOK FOR IN (GOOD) DEBATES:

- Tech > truth (but I will only evaluate arguments that I understand).

- Organization, specificity, evidence comparison and argument interaction are key to amazing debates.

- Write my ballot for me - judge instruction is the mark of a well executed rebuttal speech. Frame every part of the debate: tell me how I should be viewing and evaluating arguments and why. Leaving it up to me (or your opponents) to make assumptions or connect the dots to influence my decision may not bode well for you.

- The debate is NOT determined by evidence in a vacuum; it's up to YOU to explain (or spin) warrants, regardless of how amazing (or unfortunately terrible) your cards may be.

- Cross-x is an underutilized art. Destroy your opponents with precise and impactful questions. Be one step ahead. Be witty!

SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS:

TRADITIONAL/POLICY AFFS:

I may not be intimately familiar with topic-specific political processes or terminology, so be sure to explain things and be precise. I would much rather you read one or two well-developed and strategic contentions than several mediocre ones.

I believe that the art of nuanced technical debate is dying, but I'm hoping you prove me wrong. I've noticed a troubling trend of terrible evidence, mediocre internal link explanations, and extensions without substance in the traditional rounds I've had the opportunity to judge. Put in the effort to explain and contextually apply the arguments made in your evidence. Question the merits of bad evidence. Spend the time to frame and impact out your arguments in detail.

Well developed weighing mechanism / impact framing arguments will go a long way with me. I don't presume to know what is good and what is bad - it's up to you to tell me and justify why things are important and what my ballot ought to prioritize.

Because the traditional affirmatives I judge usually end up being versus the K, here's some specific thoughts on those debates:

- Defend your affirmative. Pivoting to spike out of offense is not as strategic as you think. Avoid resorting to vague permutations and/or shifty link defense.

- Utilize and apply your affirmative. Take the time to make specific link/impact turn arguments.

- Engage the criticism. Failing to answer the negative's theory of power is usually an instant recipe for a loss.

- I have a high standard for perm articulation from the affirmative, and link/alt explanation from the negative. Do NOT let lazy K teams get away with bad link analysis or incoherent explanations of their theory.

- Substantive 2AC framework arguments are more likely to influence my decision than whiny procedural stuff.

KRITIKAL AFFS:

I have debated against, affirmed, written, and judged a wide variety of K-Aff arguments and fully encourage you to experiment, push the boundaries of literature and debate as an activity, and ultimately use this space to advocate for things of interest or importance to you. If you're looking for an idea of literature bases with which I am most familiar, check the "Kritiks" section of my paradigm.

I will NOT uncritically vote for you because I like your choice or style of argumentation. Although kritikal affirmatives enable potentially valuable breaks in the traditional form/content of debate and the resolution, I believe that there is a level of investment with the literature and knowledge about debate as an activity necessary to successfully challenge the ideological protocols of the game itself and/or operationalize the game as a site of critical contestation.

Take the time to make smart and offensive application of your Aff's criticism, and explain the unique friction between your methodology and the Neg's argumentation. Supplement your blocks and cards with smart in-round analysis and contextual application of your theory. Going beyond the jargon and providing concrete examples in support of your theory of power and/or methodological strategy will typically go a long way.

KRITIKS:

Successful kritik debating at a minimum requires intimate familiarity with the literature, and clarity and depth in explanation. The best kritik debates happen when you generate unique links to the affirmative and are able to build intricate link-stories by strategically referencing specific warrants, lines, or moments in your opponents performance, argumentation, and evidence and tying it back to your theory of power. Going beyond the jargon and providing concrete examples in support of your theory of power and/or methodological strategy will typically go a long way. I will reward you generously with speaks if you are well versed in your literature and are able to demonstrate your knowledge by making smart and strategic analytic claims and arguments in your speeches and cross-x.

I believe form precedes and determines content: I often begin my decision-making in kritik debates by asking what the telos (or perhaps a lack thereof) of this debate is, and what interpretational lens I ought to use to understand and assess what content means in relation to the presentation of the affirmative and alternative.

I have a general understanding of most criticisms read in debate, but my personal knowledge and interest lies in criticisms pertaining to identity politics and structural positionality. Most of the scholarship I've engaged with as a former debater and coach pertains to various branches of theory speaking to Anti-blackness, South Asian identity, Settler Colonialism, Feminism, Queer/Quare/Kuaerness, and Disability. Although I'm not AS well-read up on the edgy and often unintelligible works of old white dudes, I've judged or been personally involved in a fair share of those debates too and much of the scholarship I engaged with as a debater had its ideological roots in the works of Lacan, Heidegger, Marx, Deleuze, and Baudrillard among others. If YOU understand your criticism and YOU do the work to explain and contextualize your offense, you'll probably be fine.

DISADS/COUNTER-PLANS:

The more specific and less generic your strategy is, the happier I will be. I have no pre-defined standard for what makes a CP legitimate or abusive. Absent theory arguments, I will evaluate and happily vote on any DA and/or CP strategy without any predispositions.

I may not be intimately familiar with topic-specific political processes or terminology, so be sure to explain things and be precise.

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

The path to a ballot in these debates (on either side) is to do real comparative work on the level of interpretations and standards. Dive into the nitty-gritty analysis: what type of norms do we want to set in this activity/topic? Why? Why does it matter if the violation is true? What is the threshold to meet your interpretation?

Unlike many judges, I don't mind frivolous theory arguments. This is YOUR debate. If you want to make the debate about some trivial procedural question and you do it well, I'll happily vote on it. If you see strategic value in wasting your opponent's time with frivolous theory, more power to you. Likewise, if you make a well-developed argument that frivolous theory is bad, I'll happily vote on that too.

I think innovative or unconventional topicality and theory arguments (on either side) can make for very interesting discussions about the norms of the activity: arguments about identity, body politics, performativity, agency, boredom, death, simulation, educational models etc.

Impact analysis is CRITICAL to winning T/Theory debates:

Fairness is NOT an intrinsic good. What does fairness mean? Fairness for whom? Why is fairness something we ought to preserve in debate? What is fairness an internal link to?

Education is also NOT an intrinsic good. Why should the telos of debate be to produce education? Why does your model of debate have the ability to produce "good" kinds of education? Why are the specific skills we gain from your model good, and how do we operationalize them?

FRAMEWORK (VS. K-AFFS):

I spent my entire debate career arguing against Framework, but I think there's a lot of merit to these debates (on both sides).

What does your interpretation and model of debate look like in context of the affirmative's criticism? What types of norms and rules do we want to set for the activity? You probably have to win that the affirmative's theory about the way power operates (at least within the debate space) is bad AND/OR fundamentally not testable.

Impact analysis is CRITICAL to winning framework debates:

Fairness is NOT an intrinsic good. What does fairness mean? Fairness for whom? Why is fairness something we ought to preserve in debate? What is fairness an internal link to?

Education is also NOT an intrinsic good. Why should the telos of debate be to produce education? Why does your model of debate have the ability to produce "good" kinds of education? Why are the specific skills we gain from your model good, and how do we operationalize them?

apparently judgephilosophies is gone so im updating this for the stanford tournament and beyond - i debated at cal and for four years in high school, was pretty decent and all that stuff, do whatever you want as long as you do it well and please explain things

make me laugh while also being persuasive please ur speaker points will jump

if you want some background - I went almost exclusively for afropessimism and read a "performance aff" my senior year of high school, and then started off college by going for FW and deterrence good against most K affs, followed by a jump to "high theory" (i.e. Negarestani, Deleuze) - the point is I've definitely debated both sides of "clash debates", so I'm game for hearing them and I actually really enjoy FW v K aff/hard-right aff v K debates

please don't be intimidated if i don't smile/emote much - i just have a really blank expression sometimes - if i smile or nod though you probably did a good thing

TLDR because reading 8 lines of text can be daunting:

- do whatever you want, being funny is an optional plus, make (good) arguments

my email is ddave17@berkeley.edu

you can add me to the email chain if you want, doesn't really matter to me

LD and policy paradigm below ---

I did policy debate for College Prep for 4 years in high school and am now a sophomore at Wellesley College. When I debated, I did everything from Fem K's to politics DA's, so I'm down to watch any debate. I have no problem with FW, K's, or K affs. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at kismat98@gmail.com

I debated for four years of college NPDA/NPTE style parli, which, if
you're not familiar with it, is sort of like HS circuit policy without
cards. I was generally a policy making debater, but in my final year I
ran the K quite a lot, so I'm comfortable with it.

I HAVE NOT COMPETED SINCE 2013. While I have been judging on and off, I am somewhat rusty. Just an FYI. The years have made me both modestly less competent (sorry) but also modestly kinder. While I can handle most speed in Parli, LD and Policy probably have to slow down a bit for me. I'll yell clear and will do my best, but please be aware of my limitations. 

Here's the tl;dr if you're reading this right before a round:

1. Speed, theory, k's, procedurals are totally fine.

2.  Especially important: slow down on tags so I have pen time, indicate clearly to me when you've switched from one
argument to another (numbering is great, but can be confusing because
many arguments have internal numbering, so "next" works well.)

3. Economics and politics probably need less explanation. Philosophy
(framework, especially) needs more.

4. I love a good theory debate, but I find that it's the most perishable skill in debate, so please please please be
clear, be organized, and tell me how theory arguments interact. The easiest way to win my ballot on questions of theory is to prove some theory argument is the internal link to all other theory arguments, for example.

5. I have some competence in debate and I'm reasonably intelligent, but, like most circuit judges, I am not as smart as you think I am and not nearly as smart as I think I am. Keep that in mind.

Here's the long form:

Speed/Communication:


1) If you are clear I will be able to flow you. You will find it very difficult in Parli or PuFo to spread me out, but Policy or LD might need to slow down a bit. Please allow for pen time. Make sure your tags are clear. It's the debater's job to communicate arguments clearly. I know that sucks---I've been on the receiving end of enough "judge told me to make the argument I actually did make" decisions for three debate careers, but it's the only way we can play the game.

2) I will yell clear for clarity, loud for loudness. I will yell these many times if need be, because I do really want to understand you, but
if you persist, I won't keep yelling all round.

3) Please ignore my nonverbals. During debate rounds, I'm very focused on being as fair as I can to you, so my facial control goes out the window. My happy face doesn't mean you're winning, and my sad face doesn't mean you're losing. My lack of flowing may mean I'm confused, or it may mean I've already written enough of the argument to satisfy me.

Theory:

 Please be clear where your answers to theory are (on the counterinterp, on
the violation, etc.) and what their function is. The easiest way to
win my ballot here is to weigh your various theory arguments against
each other, and explain to me why this means you win. (I've judged
rounds where the debater explained to me afterwards why a five second
theory argument should've won them the round. The debater was right,
but the explanation in round to communicate that argument was
insufficient. )

I accept whatever arguments are presented to me. If those arguments
are not made, here is how I default:

1) I have a high, but not impossible, threshold for RVIs...in Parli. In LD, I defer to community norms.

2) Theory comes before pre-fiat comes before post-fiat

3) I default to a framework of competing interpretations. 

What arguments you should run in front of me:

Kritiks:
I really, really, really like the K, because I think it is an
incredibly valuable way to confront our most basic assumptions about
society. But I have also not debated for quite some time and my comprehension may not where it used to be.

Keep this in mind. K's are fantastic and cool and wonderful. BUT DO NOT RUN THEM
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM. The K works well when you understand not
only what the argument says but also why the argument explains why you
win the round. Yelling "they use biopower" is not enough; you need to
give me reasons why their use of biopower means I should vote against
them. Talk about role of the ballot, tell me why your alt solves, and
tell me why I should vote for you.

Extensions:
1) Extensions. I am not okay with shadow extensions. It's fine to say
"extend the Domalewski card" (I live for the day someone says that, by
the way), but do not use the next speech to explain how that card
interacts with an argument your opponent made. I will not allow
"extend x" in one speech to become magically explained in a later speech.

Speaks:
My range is from 27-30. 28 is average, 27 is below average, 26 and
below is probably racist. 28.5 is above average, 29 is "you will
probably clear", and 29.5-29.8 is "you are likely to win this
tournament." Anything above and I will be actively recruiting you to
join my future Presidential campaign, both because I am in awe of your
talents and terrified that if you do not join me you will destroy me.

I reward, in this order:
1. Good strategic choices. Do you have a crafty, strategic case? Do
you collapse to the right places throughout the round? Do you use your
opponent's mistakes against him/her? Do you see the outs your opponent
has, and shut them down?
2. Clarity. To quote my good friend Om Alladi, "structure is KEY. I
really like structured arguments. this does not mean subpoints etc.
but labelling of arguments. if you tag every argument with the
appropriate function, ie '1) not true- 2) alt causality 3) solvency
takeout' i will appreciate it immensely."
3. Innovation/cleverness. Running a weird interpretation or unique
contentions will earn you points. I like creativity.
4. These things will TANK your speaker points: rudeness, being mean to
novices, spreading out people who ask you to slow down, intentionally
being unclear, racist/sexist/homophobic language. Read the room: being
aggressive and dominant is fine against a debater that is equal to
you in skill, but comes off as bullying to someone who is less
experienced.

READ THIS --- if I catch you stealing prep during a debate, you have two options. Either (a) You have your speaker points capped at a 27 or (b) I start shaving your prep down in 30 second intervals, depending on the severity of the violation. I don't care if you're a novice or on track to win the freakin' NDT.

things that count as prep: compiling speech docs, writing arguments, talking to your partner, asking the other team what cards they read

things that don't count: emailing/flashing (as long as it's short), drinking water, walking to the stand

if you're reading this before a debate, don't. Go prep. You've got a better chance of winning the K in front me than you do completely switching up your strategy.

If you're deciding whether or not to pref me, here are some common questions that you might want answered.

who? Former Cal debater, current applied math and physics double major at Berkeley. I work in a dark matter search lab.

topic knowledge? Not a ton. Stanford will be the first tournament I've judged on this topic, so your acronyms will be foreign to me.

kritiks? Admittedly an uphill battle. I think of them like a disad with a counterplan that rarely does anything. That being said, I'd be pretty excited to hear something innovative that questions assumptions the aff has made and contextually explains why those assumptions mean the aff loses from a substance perspective (a la Cal NR). This seems unlikely for some reason though.

counterplans? The neg probably gets infinite condo. You can probably kick planks. 2NC counterplans and counterplan amendments are probably fine. It's probably not an opporutnity cost if no actor could do both.

politics DA?. yes but it's probably dumb. You should probably also go for a counterplan.

speed? Oftentimes the slower team makes the smarter arguments by understanding where to prioritize their time. If I can't hear you I'll tell you.

t? Yes. If T is the 2NR, then T is the 2NR.

6 years debate experience plus a few years coaching, will accept both on-topic and off-topic arguments, traditional or K. Whatever works for you, but be convincing. If you spread, slow down for tags and authors. If you aren't clear I won't flow and that is where I make my decision. Be respectful to your opponents, obey the time limits, prove your case, and tell me what the in-round voting issues are. If you choose to tag team I still expect equal effort from both partners.

UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the Univ. of Oregon.

CX Paradigm (you should read this even I'm judging you in a different debate format because it speaks to my overall approach): My judging style and philosophy has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple utilitarian approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within a government or other policymaking body, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to an alternative framework if one of the teams can convince me that that alternative framework should or best applies.

And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's as difficult for me to evaluate as Dramatic Interp. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can easily win a debate for NEG if AFF fails to meet its burdens.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.

As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).

I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (even if I have your speech within the email chain). Assuming there is an email chain, I expect to be part of it: eddinska@gmail.com.

Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is completely overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.

Lincoln-Douglas and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.

Public Forum Paradigm: You should follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such (i.e., to debate the very theory of PF). In a more traditional PF round, I see framework as a key element; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how and why it matters to your case). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means that what passes for spreading in PF is fine with me...you don't have much time for each speech, I know, so use what you have to the fullest. Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.

Preferred Name “Nae” pls and thx :)

6 bids to the TOC senior year

3x NDT First Round

For Email Chains: edwardsnevan@gmail.com

College Paradigm:

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

HS Paradigm w/ some edits:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have debated in Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 4 years in Science park high school. I recently graduated and I am now on the Rutgers Newark debate team. I've qualified to the TOC in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate my senior Year.

I give high speaks if you are clear and really good in the big picture debate. I like a good story.

Hello all, I just finished debating for four years of varsity policy for Nevada Union and now I am a Stanford freshman. I was the 2n for Nevada Union's A team for the last two years. I debated on the transportation infrastructure topic through the surveillance topic. I got to a couple bid rounds and made a finals appearance at DDI. I read mostly kritikal arguments although I am fine with any type of debate and I default policy maker unless I am told otherwise. I am not debating in college and am also not familiar with this years resolution.

General Things:  

An argument is a claim and a warrant. Please warrant your claims. 

Please time your own speeches. 9 minute 1NC's make me sad. 

I don't count prep for flashing but don't go overboard.

Slow down on theory and analytics.

Don't be an asshole. People don't like that. I am fine with a good amount of sass though.

Specific Arguments:

K Affs: I have read mostly non-plan text affs for the past couple years and I enjoy this type of debate. I do believe that these affs should have a good justification of why they are not defending a plan text. I am not biased for or against T arguments against K affs. 

K's: I enjoy K debate. Please don't just assume that everyone is on the same page if you make vacuous postmodern claims. Explain the story of your argument just like you would on any other type of argument.

T: I like T debate and went for T in a pretty decent amount of my 2nr's. I will probably default to competing interpretations but am fine with voting on reasonability

Framework: I'm good for framework - see the k aff section.

DA's and CP's: these are arguments. I will vote on them. Do Impact calc work on DA's and solvency explanations on CP's.

Theory: I will vote on theory arguments. Make sure you clash with the other teams theory arguments instead of just reading your 15 point condo block. Voters are claims. Claims need warrants. It will be very hard to convince me that the statement "they dropped condo that's a voter, moving on to the case flow" is a reason you should win a debate.

Feel free to contact me at either jfenner@stanford.edu or joefenner@rocketmail.com for questions about this paradigm or judging. 

Cypress Bay High School

Wake Forest University

Baylor University

Good speaks for good debating, great speaks for being funny and/or just great debating.

I'll vote for anything, just turn up. What follows are my existing thoughts/biases on how to win in front of me in policy debates, please scroll to the bottom for LD and PF.

Email: robertofr99@gmail.com

CX Paradigm: NDT Updates 3/29/23

T: I don't hold strong enough opinions about topic wording and plans to stand by in a debate so judge direction on what SHOULD matter is critical. I don't judge many though and because of that I'd say I'm more likely to default to competing interpretations than not. It would have to be a pretty clear case for me to vote on reasonability. End of year thoughts: nothing is AI and everything is nature; T-subsets is mostly valid.

FW: You can go for it. Thoughts: Unlike other judges, I think to win you need to prove your model is strictly better than a model that includes the aff, which means you should probably be able to prove that a solely plan-based model would be better than the mixed status quo.

I default to thinking of these as debates about models and not about interpretations of the wording of the resolution. That means I prefer that the aff have a counter-interp, even if that counter-interp is totally unlimited. What matters is that both teams have a vision of what their model looks like. No counter-interp is also valid and often strategic so feel free to do that too.

I won't say whether fairness is an impact because that depends on what is said and won in any given debate, but what I will say is that proving that debate is a game does not, on its own, strongly imply that fairness is an intrinsic good. Fairness is also a sliding scale, so I expect nuance about the magnitude of the internal link between the violation or the counter-interp and the fairness impact.

I think that FW teams would benefit from incorporating some kind of uniqueness argument or warrant into their skills modules that substantiates why the skills we learn from plan-based debating are valuable in the current political moment. I often find that teams lose debates where they are winning their limits arguments by failing to justify the value of THIS fair game.

K: Do whatever, odds are I've read something you are reading or someone citing else citing the same people as your authors. That means jargon is fine as long as it's used meaningfully. Big words are meant to convey even bigger ideas in less time so using jargon precisely can really elevate the quality of your speech, but on the other hand, just stringing words together without much thought may really hurt your speech. Performance debate is great, all kinds of art can be evidence as long as I can see/hear/flow it (unless there's a reason I shouldn't I'm up for that too, but I won't stop flowing your opponents speeches during the debate even if you ask me to, that is up to them).

CP: I guess this is more about conditionality than anything, I'd rather not have to deal with more than 4 or 5 conditional advocacies or I might actually vote on condo. I think most counter-plans should have solvency advocates, I can't think of an example that wouldn't off the top of my head but I'm hesitant to say I wouldn't be convinced by ANY CP without one.

DAs: I think the spill-over DA is just a bad argument. If you win it you win it but I feel like I have to be upfront about thinking this argument is garbage.

LD Paradigm:

I'm down with anything, except for really outlandish tricks and some frivolous theory. You could still win "Topic auto-affirms/negates because of definitions" in front of me but my bar is as low as "even if that's true we should ignore it and debate a common understanding of the resolution for X, Y, Z reasons" for me to throw away those kinds of arguments. I have a very deep background in critical theory and philosophy so Phil, K debating, and Skep are all fine by me as long as you remember to explain why I should vote for you rather than just exposing on an argument and hoping that will translate to a win. I like evidence, but evidence can be poetry, music, art, memes, etc. as long as it's used to substantiate something and not just presented without argument.

PF Paradigm:

You should read my other paradigms to get an idea of what I think of different types of arguments, this section is mostly dedicated to what I think of PF norms.

I care about evidence more than most PF judges, I don't think you shouldn't be allowed to reference current events to make points but I think having evidence prepared is definitely more convincing than listing off things that I may or may not have heard of to prove a point. I will want to receive any evidence you use in the debate, so that I can evaluate the comparative quality of evidence when deciding things after the debate. I will prefer low quality delivery of high quality arguments over high quality delivery of low quality arguments.

I will not deduct speaker points for superficial things like profanity or dress, I care about rhetoric as a tool of persuasion and information exchange not as a show of pageantry. Be intentional about what you are saying and why are you are saying it, and I will reward you based on the persuasiveness of that delivery.

Please be respectful to your opponents, your partner, and me in debates, and that means being respectful of our time during prep and cross-examination. If people ask to see your evidence, don't make them waste prep time for you to send it to them, they should already have it.

If you have any specific questions about types of arguments in PF or norms, please feel free to ask me. As a general rule, if it exists in policy or LD I'm willing to vote for it but also willing to vote against it on the basis that these arguments are illegitimate in PF, you just have to actually win that.

Debate is a fun competitive research game. Ask questions if you have them.

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

Updated for Northwestern: It occurs to me I haven't touched this thing in awhile. They often feel quite self-aggrandizing, so I'm hoping to keep this short and informative.

For college debates, please add

caldebatechain@gmail.com

For HS, please add

nathankarlfleming@gmail.com

Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. I don't believe that heg good isn't offense, and people should feel comfortable going for impact turns against the K in front of me, because it's cleaner than T a lot of the time. Fairness is an impact, but it's way worse than skills.

Theory: the primary concern is the predictability of the interp. In order for it to be predictable, it needs to be based in a logical interpretation of the resolution. This precludes the vast majority of theory arguments. People seem to be souring on conditionality --- I am not one of those people. I've yet to hear an objection to it not solved by writing and reading higher quality arguments.

A few closing comments: unsorted

-I'm kind of an ev hack. I try not to read cards unless instructed, but if you read great ev, you should be loud and clear about telling me to read it, and if it's as good as you say, then speaker points may be in order.

-Sometimes recutting the other team's card to answer their argument is better than reading one of your own. If you want me to read their card on your terms, include highlighting in another color so we're on the same page on what part you think goes the other way.

-Arguments I won't vote for

-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate

-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea

-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate

-new affs bad

Lincoln Douglas

I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.

-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.

-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.

-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.

-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.

-I don’t flow RVIs.

Public Forum

Copy-Pasting Achten's.

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence.

This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Email chain/contact: lanikfrazer@gmail.com

About me - I was the director of speech & debate at sonoma academy for 4 years, and coach for 3 years prior. I debated at SVDP and at Cal and have taught at the CNDI. I no longer do anything debate related.

General - My judging philosophy is pretty simple - you should ultimately do what you do best. I prioritize specificity, contextualization, and evidence quality over your style of debate. Really, I can't stress this enough. I don't judge many policy v. policy debates, but I am able to adjudicate them. I do, however, primarily judge K v. K/clash rounds.

Organization is very important. I flow on paper. I am not a fan of huge overviews and card dumps- please do the work for me and tell me where I should flow things. Explaining warrants is crucial. Empirics and examples are great. Impact analysis is critical. Tech should be truth.

Topicality - I will vote on topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation is good, predictable, and resolves their voters. You should be explaining why, as a whole, your vision of the topic is good, and have tangible impacts. Potential abuse isn't super compelling to me, but I'll vote on it if you tell me why I should. Ks of T are often pretty trifling and need to be explained in depth. "Community consensus" on T doesn't mean much to me and should not be taken for granted.

Theory - I have a high threshold for theory debates and find them to be blippy and frivolous most of the time. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, but if there is a voting issue it must be thoroughly articulated and should have a very strong presence in the 2nr/2ar. Slow down, be clear, and do more than read the shell.

Framework - I mostly judge debates wherein affirmatives do not read a traditional plan text. I am fine with this. Should affirmatives at least be in the direction of the topic? Probably, but not necessarily. Framework read against a K/performance aff that does something concrete is typically not a good argument to read in front of me. You should be engaging in what they do and you should do more than say that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Provide a creative topical version, and explain why fairness or education or whatever comes first (and why this means the aff can't access their own pedagogy). Do more than provide a case list, but explain why those cases are good for debate. I tend to think that fairness is more of an internal link and not a terminal impact, but if you're winning that I will vote for you.

The K - love it. I spend a lot of time reading critical theory and am probably familiar with your lit, but I will not do extra work for you, so the less jargon/more explanation, the better. Be specific and have contextualized links (the link should be to the aff and not the world). You should also answer all of the aff's impacts through turns, defense, etc. Framing is super important. The permutation is underutilized. Impact turns on the aff are cool, but not when it's something you shouldn't say pedagogically.

Disadvantages - Fine. Win your link, turn/outweigh the case, impact calc. Intrinsicness is silly and I'll probably not evaluate it much unless it's seriously mishandled (though it can be compelling against things like riders DAs, which are, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of fiat).

Counterplans - Great. I love a creative advantage CP. You should have a solvency advocate. I definitely lean neg on most theory arguments here, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on them.

Let me know if you have any questions. Shoot me an email before the round if you want me to be aware of access needs, pronouns, etc.

Debated in High School from 2010-2014, Judged and coached from 2014-2019. I may need a bit of time to adjust as I haven't judged since then, so bear with me. my email is dylan.paul.frederick@gmail.com for any questions, and for adding me to the email chain.

I've seen a lot of stuff, please feel free going with any debate style you prefer. Try to assume I don't know a ton about what you are reading.

If you want to win in front of me, please try to go top down - what is the framing I should look to at the end of the round, what is the most important impact/voting issue/whatever, and what is the link to that offense. I pretty much look at what offense is there for me to vote on at the end of the round, and try to sort out which offense wins. You can't go wrong with more depth on your link arguments in front of me, as long as there's a reason to vote for those links.

I don't have strong opinions either way on theory arguments, critical affs, T violations, ect. Do what you like and convince me what the debate should be about.

The debates I like the most are ones where you play to your best strengths, and debates with plenty of actual argument interaction. I have ADHD so the best way for me to disengage from the debate or miss an argument or just not care is to read blocks at each other and not make any explicit, direct challenges to your opponents arguments. If you're not going to actually debate, it makes me want to flip a coin, because you're leaving me to decide which arguments were best myself (I'm always trying my hardest to be fair, but I'm not going to give good speaker points if I'm left trying to compare two ships passing in the night)

If you have any specific questions or concerns, feel free to ask me.

I've been in debate for a little over a decade now as a high school policy debater, coach for numerous teams across multiple events, as well as professionally at the Bay Area Urban Debate League. Essentially, do what you want. Debate is a unique educational and competitive space, please make the most of it. I will vote on most things if you give me a good enough reason. I do not lean towards traditional or K/performative debate. Both are good and valuable. Again, do what you want. Have fun. Be nice to each other.

Go ahead and add me to whatever email chain: gabriel.gangoso@gmail.com

Flex prep is fine. In's and Out's are fine. Any other practices like this are probably fine. If you don't recognize these terms don't worry about them.

I debated 4 years of policy in High school for Bellarmine and 1 in college for UT Dallas. I coach Policy and LD currently at Presentation High School. I have been there for 7 years. If quals matter I was in CEDA octas as a frosh in college.

brandon.garrett@gmail.com for the email chain.


General/CP/DA
Despite being mostly a T/K debater in high school, my team in Dallas was a very straight-up oriented team and as a result I am familiar with and accepting of those types of arguments as well. I read plenty of counterplans and disads in college and high school. I have had and judged tons of politics debate and states counterplan debates and soft vs hard power debates. I don't dislike these debates on face, I just dislike when they lack substance in the sense that theres no analysis happening. I am pretty okayish at flowing so prolly can get you at near top speed but will yell clearer from time to time. As with anything, if you cannot clearly articulate your argument or position, I will not vote for it.

That being said, I definitely havent judged these debates much lately bc most people think I am a K hack, but I actually find them easier to adjudicate and enjoy them a lot when they are good. In a policy v policy style round, I think I am generally a pretty good judge for these debates despite preferring to judge the more left debates.

T/K affs/Fwk
I am relatively familiar with most critical literature but thinks like schlag and heidegger and baudrillard need a lot of link work analysis and alt explanation as do other dense kritiks. this type of explanation will help you in the long run anyways.

I have been told I don't get preffed because my paradigm may be a bit strongly worded. I definitely feel very strongly about use of framework as a way to silence teams with a legitimate gripe against institutional and systemic injustice that is relevant both to this activity and students autonomy. I think there are certain schools that are obviously uninterested in engaging with the substance of these types of arguments because it doesn't benefit their hegemonic structure that is self reinforcing or because it puts coaches outside their comfort zone. I think these arguments are intrinsic goods to the future of the activity and I would tend to think the trend of the community voting patterns and explosion of identity and performance arguments corroborate this direction and opinion.

I am highly inclined to believe that T-USFG is very problematic against certain types of Ks or performance affs. Debate isnt just a game, but certainly has gamelike attributes. I think entirely gamelike views on debate ensure hegemony of opinions.
True procedural fairness doesn't really exist because of structural issues, judge bias, and humans being humans and not robots. Education in some form is inevitable - its just a question of how open you are to learning something and what you are contributing.

This activity matters, what we say in it matters, and if you feel like you have no answer to a K or performance argument then go through the following thought process real quick:
1) Am I more concerned with winning than understanding the arguments of my opponent (if you answered yes you prolly wont win my ballot)
2) Do I want to win and engage the substance of my opponents arguments (If you answered yes then you can proceed)
3) Do I have anything to actually engage with the probably true argument that people of color and women and other disadvantaged people are set up to fail and the institutions of the state and debate have failed them? (If the answer is no you can still potentially win this debate: contribute to the discourse or attack thiers/create your own methodology, and tell me why you think that should enable you to win my ballot. That or cut more cards and prep better answers)

Most people who read these arguments do it to discuss real issues that really matter to them and to our community. The norm of the community to try and avoid these conversations with theory spikes or T arguments that are unspecific and poorly developed is depressing and most definitely not a strategy i support.

To clarify: I think its fine to read Policymaking good / framing against a security K or cap K - but when the debate is about an individuals autonomy and recognition in the debate space (for example - a survival strategy for a PoC) that neccesitates an entirely different discussion.

I think T-usfg/fwk (its pretty much the same thing dont lie) is a competing interpretations debate and there is pretty much no convincing me otherwise. If you cant explain what your version of debate looks like then why should you win? I love a good fiat/framing debate and can vote either way on it.

Voting
I tend to favor the team that does more analysis and explanation of warrants. If you are extending your tag and cite but not explaining the warrants of your evidence your opponents will probably win. I also dont typically look for the easiest way out. You all put a lot into this activity and I want to make sure I consider every avenue.

I definitely think that extending a dropped argument is pretty impactful - many judges will tell you just because its dropped doesn't mean its true, but until your opponents make a reasonable refutation, I will evaluate dropped arguments with a high degree of weight. I will NOT, however, give you huge impacts for dropped arguments that are extended in a blippy manner.

I feel like the biggest thing I am lacking in most rounds is impact comparison across layers. I often find myself doing unnecessary intervention because no one tells me how their impacts interact with their opponents. If you want me to vote for you make the path to the ballot really clear, and I will follow your line of thinking. When there are a bunch of open ended questions at the end of the round and doors that are not closed there is always going to be a gap of understanding between my decision and your interpretation of the round. It is definitely your responsibility to minimize that gap as much as possible.

Theory and T
In terms of theory I don't really like to pull the trigger on reject the team unless there is proof of in round abuse. I could vote on a reject the team argument but they would have to be setting a pretty uniquely bad standard for debate. I think things like "must read a trigger warning" or "condo bad" definitely fall within this description. I have a very low tolerance for frivolous theory and am definitely not your judge if you like that style or tricks. There are winnable theory arguments in front of me but stuff like 'new affs bad' or 'plans bad' that dont make realistic sense arent gonna fly. Lookin at you LD community.

Speaks
I will take away speaks if you tell me to judge kick things. Do your job as a debater.

Speaks are about ethos, pathos, and logos. If you are lacking in presence or your arguments dont make logical sense it will be hard to get perfect speaks. The best technical debater in the world is probably only a 29.5 without ethos.

I don't really give 30s and a bunch of 29s and 29.5 is really for an amazing debater. 30 for me is perfect. That being said, I also don't really give 26 or 26.5 unless you are doing really poorly. If you got a 26.9 or lower you were probably very offensive towards me or your opponents. 27 range is you messed up some fundamentals like dropped an important argument, made a contradiction that was obvious, were uneducated on your own positions, etc.

PF specific:

I favor evidence far more heavily than other judges in this event. I am SO TIRED of kids not giving dates or cites to your evidence. There are NSDA evidence rules for a reason. I am gonna start docking a speaker point for each member of each team that doesn't properly cite your evidence. If I wanted to I could not evaluate any cards you dont read author and date for because of these rules.

You force me to intervene when you read 1 liner pieces of evidence. Just stop misrepresenting and paraphrasing cards and we will get along.

Arguments in Final Focus need to be in the summary or second rebuttal. I prefer if you are second rebuttal you respond to the first rebuttal but wont hold it against you. Its just the correct strategic choice.
Extending cards by name will help you win my ballot. Weighing is huge and matters a bunch. I think you should probably use cross ex for clarification and understanding rather than making arguments. Im not flowing cross-ex.

Who I am:
My name is Sohin Gautam and I debated at the University of Kentucky
High School: Westwood HS (Tx) and McNeil HS (Tx)

UK TOC Silver PF (4-20-2017):

I debated policy for 8 years for University of Kentucky ending my junior year in the quarterfinals of the NDT. I coach policy and pf debate for Westwood High School.

Paradigm:

1. If you do not extend impacts, I cannot evaluate your argument. Warrants do not matter if you do not impact them. With that in mind, you have to WEIGH your impact.

2. Terminal defense extensions are cool with me. I do not believe the second rebuttal must cover the first rebuttal, however you can’t read new cards in second summary (so if you want to read a card responding to 1st rebuttal, do that in 2nd rebuttal).

3. Speed is fine, be clear. If i can't understand you, I will shout, "clear," and if you're still unclear I will stop flowing you. 

4. Open to any argument – if you wrote a kritik or theory shell for this topic, this is the round to read it!!

5. Big picture not line by line in summary and final focus.

6. SPEAKS: you will get higher speaks if you do the following:

            - you don’t take 3904820934 hours to hand your opponents evidence

            - you are not rude and annoying in cross fire

            - you extend both the author and the argument

            - your sources are all peer reviewed and come from reputable organizations!

How I Judge:

Primer: I don't have a presumption to either the Kritik or Policy sides, I generally did both in College and enjoy watching either type of debate. I evaluate a round based on the 2AR and 2NR and work my ways backward, using my flow and your evidence to figure out what just happened. I try not to read a ton of evidence, my brightline being a clear warrant extended with the author, and then deciding relevance (e.g. if i decide a CP isn't competitive for x reason then I am more likely to find it unnecessary to read the Net Benefit's cards). 

Specifics:

Topicality:
I love T, it's by far the most underrated tool the negative has.  I have NOT judged a lot on this topic, so I'm not sure what are the main arguments on T. Having said that, here is how I evaluate T debates: First things first, if you're going for T, go for T I'm not going to vote on 15 seconds of T in the 2NR, spend the necessary minutes on it closing doors and extending warrants. Otherwise I'm going to be heavily leaning AFF on T.

I err towards competing interpretations, if the AFF doesnt contest this I will use competing interpretations to decide the debate. Limits and Ground are usually all people say--nobody ever talks about precision and grammar and resolutional integrity (let alone ever impacts these things) and the more impact analysis in the 2nr/2ar the better ("their interpretation destroys fairness because x"). Extra T and FX-T can be independent voters I guess, but more often than not I'm going to view it as a DA to the AFF interp. I'm generally not a fan of the stupid T arguments, I don't think anybody specs their A anymore so get over it. OSPEC really doesnt make sense (they are spotting you ALL the counterplan ground...how dare they). 

The Kritik:
I'm game. You're not going to perplex me with a storm of Baudrillard and D and G because at some point you have to make an argument and I can evaluate that. I'm also interested in the alternative, not necessarily what it practically does (i really don't care) but how it resolves the link debate. AFF teams are encouraged to make vauge alt arguments to keep the NEG in check. K impacts usually fall by the wayside, but it's very helpful to have something external to weigh, so i'm not just voting on a giant case turn, a giant case turn + no value to life/ZPH/Foucault '76 is much better for your chances.

Aff Framework:
Do it. against a K make them win their impact is bigger than yours, or even that their K should be in the debate at all. If you're going for FW then it needs to be a big part of 1ar/2ar strategy otherwise I'm going to lean negative on it.

the Kritik AFF:
this means any aff that doesnt read a plan, reads a plan but "doesn't defend it", any aff that affirms as a mobius strip, any aff that does something "different" than reading a plan with nuke war implications based on the rez. I don't care if you don't have a plan, I'm not going to sign my ballot and walk out of the room if your 1ac has no plantext defending instrumental USFG action. Do your stuff, i'm fine with it. 

CPs:

I don't care...if you read one CP that solves everything, fantastic, if you read 3 CPs that solve different amounts of the aff, fanstastic. It's up to the AFF to tell me why the NEG shouldn't be able to do that. 


DAs

please and thank you. Bonus points for warranted internal link extensions/take outs--most DA debates lack internal link analysis, and that's where DAs are the weakest. 

Random other thoughts:
-drop advantages = drop disadvantages
-2NC answering dropped 1ac advantages is okay because of a CX...in the 1nr it's not okay. Generally avoid reading new offense in the 1NR
-add-ons are fantastic things
-2NC CPs are justifiable
-2NC CP amendments justifiable
-I'm not sure what the speaker point scale if its .5 to 30 than i average a 27.5 with 29-30 being outround quality-->first speaker
-be nice, be funny

I debated at Emory from 2015-2019, where I also coached for a year. I've since been out of the activity as I've been working on my PhD in political science.

I love debate. Thank you for the opportunity to judge your round.

As a judge, I promise I'll listen to you and flow carefully. That said, I don't have much patience for arguments that demonstrate a lack of serious research, but it is the responsibility of the other team to point that out.

Do what you do best. Still, I would recommend doing the following:

• Make fewer, better arguments.
• Read a topical plan.
• Organize your arguments so they are easy to follow. I do not find run-on paragraphs to be an effective way of communicating, and I will not be reading along in the speech document.

Good luck--and have fun!

Background: Debated LD in Colorado during high school; coach since graduation also in Colorado, MA in International Studies (Governance, Human Rights, and Civil Society). 2023 - 2024 season: I've watched mostly LD > PF > only a few CX rounds.

I have judged at Stanford and Berkeley tournaments for several years, plus numerous out rounds in LD and CX at NSDA Nationals.

Apparently I haven't updated this in a while...since that last update I've come to believe that paradigms are even more useless. I write it. You read it. We probably both ignore it.

General:

• Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
• Give me voters! Probably with some weighing and clash...
• I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time. (I am seeing SO much power tagging. I can pull up your evidence very quickly and do a keyword search.)
• I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games--don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.
• If you want to ask me additional questions before a round, please be specific. Otherwise you prepped for a round and my paradigm is just some words on a screen.

PF Paradigm

I've never really thought about having a PF specific paradigm... My overall thought is that PF is meant to focus on the topic. I want substantive debate and not theory. I'm normally pretty tab at debate, but I find it so uninspiring to hear a whole round on theory.

LD Paradigm

Nothing special for LD. Be smart on time use.

CX Paradigm

My debaters have called me out and said I seem anti-CX here. Truth is, I think really good CX debate is better than anything else, and I've come to really appreciate CX. The problem is that it is rare to see a good round of CX. There's never clash. People read arguments they don't understand. People ignore evidence at a whim. There's a tension between just reading a bunch of cards and wanting the judge to do the work of analysis and then complaining about judges not understanding arguments. And more. And it's not unique to CX.

So, long-story short: I try to be pretty tab in CX -- because I wasn't a competitor I have very few preconceived ideas of what I want to see in a round. Take some extra time and explain any CX theory to me. I'm not going to love a lot of "education is better" or "truthiness is better" either. Do some work if it comes down to theory.

Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold for an LD judge from backwards Colorado. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will clearly stop typing or writing. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.

Arguments: I tend to be more interested in philosophical debates and "traditional" LD (for CX this means I probably enjoy a good K debate, but I also appreciate a clear policy framework), but I will listen to, and flow anything. Start with a clear framework, provide clash, and make it clear for me where I vote. I have a pretty solid background in political theory and an interest in German philosophy broadly (Kant to Habermas).

I am a coach at Nevada Union, C.K. McClatchy and West Campus high schools. My general philosophy is run whatever you want, do it as fast as you want, just be clear. I will vote on just about anything except racist, sexist, homophobic etc arguments. I see my job as a judge as evaluating the evidence in the round and deciding the debate based on what is said without my intervention to the greatest degree possible.

That said, I do have a few notions about how I evaluate arguments:

Topicality -- I vote on it. I do not have any "threshold" for topicality -- either the aff is topical or it is not. That said, for me in evaluating topicality, the key is the interpretation. The first level of analysis is whether the aff meets the neg interpretation. If the aff meets the neg interpretation, then the aff is topical. I have judged far too many debates where the negative argues that their interpretation is better for education, ground etc, but does not address why the aff meets the negative interpretation and then is angry when I vote affirmative. For me if the aff meets the neg interpretation that is the end of the topicality debate.

If the aff does not meet, then I need to decide which interpretation is better. The arguments about standards should relate 1) which standards are more important to evaluate and 2) why either the negative or affirmative interpretation is better in terms of those standards (for example, not just why ground is a better standard but why the affirmative or negative interpretation is better for ground). Based on that, I can evaluate which standards to use, and which interpretation is better in terms of those standards. I admit the fact that I am a lawyer who has done several cases about statutory interpretation influences me here. I see the resolution as a statement that can have many meanings, and the goal of a topicality debate is to determine what meaning is best and whether the affirmative meets that meaning.

That said, I will reject topicality on generic affirmative arguments such as no ground loss if they are not answered. However, I see reasonability as a way of evaluating the interpretation (aff says their interpretation is reasonable, so I should defer to that) as opposed to a general statement without grounding in an interpretation (aff is reasonably to--pical so don't vote on T).

I will listen to critiques of the notion of topicality and I will evaluate those with no particular bias either way.

Theory -- Its fine but please slow down if you are giving several rapid fire theory arguments that are not much more than tags. My default is the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument and not the team. If you want me to put the round on it, I will but I need more than "voter" when the argument is presented. I need clearly articulated reasons why the other team should lose because of the argument.

Disadvantages and counterplans are fine. Although people may not believe it, I am just as happy judging a good counterplan and disad debate as I am judging a K debate. I have no particular views about either of those types of arguments. I note however that I think defensive arguments can win positions. If the aff wins there is no link to the disad, I will not vote on it. If the neg wins a risk of a link, that risk needs to be evaluated against the risk of any impacts the aff wins. Case debates are good too.

Ks: I like them and I think they can be good arguments. I like specific links and am less pursuaded by very generic links such as "the state is always X." Unless told otherwise, I see alternatives to K's as possible other worlds that avoid the criticism and not as worlds that the negative is advocating. With that in mind, I see K's differently than counterplans or disads, and I do not think trying to argue Kritiks as counterplans (floating PIC arguments for example) works very well, and I find critical debates that devolve into counterplan or disad jargon to be confusing and difficult to judge, and they miss the point of how the argument is a philosophical challenge to the affirmative in some way. Framework arguments on Ks are fine too, although I do not generally find persuasive debate theory arguments that Kritiks are bad (although I will vote on those if they are dropped). However, higher level debates about whether policy analysis or critical analysis is a better way to approach the world are fine and I will evaluate those arguments.

Non-traditional affs: I am open to them but will also evaluate arguments that they are illegitimate. I think this is a debate to have (although I prefer juding substantive debates in these types of rounds). I tend to think that affs should say the topic is true in some way (not necessarily a plan of action) but I have and will vote otherwise depending on how it is debated. I do remain flow-centric in these debates unless there are arguments otherwise in the debate.

I will judge your debate by determining which arguments have been preserved to the final speeches and are adequately supported by evidence or persuasive explanation. Then I will compare your arguments, hopefully with instruction from you which frames the important issues and tells me how to make close calls.

Judge philosophies are a bit silly because it is the exceptionally rare case where an issue must be resolved with reference to the judge’s arbitrary preferences. Usually the debaters make their arguments, one side presents a more comprehensive approach to the important issues and frames the close calls, and then judge votes for that team. That being said, I include the following as my thoughts on issues which many teams seem to base their judge preference decisions on.

1. In an ideal world, the affirmative will read a plan that is topical. I do not feel the need to impose a hard rule here; the arguments against affirmative topicality are bad. A debate between equally competent teams should not produce the sentence: “I voted affirmative despite them being untopical.” I do not think debate would function if everyone disregarded the topic, and I think debate—a thing we all do—is good.

2. The arguments against negative conditionality are equally unpersuasive. Again, no hard rule. But I struggle to imagine an affirmative team that convincingly defends an arbitrary limit on the number of a certain type of argument that the negative may read after the 1NC has already occurred, and also that that limit requires the negative team lose the debate. If you think CPs are not “kickable,” then just say that.

3. Cross-examination answers should be binding on the team which made them. Possible exceptions include intricate clarifications of plan mechanism for the purposes of competition (which may not be suitable for on-the-spot Q&A) and promises about how the debate will unfold (e.g., whether a CP will be kicked or whether you will impact turn something if given the chance; I do not think debaters can reasonably rely on advance notice about their opponents’ strategy).

4. Initial constructives should be flowable. Rebuttals should be thoroughly understandable.

5. Speaker points are a composite of argument strategy (ultimately successful or not), clarity in speaking, cross-examination tactics, and organization.

6. I reserve the right to handle ethics challenges on an ad hoc basis to best facilitate the continuation of a fair debate. Sometimes this is impossible.

Current coach at Kent Denver School, University of Kentucky, and Rutgers University-Newark. Previous competitor in NSDA CX/Policy, NDT/CEDA, and NPTE/NPDA. Experience with British Parliamentary and Worlds Schools/Asian Parliamentary.

> Please include me on email chains - nategraziano@gmail.com <

TL;DR - I like judge instruction. I'll vote for or against K 1ACs based on Framework. Clash of Civilization debates are the majority of rounds I watch. I vote frequently on dropped technical arguments, and will think more favorably of you if you play to your outs. The ballot is yours, your speaker points are mine. Your speech overview should be my RFD. Tell me what is important, why you win that, and why winning it means you get the ballot.

Note to coaches and debaters - I give my RFDs in list order on how I end up deciding the round, in chronological order of how I resolved them. Because of this I also upload my RFD word for word with the online ballot. I keep a pretty good record of rounds I've judged so if anyone has any questions about any decision I've made on Tabroom please feel free to reach out at my email above.

1. Tech > Truth

The game of debate is lost if I intervene and weigh what I know to be "True." The ability to spin positions and make answers that fit within your side of the debate depend on a critic being objective to the content. That being said, arguments that are based in truth are typically more persuasive in the long run.

I'm very vigilant about intervening and will not make "logical conclusions" on arguments if you don't do the work to make them so. If you believe that the negative has the right to a "judge kick" if you're losing the counterplan and instead vote on the status quo in the 2NR, you need to make that explicitly clear in your speech.

More and more I've made decisions on evidence quality and the spin behind it. I like to reward knowledgeable debaters for doing research and in the event of a disputable, clashing claim I tend to default to card quality and spin.

I follow along in the speech doc when evidence is being read and make my own marks on what evidence and highlighting was read in the round.

2. Theory/Topicality/Framework

Most rounds I judge involve Framework. While I do like these debates please ensure they're clashing and not primarily block reading. If there are multiple theoretical frameworks (ex. RotB, RotJ, FW Interp) please tell me how to sort through them and if they interact. I tend to default to policy-making and evaluating consequences unless instructed otherwise.

For theory violations - I usually need more than "they did this thing and it was bad; that's a voter" for me to sign my ballot, unless it was cold conceded. If you're going for it in the 2NR/2AR, I'd say a good rule of thumb for "adequate time spent" is around 2:00, but I would almost prefer it be the whole 5:00.

In the event that both teams have multiple theoretical arguments and refuse to clash with each other, I try to resolve as much of the framework as I can on both sides. (Example - "The judge should be an anti-ethical decision maker" and "the affirmative should have to defend a topical plan" are not inherently contradicting claims until proven otherwise.)

Winning framework is not the same as winning the debate. It's possible for one team to win framework and the other to win in it.

Procedural Fairness can be both an impact and an internal link. I believe it's important to make debate as accessible of a place as possible, which means fairness can be both a justification as well as a result of good debate practices.

3. Debate is Story Telling

I'm fond of good overviews. Round vision, and understanding how to write a singular winning ballot at the end of the debate, is something I reward both on the flow and in your speaker points. To some extent, telling any argument as a chain of events with a result is the same process that we use when telling stories. Being able to implicate your argument as a clash of stories can be helpful for everyone involved.

I do not want to feel like I have to intervene to make a good decision. I will not vote on an argument that was not said or implied by one of the debaters in round. I feel best about the rounds where the overview was similar to my RFD.

4. Critical Arguments

I am familiar with most critical literature and it's history in debate. I also do a lot of topic specific research and love politics debates. Regardless of what it is, I prefer if arguments are specific, strategic, and well executed. Do not be afraid of pulling out your "off-the-wall" positions - I'll listen and vote on just about anything.

As a critic and someone who enjoys the activity, I would like to see your best strategy that you've prepared based on your opponent and their argument, rather than what you think I would like. Make the correct decision about what to read based on your opponent's weaknesses and your strengths.

I've voted for, against, and judged many debates that include narration, personal experience, and autobiographical accounts.

If you have specific questions or concerns don't hesitate to email me or ask questions prior to the beginning of the round - that includes judges, coaches, and competitors. 

5. Speaker Points

I believe that the ballot is yours, but your speaker points are mine. If you won the arguments required to win the debate round, you will always receive the ballot from me regardless of my personal opinion on execution or quality. Speaker points are a way for judges to reward good speaking and argumentation, and dissuade poor practice and technique. Here are some things that I tend to reward debaters for:

- Debate Sense. When you show you understand the central points in the debate. Phrases like "they completely dropped this page" only to respond to line by line for 3 minutes annoy me. If you're behind and think you're going to lose, your speaker points will be higher if you acknowledge what you're behind on and execute your "shot" at winning.

- Clarity and organization. Numbered flows, references to authors or tags on cards, and word economy are valued highly. I also like it when you know the internals and warrants of your arguments/evidence.

- Judge instruction. I know it sounds redundant at this point, but you can quite literally just look at me and say "Nate, I know we're behind but you're about to vote on this link turn."

I will disclose speaker points after the round if you ask me. The highest speaker points I've ever given out is a 29.7. A 28.5 is my standard for a serviceable speech, while a 27.5 is the bare minimum needed to continue the debate. My average for the last 3 seasons was around a 28.8-28.9.

i use they/them pronouns!

Add me to the email chain! tonyhackett (at) alumni.stanford.edu

Chances are if you're reading this, you're up late deciding where you should pref me or you already have me in the back and you're frantically trying to prep and look and see if I'll be down for what you want to read. To save you the time -- I'm probably fine with it, and the tldr; of my philosophy is that you should feel comfortable doing whatever you're best at.

If you want to read the more long-winded version of my debate background / personal style / my methodology for adjudicating debate rounds, read below.

I debated for C. K. McClatchy High School in Sacramento, CA, and Stanford University ('20). I did the whole TOC thing my senior year and qualified to the NDT my freshman year. I'm currently affiliated with C. K. McClatchy/Nevada Union and St. Francis High School (Mountain View, CA).

I'll try to keep this brief --

Ultimately, my goals are to try my hardest and vote for the team who won the debate, no matter who they are.

If i have the pleasure of sitting in the back of the room and watching you debate, here are some pieces of advice --

Do what you do best. I'd rather see a well-debated counterplan and disad debate (if that's what you want to do!) than a poorly executed attempt to appease me based on my argumentative preferences in high school. If you're asking yourself at this moment whether or not I'm fine with the arguments you're planning on reading, the answer is almost assuredly yes.

Critics that I most respect are: Sarah Lim, Mimi Sergent-Leventhal, Kevin Hirn, Jarod Atchison, John Spurlock, and Sam Haley-Hill, Taylor Brough, Brian Manuel, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Syndey Pasquinelli, and Brian McBride.

When I go about deciding debates, I try answer a series of questions. Primarily, if both teams win all of their arguments, who wins the debate? Is there a major execution error? Is there a team lacking offense on any given position? Has either team won an impact framing argument by virtue of execution or evidence? Is there significant argument interaction? Once I have found answers to these questions, I've likely decided who won the debate.

That being said, here are some specific thoughts.

K affs -- I think Kevin Hirn said it best when he said " Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm still sympathetic to the framework argument (especially in high school). I don't presumptively think that topicality arguments are violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. For what it's worth, I would generally prefer to see a substantive strategy if one's available, but I understand that often framework is the best option (especially in certain circumstances, like when the aff is new or you're from a school with a small research base).

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should brainstorm better responses to "other policy debates solve your offense" and "wiki/disclosure/contestable advocacy in the 1ac provides some degree of predictability/debateability."

I'm interested (and invested) in both sides of the framework debate, and have about a 50/50 record voting both ways. Being inventive, smart, daring, and responsive will win you major points, as it seems like I judge mostly clash debates, and the prospect of listening to a decaf state good/reform bad debate seems unfair.

Disads/CP's -- I love nuanced counterplan/disad debates. Explain the mechanism for your counterplan and slow down on the text. I'm persuaded by presumption arguments insofaras you win a turns case argument or are winning some hard core terminal defense to the aff. I love intrinsic offense and well-prepared stategies over generics with poor evidence quality. Disads with plan specific links are for real.

Topicality -- I used to think that Topicality was incredibly trivial, but after having debated in college and seeing some of the downright wild things that policy aff's can try to get away with sometimes, I think it's an essential argument for the negative arsenal. You should explain your internal links in the context of the aff and have external impacts. Ask Jordan Foley.

I think evidence comparison is a job of the debaters, but I'll call for it if there is a technical question that comes down to how the ev reads or if there is a concern about the validity of args made in the evidence by the debaters where a large portion of the debate rests.

If you've made it this far and you're still not sure if you should strike me, maybe seeing what args I currently read in college can provide some insight:

https://opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com/Stanford/Prabhu-Hackett+Aff

https://opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com/Stanford/Prabhu-Hackett+Neg

Have fun!

TLDR VERSION

I've been around a long time. I've seen a lot of conventional wisdom come and go. I don't always agree with the consensus of the moment. Be fast, be clear, read a K and/or a counterplan.

Remote Debates:

I flow on paper and actually make an effort to watch you and listen to the words you are saying. It's hard to give speaker points to a glowing dot, so turn on your camera when speaking if possible. I will not follow the speech doc as you are talking, so be clear.

Want to be on the email chain? - Yes, but know that I won't look at the docs until the debate is over.

Please send docs to: samhaleyhill@gmail.com

Speed? - Yes

Open CX? - Sure, but if you aren't involved somewhat, your speaker points suffer.

When does prep time stop? - When you cease to alter your speech doc and to talk about the debate with your partner.

Judge Disclosure - Unless the tournament has some terrible counter-educational policy preventing it (looking at you, NCFL).

Can I read (X argument)? Yes, if it's not offensive.

T? - Reasonability (whew - really feels good to be honest there)

Will you vote on disclosure theory? - No. Disclosure is a good community norm which I support, but I do not think ballots can or should enforce this norm. The exception would be if you can prove that someone straight up lied to you.

Tech over truth? - Yes, but I think people often take this way too far.

FULL VERSION

Biography

Years Judging: 16
Years Debated: 4

I debated for four years in high school for Nevada Union (1998-2002) during which time I made two TOC appearances. I did not debate for Berkeley during my time there, but I was an assistant coach for the College Preparatory School from 2002-2006. After that, I was off the circuit for a few years because I moved to Hong Kong for a year and then went to graduate school. 2010-2011 was my first year back. I worked for New Trier for a year after that and at Nevada Union from 2011-2012. After that I went back to CPS for three more years. I then spent four years running the program at St. Francis. I now work with the Washington Urban Debate League. I have judged a lot for a long time.

Tech Over Truth - This is not dogma

I think that the phrase "tech over truth" is just as vacuous as its inverse, "truth over tech." I honestly have no idea what either of these slogans is trying to say, but I do know that people who repeat either of them incessantly tend to make decisions that I don't get.

"Tech" is just as subjective as "truth" because whether someone's embedded clash has answered something, whether an argument has a warrant, whether someone has explained something enough to have extended it, etc. are all judgement calls at some level anyhow.

I think that dropped arguments are conceded. I think that I should refrain from dismissing arguments that I don't agree with. I think that arguments which I think are bad should still win the debate if the debater advancing them has argued better than the opponent. I guess that's tech over truth?

At the same time, I am the kind of judge who thinks that one compelling, well-developed argument can be more important than three specious, underdeveloped ones. I don't think that the concession of a less significant argument necessarily outweighs a more significant argument that is won despite contestation. Is that truth over tech? Is this whole tech vs. truth binary kind of pointless?

My bumper sticker slogan would be something like: "Analysis over blips."

Speaker Points - No, you can't have a 30.

It used to go without saying that I award speaker points solely based on how well I feel the debaters performed in each round. These days, it seems that I need to say that I will continue to do this regardless of what anyone else does and regardless of what debaters tell me to do during the debate.

I think that there's a performative/communicative aspect to this activity. Speak persuasively and your points will improve.

Try to be nice.

Judge Disclosure - I do it.

I'll disclose my decision and talk about the round with you in depth afterwards. I remember getting a lot out of post-round discussions when I was a debater, and I hope I can pass something along. If your analytics are in your speech docs for my later reference, I'll even give you my flows.

Speed - Go ahead, but be clear

I can flow any rate of delivery.

Lately, someone out there has been telling high school debaters to slow down and emphasize tags. Stop it, whoever you are. This advice implies that I don't care about the text of the card. In fact, I care about how you tagged the card far, far less than I care about what the text of the card actually says. When you slow down for the tag, but slosh unintelligibly through the card, you are implying that I can't understand high speed and that the actual card text is a mere formality. If this is so, you may as well just paraphrase the card like a PF debater.

Believe it or not, I actually can understand your card at high speeds if you read it clearly. I'm actually flowing what the card says. Often as not, I won't flow your (often misleading) tag at all.

I'll yell "clear" at you if you're not being clear. I'll do this twice before putting my pen down and pointedly glaring at you.

Line By Line - Please and Thank You

I'll look at evidence, sure, but I will be grumpy if you make me sort out a huge rat's nest of implied and unexplained clash for you. I am a believer in directly responsive line-by-line debate. I think that explaining warrants is good, but comparing warrants is better.

Framework - Can't we all just get along?

I am one of the last folks out there who won't take a side. I vote neg on framework sometimes; I vote aff on framework sometimes. I think framework debates are kind of fundamental to the activity. I'm up for any kind of argument. I love a good K debate, but I'm equally pleased to adjudicate a game of competing policy options. Run what you love. In my heart, I probably don't care if there's a plan text, but I'll vote for theory arguments demanding one if the better debating is done on that side. Please don't read offensive/amoral arguments.

Conditionality - Yeah, sure, whatever

I think one or two conditional CP's and a K is just fine. You can win a debate on conditionality being more permissive than that or being bad altogether. I won't intervene.

T - I am different from the folks at Michigan

I think that winning complete or nearly complete defense on T is sufficient for the aff even in a world of competing interpretations. If the aff meets, they meet. I'm unlikely to give this RFD: "Even though you're winning a we meet, the neg interpretation is better, so any risk that you don't meet etc etc." Ever since someone told me back in 1999 that T should be evaluated like a DA, I have not agreed. It's a procedural issue, not a predictive claim about the consequences of implementing a policy. As such, I evaluate T procedurally. Whether or not the aff meets is a binary question, not a linear risk.

I think sometimes people think that "competing interpretations" means "the smallest interpretation should win." To me, smallest is not necessarily best. Sure, limits are a big deal, but there is such a thing as over-limiting. There are also other concerns that aren't limits per se, like education, ground, and predictability.

I can be persuaded otherwise in a debate, but I think we should evaluate T through the lens of reasonability.

Open Cross Ex - Yeah

Just make sure that you're involved somewhat or I'll hammer your speaks.

Disclosure theory

Stop it. People choose to disclose as a courtesy. It is not and should not be a requirement. I tell all my teams to disclose. I think you should disclose. If you choose not to, so be it.

If you make a disclosure theory argument, I will ignore you until you move on to something else. I will never vote on a disclosure theory argument, even if it is not answered.

I always find it sadly hilarious when big, brand-name programs tell me that disclosure is good for small schools. It most definitely is not. The more pre-round prep becomes possible, the more that coaching resources can be leveraged to influence debates. That's why the most well-resourced programs tend to be the most aggressive about disclosure theory.

New Affs

New affs are fine. I will not consider arguments which object to them, even if the aff team never answers such arguments.

KRHAMRICK@GMAIL.COM

I've been judging debates for a long time. I prefer listening to debates wherein each team presents and executes a well-researched strategy for winning. The ideological flavor of your arguments matters less to me than how you establish clash with your opponents’ arguments. I am open to most anything, understanding that sometimes “you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do” to win the debate.

At the end of the debate, I vote for the team that defends the superior course of action. My ballot constitutes an endorsement of one course relative to another. To win the debate, the affirmative must prove their course is preferable when compared to the status quo or negative alternatives. That being said, I interpret broadly exactly what constitutes a plan/course of action. An alternative is proven a superior course of action when it is net beneficial compared to the entirety of the plan combined with part or parts of the alternative. Simply solving better than the affirmative is not enough: the alternative must force choice. Likewise, claiming a larger advantage than the affirmative is not enough to prove the alternative competitive. A legitimate permutation is defined as the entirety of the "plan" combined with parts or parts of the alternative. Mere avoidance of potential or "unknown" disadvantages, or a link of omission, is insufficient: the negative must read win a link and impact in order to evaluate the relative merits of the plan and the alternative. The 2AC saying something akin to "Perm - do the plan and all noncompetitive parts of the counterplan/alternative" is merely a template for generating permutation ideas, rather than a permutation in and of itself. It's your job to resolve the link, not mine.

I believe there is an inherent value to the topic/resolution, as the topic serves as the jumping off point for the year's discussion. The words of the topic should be examined as a whole. Ultimately, fairness and ground issues determine how strict an interpretation of the topic that I am willing to endorse. The most limiting interpretation of a topic rarely is the best interpretation of a topic for the purposes of our game. The topic is what it is: merely because the negative wishes the topic to be smaller (or the affirmative wishes it bigger, or worded a different way) does not mean that it should be so. An affirmative has to be at its most topical the first time it is run.

I don’t care about any of your SPEC arguments. The affirmative must use the agent specified in the topic wording; subsets are okay. Neither you nor your partner is the United States federal government. The affirmative is stuck with defending the resolutional statement, however I tend to give the affirmative significant leeway as to how they choose to define/defend it. The affirmative is unlikely to persuade me criticisms of advocacy of USFG action should be dismissed as irrelevant to an evaluation of policy efficacy. I believe that switch-side debating is good.

All theory arguments should be contextualized in terms of the topic and the resultant array of affirmative and negative strategies. Reciprocity is a big deal for me, i.e., more negative flex allows for more aff room to maneuver and vice versa). Conditional, topical, and plan inclusive alternatives are presumptively legitimate. A negative strategy reliant on a process counterplan, consultation counterplan, or a vague alternative produces an environment in which in which I am willing to allow greater maneuverability in terms of what I view as legitimate permutations for the affirmative. I’ve long been skeptical of the efficacy of fifty state uniform fiat. Not acting, i.e., the status quo, always remains an option.

Debate itself is up for interrogation within the confines of the round.

I tend to provide a lot of feedback while judging, verbal and otherwise. If you are not clear, I will not attempt to reconstruct what you said. I tend to privilege the cards identified in the last two rebuttals as establishing the critical nexus points of the debate and will read further for clarification and understanding when I feel it necessary. Reading qualifications for your evidence will be rewarded with more speaker points. Reading longer, more warranted evidence will be rewarded with significantly more consideration in the decision process. Clipping cards is cheating and cardclippers should lose.

I value clash and line-by-line debating. Rarely do I find the massive global last rebuttal overview appealing. Having your opponent's speech document doesn't alleviate the need for you to pay attention to what's actually been said in the debate. Flow and, for god's sake, learn how to efficiently save/jump/email/share your speech document. I generally don't follow the speech doc in real time.

"New affs bad" is dumb; don't waste your time or mine. When debating a new aff, the negative gets maximum flexibility.

I believe that both basic civil rights law as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment.

Brock Hanson

Precious Assistant coach, Rowland Hall St. Marks — five years

Debating Experience

High school - Three years, Nationally

Policy Debate

Role as judge in debate — I attempt to enter debates with as little preconcieved notion about my role as possible. I am open to being told how to evaluate rounds, be it an educator, policymaker, etc. Absent any instruction throughout the round, I will most likely default to a role as a policymaker.

Purpose of philosophy — I see this philosophy as a tool to be used by debaters to help modify or fine-tune specific parts of their strategies in round. I don’t think that this philosophy should be a major reason to change a 1AC/1NC, but more used to understand how to make the round as pleasant as possible.

Evaluative practices and views on debate round logistics

Prep time — Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer/when the speech-email has been sent. I expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time, but I will usually keep prep as well to help settle disagreements

Evidence — I would like to be included in any email chain used for the round using the email address below. I will read un-underlined portions of evidence for context, but am very apprehensive to let them influence my decision, unless their importance is identified in round.

Speaker point range — 27.0 - 30. Speaker points below a 27 indicate behavior that negatively affected the round to the point of being offensive/oppressive.

How to increase speaker points — Coherence, enthusiasm, kindness, and the ability to display an intimate knowledge of your arguments/evidence. Cross-ex is an easy way to earn speaker points in front of me - I enjoy enthusiastic and detailed cross-ex and see it as a way to show familiarity with arguments.

How to lose speaker points — Being excessively hostile, aggressive, overpowering, or disengaged.

Clarity — I will say ‘Clear’ mid-speech if I’m unable to understand you. I will warn you twice before I begin subtracting speaker points and stop flowing - I will attempt to make it obvious that I’ve stopped flowing in a non-verbal manner (setting down my pen, etc.) but will not verbally warn you.

Argumentative predispositions and preferences

Affirmatives - I don’t think affirmatives should be inherently punished for not reading a plan text, as long as they justify why they do it. I am probably more interested in ‘non-traditional’ affirmatives than a big-stick Heg aff.

Counter-Plans — Speeding through a 20-second, catch-all, 7 plank, agent counter-plan text will not be received well in front of me. However, super-specific counter-plans (say, cut from 1AC solvency evidence) are a good way to encourage debates that result in high speaker points.

Disadvantages — Specific, well articulated DA debate is very appealing to me, but super-generics like spending are a bit boring absent an aff to justify them as the primary strategy.

Framework — Engagement > Exclusion. The topic can be a stasis point for discussion, but individuals may relate to it in very different ways. (See Role as judge in debate)

Kritiks — Easily my 'comfort-zone' for debates, both for the affirmative and negative. Creativity in this area is very appealing to me, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that that whoever reads the best poetry automatically wins. Be smart and articulate about your arguments, and make it seem like you care about what you're talking about. The 'K’s are cheating and so they should lose' -esque arguments aren’t especially compelling, but if you can intelligently explain why the hippy-anarchists sitting across from you should go back to their coffee shops and beat-poetry, I'll vote on it. Performance as a method of supporting arguments is welcomed and enjoyable insofar as it is grounded in arguments.

Theory — I think specific, contextualized Theory arguments are much more persuasive than generic, broad-sweeping theory claims. Spending 5 minutes on Theory in a rebuttal does not grant you an instant ballot, inversely,15 seconds of blippy violations it at the end of the debate makes it difficult to pull the trigger absent blatant concessions. I’m more comfortable and better versed in regards to theory arguments than with topicality. I am very persuaded by arguments against performative contradiction. I understand the strategic utility of having multiple lines of offence in a 1NC, but would prefer to evaluate 1NC’s holistically as a constant thought.

Topicality — Topicality is perhaps where I’m least experienced from an argument standpoint, and thus don’t particularly enjoy topicality debates, I do, however understand its utility against blatantly abusive affirmative. In-round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse.

Feel free to ask before round or email me if you have any questions

Brock Hanson

Debate.brock.s.hanson@gmail.com

     I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

Overview:

Y'all know me, still the same O.G. but I been low-key
Hated on by most these nigg@s with no cheese, no deals and no G's
No wheels and no keys, no boats, no snowmobiles, and no skis
Mad at me cause I can finally afford to provide my family with groceries
Got a crib with a studio and it's all full of tracks to add to the wall
Full of plaques, hanging up in the office in back of my house like trophies
Did y'all think I'mma let my dough freeze, ho please
You better bow down on both knees, who you think taught you to smoke trees
Who you think brought you the oldies
Eazy-E's, Ice Cubes, and D.O.C's
The Snoop D-O-double-G's
And the group that said motherduck the police
Gave you a tape full of dope beats
To bump when you stroll through in your hood
And when your album sales wasn't doing too good
Who's the Doctor they told you to go see
Y'all better listen up closely, all you nigg@s that said that I turned pop
Or The Firm flopped, y'all are the reason that Dre ain't been getting no sleep
So duck y'all, all of y'all, if y'all don't like me, blow me
Y'all are gonna keep ducking around with me and turn me back to the old me

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move their lips
Just a bunch of gibberish
And motherduckers act like they forgot about Dre

Line-by-line

Semi-retired from the policy debate world few years back, but I am around for 4 years during my daughter’s high school policy debate career. Maybe another 4 after that for my son’s. Maybe even longer if they decide to debate in college. “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!”

Experienced former circuit debater from the Bay Area. Previous coach in Sacramento for CK McClatchy, Rosemont, Davis Senior, and others. Also coached several Bay Area programs. I am the former Executive Director and founder of the Sacramento Urban Debate League (SUDL). I spent the better part of a decade running SUDL while personally coaching several schools. I've judged a ton of rounds on all levels of policy debate and feel in-depth and informative verbal RFD's are key to debate education.

I will adapt to you rather than you to me. It's not my place as a judge to exclude or marginalize any sort of argument or framework. On the neg, I will vote for K/K + case, T, CP + DA, DA + case, FW/FW + case, performance, theory.... whatever. I personally prefer hearing a good K or theory debate, not that I'm more inclined to vote on those genres of argumentation. I am down for the K, performance, or topical aff. Anything goes with me.

I'm big on organization. Hit the line by line hard. Don't just give me 3 min overviews or read a bunch of cards off the line, then expect me to conveniently find the best place on the flow for you. Do the work for me. I flow on paper OG style, so don't drop arguments. I don't flow off speech docs (neither should you), but put me on the email chain so I can read cards along with you and refer back to them. I can handle any level of speed, but please be as clear and loud as possible.

I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronoun, or if there is anything you wish to communicate privately, please let me know or send me an email. markcorp2004@msn.com

My judging philosophy is very short for a reason. Its your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote. Write my ballot for me in your 2NR/2AR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Hines
DOD at Head Royce
20+ Years Judging/Coaching

UPDATE--1/2/24

Commencing old man ranting at clouds:

So, it appears my addendum from 6 years ago was just marking the beginning of the end of line-by-line debate.

After returning from a four-year hiatus, I discovered last year that flowing and line-by-line debating are essentially a thing of the past that current debaters don't even really realize they aren't actually doing.

I blame the judges who started flowing directly from the speech docs and decided they no longer needed to hold debaters accountable for what actually came out of their mouths.

So, we now have a community of JUDGES who never actually learned how to flow or debate line by line, either.

This creates a fundamental problem for me. I have no idea how to evaluate debates when everyone else in the room is just reading and responding to the speech docs without knowing whether the judge who actually listens and flows is getting things down on the flow where they belong.

I honestly have no idea how judges today decide debates fairly and objectively based on what was actually said in the debate.

So, I'll summarize everything else below very simply here:

If you don't flow, I probably won't vote for you.

If you don't debate line-by-line, I probably won't vote for you.

If you don't care whether I'm trying to flow the words coming out of your mouth, I probably won't vote for you.

If neither you nor your opponent flows or debates line by line, I will be forced to vote for somebody, but I will have ZERO TOLERANCE for someone who didn't flow or debate off the flow, post-rounding me for why I didn't vote theway they wanted me to vote.

Addendum--10/15/17

Line-by-line debate is actually a thing. It's a skill not a referendum on you as a person or what I think about your arguments. It's a method of clash that allows judges to decide rounds with minimum intervention on their part. If your approach to debating line-by-line includes extensive overviews, "cloud clash," and requests for me to pull out new sheets of paper I am probably not a very good judge for you. I will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, but if you chose to abandon the line by line please know that you have asked me to insert my subjective views of debate into the round and you are not likely to be happy with the outcome.


Standard philosophy begins here:
Rather than list off a series of personal beliefs about arguments, an explanation of how I decide debates seems more productive. Three keys to debating well in front of me:

1. Make Arguments. I tend to decide debates within 20 minutes of the end of the round. I will call for VERY few cards after the debate as I prefer to make my decision based upon what you argued in the last rebuttals rather than what I think about the quality of your cards. I will not re-read every card read in the debate. I will not read portions of evidence not read in the round by debaters. I will not read cards handed to me that were not extended in the last two rebuttals. I will resolve arguments consisting of disputes over interpretation of warrants in evidence by reading those cards. I will make sure arguments extended in the last two rebuttals can be traced back across the flow to the point they originated. I will make sure cards handed to me were extended properly during the debate before reading them. I will keep a careful flow of the debate and will do my best to vote based upon warranted arguments extended throughout the debate. Your job is to speak clearly and coherently and to dispute the warrants within your opponents’ arguments with analysis and evidence.

2. Make Choices. Most debates come down to a couple of key issues which need to be resolved by me; awareness of these nexus issues and the ability to clarify how they should be resolved is the key to your success. Does the perm on the CP avoid the links to the net-benefits? Does the solvency deficit to the counter-plan outweigh the net-benefits? Who controls the question of uniqueness (both at the link and impact level)? Can the alternative to the criticism function simultaneously with the plan? I prefer to intervene as little as humanly possible. Your ability to accurately frame the nexus issues of the debate for me will reduce the need for me to resolve these questions for you and make me a much happier judge.

3. Don’t be a Jerk. As Ed Lee of Emory says in his most recent Judge Philosophy--"Respect is non-negotiable for me". I work VERY HARD as a judge. I flow on paper, I generally keep my computer closed the entire debate and I try to pay very close attention to everything you say. I spend time constructing my post-round discussion to be clear, concise, and educational. I do not take kindly to debaters or coaches who wish to interrupt and argue with me before I've reached the conclusion of my RFD. I promise to give you plenty of time to ask productive follow-up questions. Lately, I've become even more concerned with in-round comity. Rudeness and snide remarks during cross-ex, insulting the intelligence and goodwill of the other team, and other derisive and insulting behavior towards opponents will not be tolerated. To once again quote Ed - "If you are engaging your opponent in a way that you would not if you were in front of one of your professors [teachers] or the president of your university [principal/head of school] then you should not do it in front of me." I love seeing passionate engagement with argument, but quickly become physically uncomfortable when passion turns into hostility. If you are confused as to where this line resides watch my non-verbals...it will be very obvious.

Finally, on the question of "What kinds of arguments do you prefer" I'll answer by agreeing with Jarrod Atchison on the importance of FLEXIBILITY as a debater. To quote his ballot from a recent NDT final round "Debater flex is the past, present, and the future":

Jarrod ATCHISON, Director of Debate and Assistant Professor of Speech and Drama at Trinity University (Incoming DOF at Wake Forrest), 2008
[Judge Ballot from the Final Round of the 2008 National Debate Tournament, Available Online at http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/Results/JudgesBallots2008final.htm, Accessed 03-16-2010]

7. Debater Flex is the wave of the future: I would have loved to have been a part of the Dartmouth coaching staff and squad when they were brainstorming a negative strategy for this debate. Although they had an extremely limited amount of time, they had two fantastic debaters in Josh and Kade that could execute a wide range of arguments leaving no option unavailable. In this debate, they had two case specific counterplans, a well developed kritik, two topicality arguments, etc…This debate reminded me that debaters who self identify as “policy” or “kritik” are missing out on a wide range of ways to win. Forget the labels, just think of everything as an argument. Some arguments require more understanding than others, but they are just arguments. If you want to be able to take on a new high tech aff with less than 45 minutes of prep before the final round of the NDT, the last thing that you want to tell your coach/partner is “I can’t argue __.” Debater flex is the past, present, and the future and I hope that students will see Josh and Kade’s 1NC as an example of how important it is to be versatile.

I've been in debate for 10 years. I am fine with almost anything, but I have more experience with K debate than not.

Fairness is an internal link not an impact.

Sometimes there is zero risk of a link

I like to hear things well explained!!!

I don't like to read your cards for you throughout the debate but I like to be on the email chain matea.debate@gmail.com

liamjameson99@gmail.com pls add me to the chain

About me as a person:

I am an environmental scientist. My day job is habitat restoration and land management in East Tennessee. I know a lot about ecology and I care about the environment a LOT. I think impacts about food/water/ecology resonate with me more than the average person, and I am not inclined to enjoy bad or contrived environment-related impacts/internals.

In my free time I work with land and labor advocacy groups out here in the Unaka Mountains. I’m rabidly pro-labor and pro-conservation, so do with that what you will.

About me as a judge:

Very few of my preferences are set in stone. Debates are about your arguments.

I am ready to hear anything. Surprise me. Impress me. Make me laugh. I’m hear to listen.

I don't like theory debates. I think almost any counterplan is justified if it's competitive. Although I am biased against object fiat and counterplans without actors. I'll vote on condo, but I think almost everything else is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

I don't like T debates. I think too many people have drunk the limits kool-aid, and, to quote Seth Gannon, I'm a reasonability guy.

I think death is bad and extinction is worse. But it’s not *TOO* hard to convince me otherwise.

I didn’t read a plan in college and I’m really into continental philosophy, so I have working knowledge of most critical theses.

I think people should read plans. But again it’s not that difficult to convince me otherwise.

I think it's possible for the negative to win that the AFF doesn't get to weigh the plan. In fact, I think it would be easier than most people believe.

"Good" arguments in debate are relative. Quoting another old man, if you can't beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people or that rock genocide is good because they are people, then you are a bad advocate for your cause and should lose. Most of the crazy arguments you hear are "crazy" because a lot of smart people have thought about these things and concluded that they're nonsense.

No audience participation. No arguments about the people in the round. No arguments about stuff that happened out of round. These three beliefs are 100% immutable. (To clarify, debaters’ in-round actions are still fair game for arguments. Don’t be cruel to each other.)

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Jiao%2C+Jennifer

Debate history: NSDA Top 64 '13, Top 32 '14. Debated for Wichita East (KS) for 4 years in policy. 3rd in state, and a bunch of Kansas things you don't really care about.
I am now graduated, I did not debate in college. I judge the Cal debate tournament every year since it's important to give back to the community.

tl:dr: Stay calm. Be nice. I'll listen to most things but I probably don't know your weird kritik. I'm generally pretty tabula rasa, but if I don't understand it I can't vote on it (or I'll go by the words said in the round the best I can).

Long:

Style, High-level

The words that you say are the words that count in the round. Don't tell me to read cards, I will only do it if there's a conflict/disagreement about cards or I need to go into detail on some warrants. Don't waste your time telling me over and over again to read the cards after a round, you could just make other arguments in that time. I want to be able to hear your cards since I'm not reading them

Speed and clarity : Speed is generally fine. If I can't understand you I'll clear you once or twice. After that I will stop flowing, put my pen down and stare at you. If you're clear and its just too fast for me i'll let you know. If its a stream of analytics/theory, please give me pen time. If it doesn't make it on my flow it wasn't in the round.

I probably don't know the topic specific acronyms so please explain whatever stuff you're talking about.

I won't kick things for you, but I also won't apply things against you if the 2R doesn't catch it.

Classic debate - Case/DA/CP
Smart case arguments are typically the easiest way to win a round since no one pokes holes in the aff's case anymore. It's pretty easy to reduce their solvency with some smart analytics after reading their cards.

Impact turns: I read a lot of impact turns - dedev, wipeout ect.

Tell me a story about impacts, and do comparative analysis. I shouldn't have to do the comparison for you at the end.

K and Performance

K background: I read virilio, coloniality and my partner read Nietzche. I'm not too well versed in K lit but I can follow the words you say. If you avoid explaining to the other team, you're probably avoiding explaining to me

Performance affs- I think that you should have some sort of connection to the resolution. The resolution doesn't have to be a good thing (although I generally think you should defend it but you can convince me otherwise). Please explain why I am listening to what you are doing and why it matters. Also if you are doing some sort of performative work, make sure it actually ties into your arguments.

Theory

Theory: I was a T hack. Give me pen time. The activity is probably important. Fairness needs to be defined, although I'll default to fairness existing if you don't tell me it doesn't. Also default to competing interpretations.

Dumb theory arguments: I ran plan flaw and word pics on USFG. I'll listen to it.

Use theory to get you other things in the round.

Kenny Johng
Updated 2/16/2019
I debated for 4 years at Grapevine High School
I debated my first semester for UC Berkeley

Some short points if you’re in a rush pre-round and don’t have time to read everything:

• What’s on your (and your opponent’s) flow/computer =/= what’s on my flow/computer. Clearly communicated arguments from you to me = what’s on my flow/computer
• I have judged 2 rounds on this topic and have no prior knowledge of it. Keep this in mind when making arguments pertinent to topicality or counterplan competition.
• Tech over truth most of the time
• Please keep track of your prep time
• Slow down when reading counterplan/plan texts

Meta:
I think that debate is an activity where communication skills are important. I understand/appreciate the long hours that y’all have probably put into cutting cards, writing blocks, producing files, etc but that has no relevance to me unless you are able to effectively communicate what you have prepared to me. If you think an argument is important, make sure to communicate that to me instead of unclearly spewing nonsense from your computer because chances are that I wont be able to flow it as well as you would like me to.

Additionally, I think debate should be a safe space. Be cognizant of the words that you say as your experiences might not be the same as your opponents/partner/judges. Your framework link should not be “personal experiences shouldn’t have a place in debate.” I think it’s important to understand that there are a lot of debaters who truly believe in the arguments they present in the round as it means something to them. Please respect that.


Concerning this year’s resolution:
The last time I debate was last fall (2014) on the college legalization topic. This means that I’m not going to understand your acronyms or slang/buzzwords that are specific to this topic. I’m not familiar with the topicality literature nor what the “common/core affs” are on this topic. So you reading off a bunch of affs that are “non topical” that the other team’s interpretation justifies probably means nothing to me.

Speaker points:
Things that you will be rewarded for: making smart, well researched arguments, making strategic in-round decisions, politeness to the other team and your partner, clarity/organization on the flow, humor

Things you will be punished for: making/saying morally repugnant things, lack of clarity/organization in the flow, being rude to the other team and/or your partner, stealing prep



Topicality/theory:
Please don’t let my previous disclaimer make you shy away from these debates. I like debates about debate. I think that the aff is in a better position if they win offense on this flow. That being said, I think topicality debates can definitely be won by the aff with a simple/good “we meet” argument. This is why I believe evidence quality on these debates are important. I tend to evaluate a T debate very similarly as to how I evaluate a Cp/da debate. Examples of this include: I don’t think all definitions/interpretations are mutually exclusive and thus a permutation is possible, Your interpretation must be able to resolve your own offense/standards at the bare minimum. On the topic of theoretical arguments, I think saying “reject the argument, not the team” makes sense to me unless argued otherwise.
***I’ve noticed that a lot of debaters tend to hit hyperspace when they are explaining their standards so please don’t do that.

Disads:
I don’t think “try-or-die” framing makes sense unless you have a specific reason why voting for you is able to mitigate your impacts. This also applies to case advantages.

Cp:
I think that knowing what the counterplan actually does is important in the debate. This means it is in your best interest to SLOW DOWN when reading the counterplan text. I tend to find myself really confused when the negative stands up in the block and reads 30 cards on the counterplan with no explanation of what it actually does.
I was a 2a in my latter parts of my debate career so I tend to be more sympathetic to the aff when there is a generic consult/conditions counterplan being read in the round but don’t let that deter you from reading this sort of argument. I’m not a fan of poorly thought out permutation arguments. So just because the negative answered your “perm do both” but not your “perm do the plan and the counterplan” does not automatically mean a neg ballot.

Kritiks:
With the exception of Virilio (I went for this a lot) and Neolib, I didn’t read a lot of kritiks. That being said, I find myself voting for the kritik quite often. I would say that link analysis/explanation is really important to me. And when I say link analysis I mean explaining, in a language I can understand, how your argument is related to the other team’s arguments/endorsements. I do not mean using a bunch of jargon and saying “the aff” in a singular sentence. I’m not very knowledgeable on high theory arguments and therefore will need a simplified explanation of these sorts of arguments. Feel free to ask me pre-round about how much I know about certain critical arguments you are thnking of reading in the round.

Contact info: jeff@immigrationissues.com

I coach debate so I am comfortable with most debate styles. I coach LD and am more familiar with LD, but also did policy in college and assist in coaching it now. I am qualified to judge both events.

Debate is fun. I value wit and humor. Debate is educational. I value scissor-sharp logic. Debate is a chance for high school students to make radical arguments for change. Don't be afraid to be yourself and express your opinion in any method you choose.

I like well-developed, persuasive and interesting cases with strong internal links and warrants and interesting and novel approaches to the resolution.

I believe that debate is, at its core, a thought experience. As a debater, you get to approach each debate round as your debate round. You get to set the rules. You get to debate what you find educational and valuable. To me that is the greatest thing about debate. To that extent, I like creative arguments and the arguments do not have to be conventional. However, you have to persuade me that there is a reason to vote for you, and you have to be prepared to justify that what you are debating is fair and educational to your opponent. To that extent, your opponent also gets to set the rules and play the game the way he or she wants to as well. That means that I am open to theory/topicality arguments on either side in order to set the ground rules for the debate.

I value cross-examination. It shows how a debater thinks on his or her feet, how well he or she understands the resolution and case and how well he or she uses rhetoric and logic. Use it effectively. I want you to answer your opponent's questions and not blow off cross ex. I flow cross-ex and consider statements made in CX as binding.

I will vote on textual arguments, Ks, policy arguments, theory, narratives and performative debate as long as you present an overall persuasive case.

In terms of layering, Theory/Topicality is evaluated as the first layer in debate. I have to first determine that the game is being played fairly before I consider the substance of the arguments. To that extent, I am open to theory arguments. If you are going to make theory arguments, please set forth an interpretation, standards and voters. Don't just claim your opponent is being unfair. If you are are arguing against the theory argument, please provide a counterinterpretation or show me that no counterinterpretation is necessary because you meet the interpretation and do not violate. I am open to RVI arguments and will evaluate those arguments, but only if you prove the theory is frivolous, time suck or strat suck. So RVIs will be considered but you have to show me that the theory argument, itself, was abusive. I will not consider an RVI just because you blip it out. Neg does not get reciprocity on RVIs.

After theory, I next evaluate ROTB, ROTJ and framework arguments. ROTB and ROTJ tells me that there is a role that I play that transcends the debate round. As such, I evaluate ROTB and ROTJ equally with other more traditional framework arguments. If you tell me what my role is, I will accept that as my role. That means the opponent has to come up with a counter ROTB, or show how he or she accesses your ROTB or how your ROTB is somehow bad or that your framework is superior. Same with arguments that you tell me are a priori, prior questions or decision rules. If you tell me there are, justify it, provide rationale. It is then up to your opponent to counter that. Your counter ROTB can be as simple as you should vote for the better debater, but don't just drop it because you assume that traditional framework (weighing case) comes first.

After framework, I will evaluate the contention level. Ks, narratives and performative arguments will be evaluated equally with other arguments but you have to provide the layering for me and tell me how to evaluate those arguments in the round.

Great weighing of arguments is your best route to high speaks. Don't just extend args. Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round and how those arguments interact with the other side. I will evaluate all arguments that are not blatantly offensive. But it is up to you to tell my why those arguments are voters. The worst rounds are rounds where there is no weighing, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped. Tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round. I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend an argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient. Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way. Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round. And, don't go for everything. The best debaters are the ones who are able to succinctly crystalize the key issues in the round and collapse down to those key issues and tell me why they win the debate.

Kritiks: I love them and I love how they are progressing in debate. This includes narratives/performance arguments. Some of the best debates I have seen are good perfomative Kritiks. I will evaluate Ks equally with other positions. However, I have a few ground rules for Ks. First, if you are going to do a K, clearly explain your alt, ROTB and methodology and do not stray from it. It is a pet peeve when someone runs a K and then cannot justify it in CX or is snarky about answering questions about it in CX. If you are criticizing something, you have to be able to explain it under pressure. Second pet peeve: Your method/performance must go in the same direction as the K. If you are running Bifo (semiocapitalism) and then spread without giving your entire speech document to your opponent, I find that to be a performative contradiction. This will not end well for you. On a K explain whether you claim pre-fiat or post-fiat solvency and clearly how your discourse preempts other arguments in the round and weigh your discourse against your opponents framework. If you are doing a narrative or performative argument, you should be able to clearly articulate your methodology for your performance in the round. I know that I bring my own biases in the round, but I try my best to leave them at the door of the debate room and approach narratives and performative arguments with a blank slate. I appreciate hearing your voice in the round. If you are running fem rage or queer rage I want to hear it in the round. I want to hear your voice. That, to me, is the point of using the debate space for performance and narrative. So, I expect you to be able to clearly articulate your methodology and narrative and answer questions about how your opponent interacts with the methodology in the round. If you run a narrative but fumble over how that narrative and methodology works in the debate space, I find it less credible.

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all evaluated. If you're running a DA, make sure the link debate and impacts are clear. Make sure you are doing good impact calculus on timeframe, magnitude, probability, reversability, etc. I will consider all impact scenarios. It is up to your opponent to tell me why those impact scenarios are outweighed.

Spikes, tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments: I am not a fan of "tricks," spikes and blippy arguments and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for underview blips and extensions of spikes and blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses. That means if your opponent has a halfway coherent response to them I am likely to drop the argument. I know that tricks are a new and sexy thing in debate. I just hate them.

Speed: I can flow speed. However, I like to be included in the email chain or pocketbox. Also if your analytics are not on the document, I will try my best to keep up, but don't blame me if you spread through them and I miss something. It is up to you to make the argument explicitly enough that I flow it and extend it. I like to review the evidence, so if you speed, I will follow along as I flow. Make sure the tags and card tags are are slightly slower and are clear. My issue is most often with enunciation, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. No speed at the cost of understanding.

Points--(Note that these points have changed as of the ASU 2018 tournament)

30--You have a chance of winning this tournament and are one of the best debaters I have seen in a while.

29.0-29.5 - You are in the top 10% of the tournament and will definitely break.

28.5.-29.0 - You should break at this tournament.

28.0-28.5 - My default speaks. This is for a good and above average debater.

27.5-28.0 - You are average compared to other debaters in the tournament.

27.0-27.5 You are learning and have significant areas of improvement.

<27 This is the lowest I will go. You have done something unfair, offensive or unethical in the round.

Debated at Georgetown, 2013 - 2016

Debated for Bronx Science 

I don't think that there are any "rules" in debate about the arguments you are and aren't allowed to read.

I'm most familiar with policy arguments, so my threshold for understanding the k is a bit higher, but I will listen to anything and judge the debate based on the arguments presented during the round. Kindness to your partner and opponents is important.

I'm not an expert on the topic, so make sure that you explain what you are going for - I do not vote on topic "buzzwords" without a warranted explanation of how your arguments implicate the debate so make sure you are clear.

Other than that, have fun!

Former coach. Current debate boomer. Put me on the email chain, leokiminardo@gmail.com.

Please standardize the title of the email chain as [Tournament Name] [Round x] [Aff] v [Neg].

Zoom

1. I will say "slower" twice, and if it becomes more incoherent, I'll stop flowing.

2. I'll have my camera on during your speeches and my RFD.

Kindness

1. If a team asks you to not spread, please make the accommodation. If you don't, you can still win the debate, but I'll dunk your speaks.

2. If your arguments discuss sensitive issues, talk about it before the round. If there aren't any alternatives, please be thoughtful moving forward.

K Affs

1. I personally lean 80/20 in favor of reading a plan. I end up voting 50/50.

2. Debates should be about competing scholarship or literature, not about ones self.

3. DA/CP debate makes as many good people as it does bad people.

Speaks

1. I'm tough on speaker points.

2. I'm very expressive, so you'll know whether I vibe with what you're saying or not.

3. Technical, well organized policy debates make smooth brain feel good.

4. DA + Case or T 2NRs are always impressive and brilliant.

5. Copy/pasting cards into the body will drop your speaks .1 every time it happens.

Have fun!

Background (updated 9/29/23)

General - I graduated from Johns Hopkins University in 2018 with majors in Biomedical Engineering and Applied Math/Stats and a minor in Africana Studies. I am currently a student at the Tuck School of Business and in a combined MD-MBA program with the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth (class of 2025)

Competitive - 5 years of circuit policy (2009-2014) at Centennial High School (as a part of Capitol Debate, yes they used to do policy mainly believe it or not) being coached by Daryl Burch. 2014 TOC Champion in policy. I debated 4 years of American parliamentary (APDA) and British parliamentary (BP) at Johns Hopkins University (2014-2018).

Coaching - I have not been in any coaching capacity since the start of the 2020-2021 school year (med school will do that to you). I've judged 1 tournament a year for the past 3 years (2020-2023) and have not worked at a summer camp since 2014.

Philosophy (updated 9/29/23)

If there is a chain I want to be on it - mkoo7000@gmail.com

I do NOT open speech docs until the debate ends, speaking clearly is key and if I can't understand you, I will just discount the arguments rather than opening the speech doc.

I have very little clue what the topic is, please assume I don't know common acronyms/terminology related to the topic.

In 90% of rounds, I submit my ballot within 3 minutes of the final speech ending. Here are the major implications:

- Clarity (in speaking, organization, and explanation) is my first priority. The main reason I've realized I submit my decisions quickly is not because the round is lopsided/underwhelming in quality, but because of the degree to which I value communication during the round. The team who communicated their story into my head while I am listening to their speech usually prevails over the team who may have had a warrant that I barely flowed while struggling to keep up with their communication. I will be actively deciding who is currently winning and exactly what I think the other team has to do to undermine that as the round goes on, thus leaving most questions answered in my head as the final speech ends. I concede that there is potential for error in my approach, but I figured that I would rather reward the more persuasive team rather than digging through and examining each and every technicality.

- My substantive preferences are very fluid. I have debated and judged almost every type of substantive arguments at the highest levels of high school competition so my real preference is to do what you think you do best. But as nobody is truly a blank slate, I have some explicit preferences and substantive decision-making quirks clarified below for both LD and policy.

- Cards are only read when their quality/warranting are explicitly contested. The corollary to this is that warranting explained during the speeches will always trump the existence of a card that may answer those warrants in my decision-making process.

- I put a heavier emphasis onto the final rebuttals in my decision-making process.

I am a STICKLER for timeliness during rounds

- Efficient and proactive conduct in evidence exchange and round preparation/conduct will be rewarded with speaker points.

- Flight 2 - I expect the first speech to be sent and ready to spoken, immediately after my RFD from flight 1 ends. I encourage/expect you to set up in the room as soon as the final speech ends (or even before in between speeches) and will not perceive the disturbance as rude.

- For LD especially - specifying which parts of speech docs your opponents did/didn't read requires prep time and is NOT a courtesy I am willing to allow during dead time. Please do not flow off the speech doc and flow the speech proper. However I will be sympathetic to clarifications after unclear speeches.

General Substantive Preferences (all formats)

- Impact comparison/explanation/tangibility is the first thing I sort through when making an RFD.

- Tech>truth - protection must be WARRANTED or probably won't be evaluated.

- If the best arguments are deployed on both sides, I lean neg (55-45) on whether a K aff gets a perm - the best arguments are usually nowhere close to being deployed.

- If you're going to go for the K, you better talk about the case and explain the implications for winning framework in the 2NR.

- I consider framework and the alternative to be 2 sides of the same coin. I think either can make up for a weakness in the other.

- Solvency advocates for CPs will make me neg leaning on theory/competition. If the solvency advocate is in the context of the aff, it will make it very hard to persuade me that the CP is theoretically illegitimate as I think the value of research/education incentivized by these kinds of CPs vastly outweigh any fairness concerns.

- For policy, very neg leaning on conditionality (up to 2), barely aff leaning on 50-state, international, and object fiat, really don't care about anything else.

LD specific preferences

- Please disclose immediately when requested if the pairing is out, EVEN if you are in flight 2. I think pre-round disclosure is educational and think the "30-minutes before the round" standard is arbitrary and silly. Getting me to vote on this is highly unlikely (more on this below) but I will happily reward/punish teams who point out this happened with speaker points (+0.2/-0.2 respectively).

- I am not a fan of theory/tricks/phil arguments. This is primarily due to the incomprehensible speed/clarity at which these arguments are usually deployed. I do not open the speech doc while flowing and will not refer to it to flow warrants I missed. I also find reasonability to be an extremely persuasive argument for most theory/tricks arguments (don't disclose cites, you wore shoes, etc). Arguments this does not apply to are theory arguments common in policy (conditionality bad, aff didn't disclose at ALL, 50-state fiat, PICs bad, international fiat, etc).

- I think the existence of a time skew biased in favor of the neg to be a persuasive argument in LD (take advantage of this in theory debates!!). Due to this, I find myself being more lenient to the 1AR/2AR in terms of tech (ie, not being super strict on dropped args, focusing more on the story than minute tech details). In high level debates, aff teams NEED to collapse in the 2AR to be able to win.

- Conditionality bad much more persuasive to me in LD comparatively to how I view it in policy. 2 or less in policy and 1 or less in LD are usually easily defensible to me.

Ethics/Procedural Challenges
- If you believe the other team is guilty of an ethics violation and I am notified, the debate will end there and I will determine if you are correct. If I notice an ethics violation, I will not stop the round but decide the round based on it after it ends if I believe it was sufficiently egregious. If there is an easy way for me to access speech docs, I will follow along at random moments during the debate.
- Card clipping/cross reading – Any form of misrepresenting the amount of evidence you have read is considered card clipping. It is your opponents’ burden to ask for a marked copy of your speech but it is yours to make sure that is ready IMMEDIATELY. This means if you forget to physically mark during a speech, you better have a crystal clear memory because you will lose if you mis-mark evidence. Audibly marking during a speech is acceptable as long as you explicitly say the words “mark it at ‘x’”. Intention does not matter. I understand if you were ignorant or didn’t mean to but you should have to take the loss to make sure you are MUCH MORE careful in future. Video or audio recordings are a necessity if you want to pose a challenge about card clipping. Anything that is 3 words or less (no more than twice a speech) I am willing to grant as a minor mistake and will drop the accusing team for being petty. Double highlighting is not card clipping, just make sure your opponents know which color you are reading, a simple clarification question can resolve this.
- Evidence fabrication – it is hard to prove this distinctively from evidence that cannot be accessed – if a team is caught fabricating (making it up) evidence they will lose.

Problematic not an ethics violation (these can be persuasive arguments to win my ballot)
- Evidence that cannot be accessed – this is necessary for teams to be able to successfully refute your research. If this is proved, I will ignore the evidence and treat arguments related to it as merely claims in my decisionmaking
- Out of context cards – this will seriously hurt your ethos and your opponents will probably definitively win their competing claim
- Misdisclosure – the only reason why this isn’t above is because there is almost no falsifiable method to prove that a disclosure wasn’t honest – this is probably the most serious of this category and can garner you major leeway in my decision making if you can successfully prove how it has impacted your ability to debate this round.
- If I catch you stealing prep (talking during dead time to your partner about the round, messing around on your computer, etc), I will dock half of your remaining prep time

Long ramble (this is the first draft of my judge policy I wrote when I was a young first year out that I just didn't want to delete because it's fun to keep. Only read this if you're bored or have too much time on your hands, a lot of it is probably outdated)

- The most influential aspect of determining how to pref a relatively new judge was seeing how they debated, talk to people who’ve judged/watched me (if they still remember)before to see what I rolled with in debates.
- I always enjoyed/found much more helpful the longer/thorough judge philosophies so be prepared to read a lot of my thoughts/rants that are coming
- Daryl Burch (coach) is the single biggest influential figure in my development as a debater. Srinidhi Muppalla (partner for 2 years) would probably come second. Go look at their philosophies.
- I was a 2A for 3 years and then a 2N for my senior year – I have read affirmatives all over the spectrum (complete performance, 10 impact policy affs, k affs that defended a plan) – and went for whatever on the neg (at one point my senior year, some team asked me past 2NR’s and I answered: T-economic engagement, give back the land K, black feminism K, asian counteradvocacy, warming good + geoenginnering CP, mexico politics DA, process CP, dedev, afropessimism K, warming good + politics DA, warming good + politics DA, framework)

Top Level Thoughts
- I see debate as an intellectual forum where individuals come to advocate for some course of action – the type of action desired is for the debaters to choose and discuss and for me to evaluate whether it’s a good or bad idea – note, this means you MUST defend SOMETHING (even if it’s nothing)
- Ethos is underrated – most judges know which why they will decide right after the round ends and spend the time after justifying and double checking his/her choice. Your persuasive appeal in every way you conduct yourself throughout the round is a massive factor in this. Know what you’re talking about, but more importantly, sound like you know what you’re talking about and show that you EXPECT to win.
- Speak clearly – if you can’t you should be doing a LOT of drills (trust me I was there too) – Judges who didn’t let me know they couldn’t understand me assuming that was my burden annoyed me to no end – I will be very explicit in letting you know if I can’t understand you – after the second time I call clear, I will not evaluate any cards/arguments I call clear on afterwards – I'll flow the next of your cards if I can understand them, this would be strategic as then the other team is responsible for answering them
- Speed = arguments I THINK the other team is responsible for answering – if it’s not on my flow then it’s not an argument so do your best to make sure it gets there
- I am awful at keeping a straight face while judging – use this to your advantage
- Set in stone – speech times, only one team will win – everything else is up for debate
- An argument is a claim and a warrant – dropped claims are NOT dropped arguments – dropped ARGUMENTS are true and you should avoid dropping ARGUMENTS – my understanding of rejoinder is that claims can sufficiently be answered by claims
- Conceding an opponent’s argument makes it the truest argument in the round – use this to your advantage
- I don’t protect the 2NR unless explicitly asked to – specific brightlines and warranted calls for protections (anytime) will be zealously adhered to
- Being aggressive = good. Being aggressive and wrong = bad. Being mean = worst. Debate should strive to be a safe space. There is a fine line between a politics of discomfort (which can be productive) and being violent toward another individual. This fine line is up to subjective determination by a “know it when I see it” test.
- I do believe that arguments about a debater’s actions/choices outside of the current round do have a place in some forms of debate. My biggest problem is that most of these arguments are non falsifiable and really impossible to prove. I think that it is important to be genuine but do know that debate is also a strategic game where strategy can conflict with genuine advocacy. Once again I’ll employ a subjective “know it when I see it test” and will update my thoughts on this issue as I judge more debates.
- I think all debaters should play an proactive role in doing their own prefs as soon as possible – it is quite the rewarding learning experience that helps you learn your judges
- Cards can undisputedly settle factual questions – analysis (including analysis about cards) settles everything else
- I will only call for a piece of evidence if there is an explicit cite referenced during the explanation of the argument – If I am asking questions like “Can you give me the piece of evidence you think says ‘x’,” then I am either doing annoyed or the debate is way too close for me not to double check.
- Debate's a technical game - do line by line and answer arguments - don't be surprised if I make decisions that seem debatable based upon technical concessions
- Assuming all positions are well prepared and executed close to as well as possible this would probably be my favorite to least favorite 2NR's - DA + case, DA + CP, advantage CP + DA, topic K, any strat with generic impact turns, any strat with politics, any strat with a process CP, generic K, topicality
- Cheap shots will only be voting issues if you give me no other option - what I mean about this is you better go HARD or go home, anything under 1 minute of explanation/warrants/asking for protection will probably be dismissed as a rule of thumb - cheap shots are not good arguments that were dropped, those don't apply to this section, but argument that are sufficiently stupid that they can only be won because they were dropped
- I'm super lenient on paperless rules - as long as you don't take forever and I don't catch you stealing prep you'll be fine - if your computer crashes mid speech just let me know

Framework
- I honestly feel like this section determines a lot about how people pref judges these days
- I will start off by saying that I am a firm believer in ideological reflexivity – people go a long way in trying to understand each other’s arguments and even embrace them instead of crying exclusion/trying to exclude.
- But yes, if you win the tech battle I will vote for framework
- Flipping neg greatly hurts your ability to go for ANY arguments based upon procedural fairness
- Real world examples from the debate community go a long way in proving points in these types of debates – use them to your advantage
- I think debate is most educational when it is about the topic – however I think there are multiple ways to defend the topic
- Arguments about procedural fairness are the most strategic/true in my opinion – however impacting them with just fairness is unpersuasive and you should couch your impacts upon the education (or lack of) from debates with little clash
- It is worth noting that I have stopped running procedural based framework arguments by the end of my senior year – however this was mainly due to the fact that I was very bad at going for framework and instead found much more strategic to engage affirmatives on the substance of their arguments (because I had a genius coach who was very good at thinking of ways to do that)
- If an aff defends a plan I will be EXTREMELY unpersuaded by framework arguments that say the aff can only garner advantages off the instrumental affirmation of the plan

Non-Traditional
- If you know me at all you should know that I am completely fine with these
- CX makes or breaks these debates – yes I do believe that you can garner links/DA’s off of things you say and the way you defend your advocacy even if your evidence says something else
- Always and forever I will prefer that you substantive engage your opponent’s advocacy, you’ll get higher points and the debate will be more educational, fun, and rewarding – however I do understand when there are cases you need to run framework and shiftiness in the way an advocacy is defended can be persuasive to me
- Watch out for contradictions – not only can it make a persuasive theory/substantive argument but I find it devastating when the aff team can concede portions of neg arguments they don’t link to and use it as offense for the other neg arguments
- The permutation is a tricky subject in these debates – I do believe that if the best arguments are made by both sides the negative will probably win that the aff team should not be able to garner a permutation – arguments couched upon opportunity cost and neg ground are the neg pushes I find most persuasive – however the aff arguments I always found persuasive are the substantive benefits that a strategy involving the permutation can accomplish
- Aff teams should have a clear non-arbitrary role of the ballot – these questions can go a long way in framing the debate for both sides
- Evidence can come in many forms whether it be music, personal narratives, poetry, academics, etc – all of it is equally as legit on face so you should not disregard it
- I need to be able to understand your argument – I always had a weakness for understanding high theory based arguments so if that is your mojo just know how to defend it clearly – most rounds you will know your argument the best so you’ll sound good and I’ll know it better than the other team so you should still be fine with running these and picking up my ballot
- Alternative styles of debate is not an excuse for actually debating, do line-by-line, have organized speeches, and answer arguments, I am very flow oriented when judging any type of debate, even if the general thesis of your argument may be superior and all-encompassing, YOU need to be the one to draw connections and explain why the other team's technicalities don't matter

Aff/Case Debate
- Add ons are HELLA underrate - PLEASE utilize them
- 2AC’s and 1AR’s get away with blippy arguments, punish them in the block for them
- K affs with a plan in my opinion were some of the most strategic and fun affs to utilize
- If the neg has an internal link takeout but didn’t answer the terminal impact, that does NOT mean you dropped an impact, logical internal link takeouts can single handidly undermine advantages even without evidence
- Make sure your advantages are reverse casual, many affirmatives fail at this and negative teams should expoit that
- Super specific internal links that get to weird places were always intriguing and show you are a good researcher, they make me happy

Kritik
- Contrary to popular belief, I only went for the K v. a traditional policy aff three times my senior year. I lost 1/3 of those rounds but never lost a round when the 2NR involved a CP/DA/impact turn. Take that how you will

- Explaining a tangible external impact (not only just turns case args, although those are also necessary) is key to winning on the neg, most teams don't do this
- As a debater I’ve always had trouble conceptualizing high theory criticisms, maybe I’m just illiterate but I will have trouble voting for something I can’t explain in my own words
- Don't drop the aff, 90% of K 2NR's that don't directly disprove the aff in some way will probably lose.
- Permutations are pretty strategic, phrase perms as link defense to some of the more totalizing k impacts and defend the speaking of the aff and you should be fine
- Framework and the alt are usually 2 sides of the same coin, please please impact what winning framework means
- I am most familiar with kritiks based in critical race theory, mainstream k’s (neolib, security, cap, etc.) I can also easily understand
- Death good is not a strategic (or true) K in my opinion at all, however there is a BIG difference between death good and fear of death bad

Topicality
- Probably more a fan of competing interpretations
- Reasonability is a reason why the aff could win without offense – It means that the aff is topical to the point that topicality debates should not be preferred over the substantive debate and education that could’ve been had by debating the aff
- Big fan of reject the argument not the team
- I think the T-it's debate on the topic this year is very interesting and could go both ways based on evidence/execution on both sides
- more persuaded by T-miiltary means structures not actions
- effects T is underrated on this topic - try and directly increase exploration/development not some regulation or be prepared to defend that regulation as exploration/development

Disadvantages
- I’m on team link determines the direction of uniqueness
- Politics theory arguments are meh in front of me, I personally never went for them, I just found substantive arguments more strategic
- Short contrived DA’s are strategic but ONLY because aff teams don’t call them out for their bad internal links and only read terminal impact defense to them – fix that and they should go away
- I always loved good impact turn debates, warming good, de-dev, anything
- Turns case arguments are awesome – use them to your advantage and don’t drop them

Counterplans/CP Theory
- Big fan of advantage CP’s – plank them all you want (but kicking planks is probably abusive because every permutation of the diff planks are now another conditional option)
- Solvency advocates go a long way in helping you with theory – I firmly believe that they are good for debate
- I’m an agnostic on the theory of CP’s that compete off of immediacy and certainty
- Agnostic about almost every theory question, more persuaded by the aff on 50 state fiat, international fiat, and object fiat
- Interpretations are good – you should always have one (even if its self serving)
- In my last 3 years of debate, I have NEVER been on a team that went for conditionality for 5 minutes in the 2AR, 2 or less conditional options will be an uphill battle for the aff

Speaker Points
Points are based on two things: content and style. Content is simple, the more your argumentation helps you win a ballot, the better your points. Content includes things like warrant explanation, strategic execution, and strategic vision. Style is as important if not moreso than content. These are all the intangible parts of your debating that garner my respect. This would include organization (very very very VERY important), presence, clarity in delivery, and respect for the activity and your opponents. I also have a horrible sense of humor, by that I mean anything that isn't violently offensive is ok under my book and I'll probably find it funny (this includes awful jokes and bad puns) - take advantage of that

I will shamelessly admit that I was that debater who obsessed over points because I liked to calculate things/wanted to know where in the bracket I was. Ask me afterwards and I’d probably tell you what I gave you

Random bonus like things that would boost your points –
- Successful and badass risks (impact turn an aff for 8 minutes, kicking the case, all-in’s on strategic blunders, etc)
- Making fun of my friends (It has to be funny)
- Make fun of Simon Park or Gabe (It doesn't have to be funny)
- Memes, pokemon references, mainstream anime references, etc
- Leftover speech/prep time (although if you deliver poorly that shows false arrogance which will hurt you more)

I am a UC Berkeley first year student and a member of the Debate Society who did policy and LD in high school. As I went to a high school in Kuwait, I wasn’t part of any North American circuits. Nevertheless, I have won tournaments at the now defunct KSAA (Kuwait Schools Activities Association) and the ISAC (International Schools Activities Conference), which included American / International schools in the Middle East. I also did individual events such as extemporaneous speaking, impromptu speaking, and oratory speaking. As I was a senior member in the Forensics club at my high school, I have experience judging and providing feedback for the activities listed above.

Below are my thoughts about various aspects of Policy.

Topicality
I would preferably not like to spend too much time on it in an average round. At the same time, I fully encourage neg to use topicality to their advantage. To persuade me, neg needs to either uncover a previously unseen nuance or produce evidence with regards to the wording of the resolution. I am tolerant of consult, agents, and any other part of the resolution if and ONLY if the debate is actually worthwhile.

Kritik
I am reasonably well-versed in Philosophy and some social theory. I am quite ignorant in psychoanalysis and its derivatives, so walk me through your reasoning carefully. In case you want to bring up anything in Economics, lay it on me without any sugar-coating. I can follow most streams of economic thought with ease.

DA
It's always a good idea to bring up disadvantages, however, I want the emphasis of your DA to be on the impact. Links will help you clinch a close debate so don't forget to have cohesive reasoning.

CP
I encourage CPs and I sometimes appreciate a risky approach. Aff should be ready to adapt, especially during their CX. Neg should focus on showing why the CP is better. I must be completely convinced, or I err on the side of aff.

General Tips
Try to speak clearly. If you have that part covered, then you can speak as fast as you like. I can usually follow really fast speakers, but be aware of my body language. If I don't understand, then I will not be able to take notes, and you end up hurting your own chances.
Try to be courteous. Debate can get heated, and I can confidently say that from personal experience. I have a zero tolerance policy for any type of personal attack, verbal or otherwise, so don't be surprised if you lose after an outburst.
Try to be organized. I don't really care about your framework, but you need to have some sort of organization for your benefit. That said, judges do find a framework helpful as it lets them map out your argument.

tl;dr - I am willing to listen to any plan, as long as there is basic reasoning behind it. I can leave my opinions at the door, so your plan can be about anything. I don't care what your plan is, as long as I am able to follow it.

Background: I did policy debate for four years at Highland Park Senior High in MN (I was generally okay--I cleared at circuit tournaments here and there but it's not like I have a TOC championship trophy sitting at home), then I spent a year as an assistant coach, two years as Highland's head policy coach, and finally a couple years doing hired judging. These days, I'm a Philosophy major at UC Berkeley.

Cal Invitational 2018 Update: I haven't judged since last year's Cal Invitational (and going into that tournament, it had been about four years since I'd judged a round), so don't assume I'm familiar with whatever obscure agencies/legislation/acronyms/etc. that are specific to this year's resolution. Also, please, for the love of God, slow down when reading theory/other strings of analytics, and don't do that thing when transitioning from one card to the next where your tone and speed don't even momentarily change so the tagline of the new card sounds like it's just the next sentence in the previous one. I haven't had to flow at breakneck speeds in a little while, and you don't want to lose just because something crucial didn't make it onto my flow.

In a nutshell: Run whatever you want to, but tell me how to evaluate it and make sure I can understand it. Be reasonably nice to your opponents. Generally, I'm psyched to see a team run just about anything that they're particularly good at running, including arguments that are generally reviled by the community (with the exception of overtly prejudiced arguments like Patriarchy Good--do not read those in front of me). I've voted both for and against everything under the sun and strive to intervene as little as possible.

More specifically:

Speaker points: 26 is probably my floor for people who are coherent, aren't mean/offensive, and demonstrate a basic grasp of core policy debate concepts. 27 is average, around 28.5 is where I think you probably deserve a speaker award, 29 means you did everything right in the round and I expect that you're among the top speakers, and anything north of 29.4 means I'm confident that you're the best speaker at the tournament. I've given one 30 in five-ish years of judging.

Topicality: If no one tells me how a procedural should be evaluated, I'll default to competing interpretations. That aside, I'd like to say I'm unbiased on competing interpretations vs. reasonability (or what-have-you), but in practice I find that vague frameworks are reaaally difficult to defend against fairly clear-cut ones...so anyone defending reasonability against a theory-savvy neg is probably fighting an uphill battle. Whether I personally feel the aff is untopical or the violation is ridiculous has little bearing on which way I will vote. Obviously, a typical 2NR that goes for a procedural should spend 5 minutes on it for strategic reasons, but I won’t arbitrarily vote you down based on how little time it took to go for it effectively. I can be convinced that theory precedes T, but I find that the reverse is generally easier to defend.

Theory: I actually do like good theory debates, rare as they are. I am predisposed to think that “reject the argument, not the team” is an okay way to remedy abuse in most instances, but that it doesn’t really make sense in the context of status theory. However, the neg can justify “reject the argument, not the team” in a status theory debate, and either side can win that stopping at rejection of the argument causes time skew, fails to set a precedent, etc. You can pretty easily convince me to view theory through a lens of competing interpretations--I'm fond of clear interpretations in the vein of "counter-interpretation: dispo" when properly deployed and defended. Otherwise, you probably need to win substantial in-round abuse or a specific reason I should vote on potential abuse.

Framework: My default is to try to evaluate all arguments on the same level. If no one tells me to do otherwise in a K round, I’ll try to weigh the world of the plan vs. the world of the alternative, giving full weight to both pre- and post-fiat impacts, operating under the assumption that I'm voting to save as many lives as I can. I’m fine with no one debating these issues, but I am easily convinced to abandon my defaults the minute I’m told to weigh post-fiat implications first, that deontology is better than utilitarianism, that preserving value to life precedes saving lives, etc.

Kritiks/Performances/Narratives/Etc.: Love a good K. As a coach, I cut two Ks and two critical affs, one of which had no plan text and nothing to do with the resolution; in high school, I ran a handful of kritiks—most frequently a Borders K (on the aff & neg), Kappeler, Nietzsche, and Nationalism/Cosmopolitanism. I have somewhere between a basic and thorough understanding of the aforementioned Ks and most others that are commonly run in high school.

The aff is probably best served by a frontline that consists mostly of specific answers to the critical argument being run, but that doesn’t mean logical, applicable generic K answers aren’t good in front of me. I like specific links, well-explained alternatives that shy away from being ridiculously utopian, and embedded case turns...but none of these things are vital. While I'm very open to affs that don't have plan texts and/or don't attempt to defend the resolution, I'm equally open to neg theory against these.

Counterplans: I don't think I have any tremendously unique preferences here. Run whatever you want and be ready to defend it as competitive, net beneficial, and theoretically legitimate (even if it's logically none of those things).

DAs: I like 'em. Comparative impact calc will ideally start in the 2AC. Neg, try to use your DA to access case; aff, don't let them do this successfully. Both sides, don't forget how the rest of the flow interacts with "DA turns case" arguments (especially the timeframe debate). Also, aff, remember that virtually all DAs are ridiculous in several ways--I'm always happy to see negs get called out on cards not fully supporting their taglines, missing internal links, the fact that the legislation in question still has a million steps to go through before passage, etc. (Pretty much everything here also applies to aff advantages.)

Case: Very important. It should probably be in the 1NC and the block.

Potpourri:

• I will not make teams use prep to share their speeches, but I will get annoyed if you are particularly inefficient at that process.
• Tag-team in cross-x is fine, but don't kill your partner's speaks by making them look like they can't ask/answer any questions unless they really can't.
• I really appreciate smart analytical arguments.
• I’m willing to vote for any argument with a clear warrant, and if such an argument is dropped, I will give it full weight—though the caveat that it must have a clear warrant means that I probably won’t sign my ballot as soon as your blippy independent voter is dropped.

tojoellee@gmail.com

Most relevant

- I debated 3 years at College Prep (2010 – 2012) on the national circuit

- I know very little about this year's topic

- I will only vote on arguments I can understand

- I'm fairly dumb

- Dropped arguments are only significant if I have the relevant argument on my flow

- I'm bad at flowing

More relevant

- Most arguments are bad

- Being mean affects my willingness to vote for you.

- I come from the Bay Area

- My 1NR during high school was 60% of the time the politics DA

- Evidence supports arguments - it doesn't make them.

Less relevant

- Long Overviews suck

- I can tell if you're scrolling down in the speech doc.

- I give visual cues

- Solvency advocates are cool

- If you sound like hot garbage you're getting at most a 27

- If you show me your flows after the debate and they're good, I'll give you more speaker points. If they're bad, I'll take away speaker points.

Director of Forensics, Cal State Northridge

Email speech documents to lemuelj@gmail.com

Any other inquires should go to joel.lemuel@csun.edu

He/him pronouns

***********

A. Judging/Coaching History

- Over 19 years of experience judging/coaching competitive debate events; less experience with speech and individual events (5 years)

- Worked with students of all ages: elementary (MSPDP), middle school (MSPDP), high school (policy, LD, public forum), and college (NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, NPDA, IPDA, CPFL)

B. General Philosophy

1. Do you thing! This activity should center the stylistic proclivities of students, not judges. Full stop. My academic background has taught me reasonable arguments come in a variety of forms, styles, and mediums. I've coached and judged a wide range of styles from very traditional (e.g. topicality, disads, cps, and case), critical (e.g. post-structural/modern/colonial theory), to very non-traditional (e.g. performative/identity/method debate). There are things I like and dislike about every style I've encountered. Do what you do and I'll do my best to keep up.

2. "Inside Baseball" Sucks. These days I mostly judge college policy and high school LD. That means I am unlikely to know most of the acronyms, anecdotes, inside references about other levels of debate and you should probably explain them in MUCH more detail than you would for the average judge.

C. Pedagogical/Competitive Points of Emphasis

1. Importance of Formal Evidence (i.e. "cards"). I once heard a judge tell another competitor, “a card no matter how bad will always beat an analytic no matter how good.” For the sake of civility I will refrain from using this person’s name, but I could not disagree more with this statement. Arguments are claims backed by reasons with support. The nature of appropriate support will depend on the nature of the reason and on the nature of the claim. To the extent that cards are valuable as forms of support in debate it’s because they lend the authority and credibility of an expert to an argument. But there are some arguments where technical expertise is irrelevant. One example might be the field of morality and ethics. If a debater makes a claim about the morality of assisted suicide backed by sound reasoning there is no a priori reason to prefer a card from an ethicist who argues the contrary. People reason in many different ways and arguments that might seem formally or technically valid might be perfectly reasonable in other settings. I generally prefer debates with a good amount of cards because they tend to correlate with research and that is something I think is valuable in and of itself. But all too often teams uses cards as a crutch to supplement the lack of sound reasoning. The takeaway is … If you need to choose between fully explaining yourself and reading a card always choose the former.

2. Burden of Persuasion vs. Burden of Rejoinder One of things that makes policy and LD debate (and perhaps public forum) a fairly unique activity from a policy/legal perspective is our emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. If one competitor says something then the opponent needs to answer it, otherwise the judge treats the argument as gospel. Debaters might think their judges aren't as attentive to the flow as they would like, but ask any litigator if trial judges care in the least whether the other attorney answered their arguments effectively. Emphasizing the burden of rejoinder is a way of respecting the voice and arguments of the students who spend their valuable time competing in this activity. But like everything else in debate there are affordances as well as constraints in emphasizing the burden of rejoinder. Personally, I think our activity has placed so much emphasis on the burden of rejoinder that we have lost almost all emphasis on the burden of persuasion. I can’t count the number of rounds I have participated in (as a debater and as a judge) where the vast majority of the claims made in the debate were absolutely implausible. The average politics disad is so contrived that it's laughable. Teams string together dozens of improbable internal link chains and treat them as if they were a cohesive whole. Truth be told, the probability of the average “big stick” advantage/disad is less than 1% and that’s just real talk. This practice is so ubiquitous because we place such a heavy emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. Fast teams read a disad that was never very probable to begin with and because the 2AC is not fast enough to poke holes in every layer of the disad the judge treats those internal links as conceded (and thus 100% probable). Somehow, through no work of their own the neg’s disad went from being a steaming pile of non-sense to a more or less perfectly reasonable description of reality. I don't think this norm serves our students very well. But it is so ingrained in the training of most debates and coaches (more so the coaches than the debaters actually) that it’s sustained by inertia. The takeaway is… that when i judge, I try (imperfectly to be sure) to balance my expectations that students meet both the burden of rejoinder and the burden of persuasion. Does this require judge intervention? Perhaps, to some degree, but isn't that what it means to “allow ones self to be persuaded?” To be clear, I do not think it is my job to be the sole arbiter of whether a claim was true or false, probable or unlikely, significant or insignificant. I do think about these things constantly though and i think it is both impossible and undesirable for me to ignore those thoughts in the moment of decision. It would behoove anyone I judge to take this into account and actively argue in favor of a particular balance between the burdens or rejoinder and persuasion in a particular round.

3. The Role of the Ballot/Purpose of the Activity/Non-Traditional Debate. The first thing I want to say isn’t actually a part of my philosophy on judging debates as much as it is an observation about debates I have watched and judged. I can’t count the number of rounds I have watched where a debater says something akin to, “Debate is fundamentally X,” or “the role of the ballot is X.” This is not a criticism. These debaters are astute and clearly understand that defining the nature and purpose of the activity is an extremely useful (often essential)tool for winning debates. That said, in truth, debate is both everything and nothing and the role of the ballot is multiple. Asserting the "purpose of debate" or "the role of the ballot" is essentially a meaningless utterance in my opinion. Arguing in favor "a particular purpose of debate” or “a particular role of the ballot” in a given round requires reasons and support. Policy debate could be conceived as a training ground for concerned citizens to learn how to feel and think about particular policies that could be enacted by their government. Policy debate could also be conceived as a space students to voice their dissatisfaction with the actions or inactions of the governments that claim to represent them through various forms of performance. Excellent debaters understand policy debate is a cultural resource filled with potential and possibility. Rather than stubbornly clinging to dogmatic axioms, these debaters take a measured approach that recognizes the affordances and constraints contained within competing visions of "the purpose of debate" or the "role of the ballot” and debate the issue like they would any other. The problem is assessing the affordances and constraints of different visions requires a sober assessment of what it is we do here. Most debaters are content to assert, “the most educational model of debate is X,” or the “most competitive model of debate is Y.” Both of these approaches miss the boat because they willfully ignore other aspects of the activity. Debates should probably be educational. What we learn and why is (like everything else) up for debate, but it’s hard to argue we shouldn’t be learning something from the activity. Fairness in a vacuum is a coin-flip and that’s hardly worth our time. On the other hand, probably isn’t a purely educational enterprise. Debate isn’t school. If it were students wouldn’t be so excited about doing debate work that they ignore their school work. The competitive aspects of the activity are important and can’t be ignored or disregarded lightly. How fair things have to be and which arguments teams are entitled to make are up for debate, but I think we need to respect some constraints lest we confuse all discourse for argument. The phrase “debate is a game/the content is irrelevant” probably won’t get you very far, but that’s because games are silly and unimportant by definition. But there are lots of contests that are very important were fairness is paramount (e.g. elections, academic publishing, trials). Rather than assert the same banal lines from recycled framework blocks, excellent debaters will try to draw analogies between policy debate and other activities that matter and where fairness is non-negotiable. So the takeaway is … I generally think the topic exists for a reason and the aff has to tie their advocacy to the topic, although I am open to arguments to the contrary. I tend to think of things in terms of options and alternatives. So even if topicality is a necessarily flawed system that privileges some voices over others, I tend to ask myself what the alternative to reading topicality would be. Comparison of impacts, alternatives, options, is always preferable to blanket statements like “T = genocidal” or “non-traditional aff’s are impossible to research.”

4. Theory Debates (i.e. Debates about Debate Itself) I have a relatively high threshold for theory arguments, but I am not one of those judges that thinks the neg teams gets to do whatever they want. You can win theory debates with me in the back, but it probably isn’t your best shot. As a general rule (though not universal) I think that if you didn’t have to do research for an argument, you don’t learn anything by running it. I have VERY high threshold for negative theory arguments that are not called topicality. It doesn’t mean I wont vote on these arguments if the aff teams makes huge errors, but a person going for one of these argument would look so silly that it would be hard to give them anything about a 28.

I am currently an assistant debate coach with both Montgomery Bell Academy and George Mason University. This is my 15th year in policy debate.

I use he/him pronouns.

Last updated: 1/31/2024

Please put me on the email chain & make me an ev doc at the end of the debate. NJL1994@gmail.com.

Set up and send out the 1AC 10 minutes before the debate begins. Please avoid downtime during debates. If you do both of these things without me needing to say anything (send out the 1AC 10 minutes early + avoid downtime) you'll get higher speaker points.

If I'm judging you online, please slow down a bit and emphasize clarity more than normal.

Top level things:

I think about debate in terms of risk (does the risk of the advantage being true outweigh the risk of the disad being true?). I am willing to vote on presumption, particularly when people say really ridiculous stuff or people's cards are highlighted to say nothing.

I like specificity, nuance, and for you to sound smart. If you sound like you've done research and you know what's going on, I'm likely to give you great points. Being specific, having nuances, and explaining your distinctions is the easiest way to get my ballot.

Judge direction is a lost art. If you win the argument that you're advancing, why should it matter? What does this mean for the debate? What does it mean for your arguments or the other team's arguments? This is the number one easiest way to win my (and really anyone's) ballot in a debate. Direct your judges to think a certain way, because if you don't, your judges are likely to go rogue and decide things that make sense to them but not to you. So impact your arguments and tell me what to do with them. I think it's way more valuable to do that than include one more tiny argument and almost certainly the easiest way to get me to overcome any predispositions.

Decorum is very important to me. If your strategy is to belittle, upset, talk down to, yell at, escalate, curse at, or otherwise be rude or mean to your opponents, then you can expect me to give you terrible speaker points. I also reserve the right to end the debate early if I find the behavior particularly atrocious or potentially threatening to anyone in the room. I am very uninterested in the “I know what you did last summer” strategy or any personal attacks. You certainly don't have to be best friends with your opponents, but I do expect a sense of cordiality when engaging your opponents and their arguments.

"The existence of speech time limits, the assumption that you will not interrupt an opponent's speech intentionally, and the fact that I (and not you) will be signing a ballot that decides a winner and loser is non-negotiable." (taken verbatim from Shree Awsare).

I am incredibly uncomfortable adjudicating things that did not occur in the debate I am watching. Please do not ask me to judge based on something that didn’t happen in the round. I am likely to ignore you.

High school debaters in particular: I have consistently noticed over the past few years of judging that I vote for the team whose arguments I understand. If I cannot connect the dots, I'm not going to vote for you. This goes equally for kritikal and policy debaters. Most of my decisions in high school debates come down to this, and I will tell you that your argument makes no sense in my RFD.

How I decide debates:

First: who solves what?-- does the aff solve its impacts, and (assuming it's in the 2NR) does the negative's competitive advocacy solve its own impacts and/or the aff? In framework debates, this means the first questions I resolve are "does the aff solve itself?" and "does the TVA solve the aff sufficiently?"

Second: Who’s impact is bigger? This is the most important question in the debate. Do impact calculus.

Third: Whatever you have told me matters. Because I have started with solvency & impact calculus questions, everything else is always filtered along those lines (including framework/role of the ballot/role of the judge).

Other misc things:

1. A dropped argument is a true argument but it needs to be a complete argument to begin with or I will likely allow people new answers. For example, this epidemic with high schoolers reading aspec on the bottom of T flows to hide it: if it’s so quick I didn’t catch it in the 1NC, the 1AR gets all the new args they want. Additionally, an argument is not just a claim and a warrant, but a claim, warrant, and reasoning. In other words, your warrant needs to be connected to your claim in order for it to be an argument.

2. I am very flowcentric. Do not ask me to not flow, because I won't listen. Please do line-by-line. If you don't, I'll be frustrated and less likely to buy new extrapolations of arguments. Your speaker points will definitely drop if you don't do line-by-line. I do not like overviews ("overviews are evil"-- one of my labbies; "flowing is good for your health" -- another one of my labbies).

3. Show me that you care. Show me that you know things, that you've done research on this topic, that you want to win, and that debate matters to you. I love this activity and if you also love it I want to know that.

4. Judge kicking makes sense to me but I frequently forget about it, so if you want me to judge kick something you should tell me so in the block/2NR.

5. Cards and highlighting: Teams should get to insert rehighlightings of the other team's cards, but obviously should have to read cards if they're new/haven't been introduced into the debate yet. Two offshoots of this-- 1. You should insert rehighlightings of other team's cards if they suck 2. You should read cards that don't suck.

I do not follow along with speech docs during debates.

Please highlight your ev so it reads as complete sentences. This does not mean that I need you to highlight complete sentences, but if you are brick highlighting, I want to be able to read highlighted portions of your ev as complete sentences—it flows better to me. IE don't skip the letter "a" or the words "in" or "the." Just a random pet peeve.

If you do not have a complete citation or at least a full paragraph from your evidence I will not evaluate what you've said as evidence. Cherrypicked quotes with no context are not evidence.

I tend to not read a lot of cards after the debate unless things are highly technical or I think the debaters aren’t explaining things well. That being said, I’ll likely read at least some cards. Please put together a card doc for me.

6. Debaters parroting their partners: I usually just flow what the partner said. That, obviously, only exists within reason (you don’t get to give a third speech in a debate, but you can interrupt your partner to say something and I will flow it).

7. New 2AR args are bad for debate. I consciously hold the line against them as much as I can. I as a 2N feel as if I got a few decisions where a judge voted aff on an arg that didn't exist until the 2AR and it's the most frustrating. You can expect me to try to trace lines between args in earlier & later speeches. However, if I think the argument they're making is the true argument or a logical extrapolation of something said in the 1AR, I'm more likely to buy it. 2As-- this means if you're gonna do some 2A magic and cheat, you should trick me into thinking that you're not cheating.

Some specifics:

Disads: I’m better for the smart DAs than the silly ones, but I understand the value of bad DAs and will vote for them. I will likely reward you with higher speaker points if I think I understand your story really well and/or you have some cool/unique spin on it. I am fine with logical take outs to DAs that don’t require cards (especially if there’s some logic missing internally in the DA). Don’t just read new cards in the block or 1AR, explain your args (although also read new cards obviously).

I really do not understand how the economy works. I'm sorry. I've really tried to get it, but I just don't. You absolutely can go for econ DAs and/or econ case turns in front of me, but please be extra careful to explain (in lots of detail!) what you're arguing here.

Theory, CPs, and K Alternatives: I put these pieces together because my thoughts on these three args blend together.

Competition is determined off the plantext, not off cross-x, nor off the resolution. PICs & PIKs are only competitive if they PIC/PIK out of something in the plantext. I do not believe that you get to PIC/PIK out of a justification or non-plantext based word. The only way I will ever be convinced otherwise is if the aff allows you to do so.

Condo: It’s good. “They should get one less CP” is an arbitrary interp and makes no sense. The phrase "dispo solves" at the end of your bad 2AC condo block is not an argument and I will not be writing it down on my flow. I will vote on this if it's dropped, but I'm pretty persuaded by neg flex and education-style args.

"Performative Contradictions" is a term of art that has been bastardized to no end by debate. You're either saying the neg has double turned themselves or you're saying conditionality is bad; in my mind, perf con is not even worthy of being written on my flow.

Particular Theory: I’m better for this than most judges (and MUCH more persuaded by it than condo). States theory, international fiat, consult/condition, vague alts, utopian alts, etc—I have gone for all of these and actively coach my debaters to do the same. My predisposition is to reject the arg not the team, but I can be persuaded to reject the team on non-condo theory args (you should introduce the arg as reject the team in the 2AC, not CX, if you want this to be an option).

Theory can be a reason you get to make a cheating perm.

Counterplans/alternatives that use aff evidence as solvency advocates are awesome.

If the CP/alt links less I think it makes sense that I prefer it, but make that arg yourself because I won’t make it for you.

Case: I love love love case debate. You should make logical extrapolations that take out the internal link chains and make me question how the advantage makes sense. The block should read more cards but feel free to make logical case take outs without cards. I don't think you should have to go for impact defense to beat advantages-- uniqueness and internal link take outs are almost always the easier place to attack advantages. I tend to prefer a well-developed take out to the death by a thousand cuts strategy.

Affs-- 2NR that don't do well-developed case debate are generally overwhelmed by your "try or die"/"case outweighs"/"1% chance of solvency" args.

Topicality: I'm getting better for this as a strategy lately than I used to be. I do still generally think that it's about the plantext, but can be persuaded that I should think of the plantext in the context of the 1AC. Topicality is only ever a voter, not a reverse voter. I’m not great for silly/arbitrary T interps (I am very persuaded by the arg that these interps are arbitrary).

Kritiks: I like Ks that care about people and things. I'm optimistic to a fault. I certainly believe that things are still terrible for billions of beings, but it's hard to convince me that everything in the world is so absolutely irredeemable.

Your long overview is actively bad for debate and you will not change my mind.

Make your K interact with the affirmative. I want your links to be about the result of the aff as opposed to just the reading of the aff. Fiat bad links are bad. Your "state is always bad" links are slightly better, but also terrible. Don't just explain your theory of how power works, explain how the action of the aff is bad according to your theory of power.

I think that I am worse for structuralist style kritiks than I used to be for two reasons: 1) I feel more so that I want you to be responding to the action of the aff than I used to 2) I generally study poststructuralism and queer theory. I read a lot of Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler.

Grad school has taught me that theory is way more complex than I used to think it was. I will get annoyed if I know that you’re deploying the theory wrong. I'm not good for things like "death good," "meaning doesn't mean anything," or "language is meaningless" because I don't think those are questions even worth asking.

I have read some literature about antiblackness academically and have read a bit more from a debate standpoint. I would not call myself an expert by any means in this literature, but I do understand some of it better than I used to. I am still unwilling to fill in those blanks for you if you are lacking them (ex-- just saying the words "yes antiblackness ontological, natal alienation proves" is not an argument in my mind).

99.99% of the time I will entirely ignore your framework/role of the ballot args when you're going for the K against a topical aff. There's a high chance that I will just stare at you and not flow during your incredibly long and generic 2NC/2NR framework block on your K. I am serious, I may not even waste the ink in my pen flowing this. I do not know how to decide debates unless I'm weighing the merits of the aff against the merits of the K. For example, if the aff is an object of study, then to evaluate that object of study I have to weigh the aff's consequences. You are better off just saying "yes the aff can weigh the plan, we'll just beat it" in front of me. This also means that the role of the ballot/judge is only ever to vote for whoever did the better debating in every round I judge.

“Perms are a negative argument” and “method v method debate means no perms” are both not arguments. Despite judging for however long I have, I still do not know what a "method v method debate" even is or why it's different than every other debate. I will not write these words on my flow.

I also generally do not find the "voting for us gives us more wins/sends us to elims" as a solvency mech persuasive or that "X thing done in the debate is policing/surveillance/violence" (other than actual/physical policing/surveillance/violence) to be persuasive.

Ultimately, I evaluate K debates just like I evaluate policy debates. Technical line by line is key. Explain your args well. Put the debate together. Don't ignore the other side.

2NRs on the K that include case debate (with some level of internal link/impact defense; not just your security K cards on case) are substantially more persuasive to me.

Framework against non-topical affs: you should also read my section on Ks (right above this one) as well.

Framework is a strategy and it makes a lot of sense as a strategy. Just like every other strategy, you should try to tailor it to be as specific to the aff as you possibly can. For example, how does this particular aff make it impossible for you to debate? What does it mean for how debate looks writ-large? What's the valuable topic education we could have had from a topical discussion of this aff in particular? Same basic idea goes for when you’re answering generic aff args—the generic “state always bad” arg is pretty easily beaten by nuanced neg responses in front of me. The more specific you are, the more likely I am to vote for you on framework and the more likely I am to give you good speaks.

Stop reading huge overviews. They’re bad for debate. Your points will suffer. Do line by line. Be a good debater and stop being lazy. The amount of times I have written something like "do line by line" in this paradigm should really tell you something about how I think about debate.

I do not find truth testing/"ignore the aff's args because they're not T" very persuasive. I think it's circular & requires judge intervention.

I do, however, think that fairness/limits/ground is an impact and that it is the most important standard in a T debate.

T and/or framework is not genocide, nor is it ever rape, nor is it a microaggression, nor is it real literal violence against you or anyone else.

I’m a sucker for a good topical version. Teams seem to want to just laundry list potential TVAs and then say "idk, maybe these things let them discuss their theory". I believe that strategy is very easily beaten by a K team having some nuanced response. It makes way more sense to me if the TVA is set up almost like a CP-- it should solve a majority or all of the aff. If you set it up like that and then add the sufficiency framing/"flaws are neg ground" style args I'm WAY more likely to buy what you have to say (this goes along with the whole "I like nuance and specificity and you to sound like you're debating the merits of the aff" motif that I've had throughout my paradigm-- it applies to all debaters).

I oftentimes wonder how non-topical affs solve themselves. The negative should exploit this because I do feel comfortable voting neg on presumption. However, I won’t ever intervene to vote on presumption. That’s an argument that the debaters need to make.

Non-topical affs should have nuance & do line by line as well. Answer the neg’s args, frame the debate, and tell me why your aff in particular could not have been topical. You HAVE to have a defense of your model and not just say that framework is bad or else I will probably vote neg on presumption. The same basic idea applies here as it does everywhere else: the more generic you are, the more likely I am to vote against you.

Garbage/Hidden Stuff/Tricks: Nope. New affs are good, hiding aspec makes you a coward, death is bad, free will exists and I don't care if it doesn't. Make better arguments.

Cross-ex: I am becoming increasingly bored and frustrated with watching how this tends to go down. Unless I am judging a novice debate, questions like "did you read X card" or "where did you mark Y card" are counting as parts of cross-x. I tend to start the timer for cross-ex pretty quickly after speeches end (obviously take a sec to get water if you need to) so pay attention to that.

I pay attention & listen to CX but I do not flow it. Have a presence in CX & make an impact. I am listening.

Speaker points-- I do my best to moderate these based on the tournament I'm at and what division I'm in. That being said, I won’t lie—I am not a point fairy.

I will grant extra speaker points to people who number their arguments and correctly/aptly follow the numbering that has been established in the debate.

Paraphrasing from Shree Awsare-- I will not give you a 30.

29.8-- Top speaker
29.2-29.5-- You really impressed me and I expect you to be deep in the tournament
29-- I think you deserve to clear
28.3-- Not terrible but not super impressive
27.5-- Yikes
I will award the lowest possible points for people who violate the basic human dignities that people should be afforded while debating (e.g., non-black people don't say the N word).

I've also been known to give 20s to people who don't make arguments. I will not be giving you a 30; nobody gives a perfect speech.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the debate begins, or send me an email. I also do seriously invite conversation about the debate after it occurs-- post-rounds are oftentimes the most valuable instantiation of feedback, the best way to get better at debate, and important for improving intellectually. I know that post-rounds sometimes get heated, and I think we all get defensive sometimes when we're being pressed on things we've said (or think we've said) so I will likely consciously try to take deep breaths and relax if I feel myself getting heated during these times. This also means that I may take a second to respond to your questions because I am thinking. I also might take awkward pauses between words-- that's not because I don't think your question is important, I'm just trying to choose my words carefully so I can correctly convey my thoughts. I only post this here because I don't want anyone to feel like they're being attacked or anything for asking questions, and I apologize in advance if anything I say sounds like that.

Ethics Challenge Addendum:

I would strongly discourage ethics challenges in all but the most extreme instances. I don't want to adjudicate them, you don't want to be the team who makes the challenge, etc. If you notice something is wrong, please contact coaches and/or debaters and try to fix the problem rather than making it a challenge in round.

An ethics challenge is not a no-risk option for me. That is, when an ethics challenge is issued, the debate ends. I will clarify that the team issuing the challenge has issued one and then end the debate and adjudicate the challenge. I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward then and there. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances.

An ethics challenge may be issued along one of three lines: either you have accused the other team of clipping cards, of misciting evidence, or of misrepresenting evidence. Nothing else will be considered an ethics challenge for me.

Clipping cards is defined as claiming to have read more or less of the evidence than one actually has. Please note that I do not follow along with evidence as the debate is occurring. Missing a single word/a few words is not enough. I will decide what constitutes enough of the card to be considered clipping.

Misciting evidence is understood as providing the incorrect author and/or date as well as missing the first author, source of publication, and date (at least the year). Please note that putting something like "the New York Times" instead of "Nate Silver" is acceptable for an authorship. Source of publication can be broad (article title, URL, book title). If the article is easily accessible, then it is acceptable. Again, I will determine what constitutes an incomplete or miscited citation if this becomes a relevant question.

I do not consider missing credentials to be unethical but I do consider those pieces of evidence to be incredibly weak.

Misrepresenting evidence is understood as inserting evidence which is missing lines or paragraphs within the parts of the initial article/book being read. So, for example, if you want to read the first and third paragraph from an article, you must leave the second paragraph in the evidence you read in the debate. This means that, for me, ellipses to indicate that parts of the card are missing or stating something like “pages 4-5 omitted” is unethical. Cards need to be full paragraphs.

Providing a single quote from a book or an article is not a card. As such, I will not consider it as you having introduced evidence and it is not unethical for me. However, not providing full paragraph pieces of evidence means your argument is substantially weaker for me (because, again, then you have not read evidence).

I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances. Please note that I will take this seriously; an ethics challenge is not something to be debated out in a round.

The speaker points I will give are as follows: 28.6 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I vote for, 28.5 for the 1^st speaker of the team I vote for, 28.4 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I do not vote for, 28.3 for the 1^st speaker of the team I do not vote for. My assumption in the event of an ethics violation is that you made an honest mistake and that you were not intentionally cheating. I do not understand ethics challenges to be the equivalent of academic dishonesty or worthy of any punishment besides my ballot being cast in that particular debate (I do not hold these challenges against you in future rounds nor do I believe that you should be in trouble with your debate coaches or schools).

Please note that what I have written here is designed for varsity debate only; that is, when judging novice and JV debates, I will be more lenient and talk through what's going on with the students and, depending on the situation, allow the debate to continue.

These are thoughts that are still evolving for me as I talk with more people. Please bear with me as I continue to think this out. (Also note that this caveat goes along well with the first statement in this section: I would prefer you not introduce an ethics violation unless it is a serious issue in that particular debate).

Please also note that these rules do not apply to my standards for threatening violence against another debater (physical or otherwise) or hurling slurs at your opponent. I will immediately end the round and give the lowest speaker points that Tab will allow me to in that situation.

Overview

Rowland Hall 2016; Emory 2020; University of Chicago Law School 2023

Ask if you have questions: jadenlessnick@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain; no need to ask. Please make the subject line something easily searchable (e.g., GSU 2023 Round 1 – Emory LS v. Georgetown AM)

I. How Should You Pref Me?

Experience

---I have spent years competing, coaching, and judging in policy debate. I have been fortunate to coach many terrific teams, several of whom qualified to the TOC, including, most recently, a TOC finals appearance by Chaminade AH. I have judged late outrounds of many major tournaments. As a competitor, I cleared at the TOC twice, reaching the quarterfinals my senior year. I received 15 total bids while in high school—9 with my primary partner during my senior year. My partner and I attended the Greenhill and CPS round robins.

---I feel comfortable with this topic’s subject matter, but I have judged only at the Meadows and Notre Dame tournaments thus far.

---I like fast, technical debate regardless of argument style.

Ideology

---I consider myself a generalist, and I have yet to find an argument I am ideologically unwilling to vote for. I have read, coached, and voted for arguments running the ideological gamut. In high school, I read mostly K arguments; in college, mostly policy arguments. My research as a coach is about 50/50 policy/K.

---I also believe that I can learn enough about a new argument—policy or K—throughout a debate that I can and will vote for it, even if previously unfamiliar, assuming your explanation is satisfactory.

---Using T-USFG as a modest proxy for prefs, I would likely conclude fairness is an impact assuming equal debating. It can be dispositive, but only with the right framing. I rarely think the substance of any given debate meaningfully impacts what we do in the real world, so “skills,” “education,” or “violence” typically face an uphill battle on either side. I am much better for planless affs that say "debating about the USFG is bad" than those that say "the USFG is bad."

---I'm in the "if you can't beat dumb arguments, you should lose" camp—but I reward teams who identify the dumb arguments and address them accordingly.

---I am a law clerk for a federal court of appeals judge, so my day-to-day involves a considerable amount of reading about technical aspects of government structure. But I don’t think that has made me any less comfortable evaluating kritikal arguments.

Other

---If your strategy, policy or kritikal, depends primarily on tricks intended to obfuscate clash, I will likely look for ways to vote for the other team.

---I don’t mind vertical 1NCs, but the more that you’re including obviously throw-away positions, the more likely I am to give the aff some flexibility as the debate goes on.

II. Argument Idiosyncrasies

This section lists the places where I think I deviate from community norms in my evaluation of certain arguments.

Top Level

---I care more than most about card quality, especially internal link evidence. It's not dispositive if overcome by debating, but I have been incredibly skeptical of: (1) the ability of certain CPs to solve an internal net benefit or avoid an external net benefit, (2) the necessity of an aff internal link to an advantage (as opposed to its sufficiency), and (3) the internal link to the terminal impact of a DA, even granting the negative a link to the plan.

---I seem to have a higher threshold than most for thoroughness in making an argument analytically/extending an argument. I will be deeply uncomfortable voting for an argument that was less than 3 complete sentences in the prior speech unless absolutely conceded (obvi that number is arbitrary; it depends on the argument and the debate).

---In exactly zero debates has swearing made me more likely to vote for a team.

---I am unlikely to vote on a “cheap shot.” If you bury ASPEC in your answer-to-condo block, I’m unlikely to care if the aff drops it. Whether something is a “cheap shot” depends on (1) how apparent the argument was when you made it, and (2) the degree of argument development when it was first introduced.

Topicality

---I care more about precision and predictability than most. That often means I care a fair bit about the card quality of an interpretation. Precision doesn't always mean a technical definition. Generally, dictionaries > court opinions/white paper/etc > defining a word for a social science paper. There are also other indicia of meaning than defining a word; the structure of the res and other words might be relevant, too.

---I'm agnostic about whether reasonability requires a counter-interpretation. If the neg goes for a contrived but limited interpretation of the topic, and the aff is one of the primary and predictable affs on the topic, I could see myself voting aff even absent a counter-interpretation if done right.

---If the plan uses the phrase you're defining, you might consider redeploying your T arguments as link/CP competition arguments rather than T arguments, unless your definition of the phrase is incompatible with another part of the plan. E.g., if you say "FJG requires taxes," and the plan says "FJG," winning T simply means you've won that the aff taxes people. It would be different if the plan said "an FJG funded by deficit spending."

T-USFG/Framework

---I’m better for fairness-style impacts than skills/education/whatever because it's substantially easier to quantify. I don't automatically think that any deviation from instrumental implementation is per se unfair; I care about what the state of negative/affirmative ground looks like under each interpretation.

---The more that aff offense critiques debating ABOUT THE USFG and not just debating about the TOPIC, the better position they will be in.

---Is my role as a judge to actually remedy an instance of procedural unfairness in this particular debate, or is it to hypothetically adopt a model for debate more broadly? If it’s the former, do interpretations/counter-interpretations/limits even matter?

---What happens if the counter-interpretation links to the aff’s offense? Does it matter if it links less?

Ks

---I'm comfortable and experienced evaluating these debates. I have read everything from identity Ks to postmodernist Ks in my time as a debater (and coach). I will be careful not to let my independent knowledge of an argument compensate for a lack of explanation.

---the burden of specificity goes both ways. Specific links/alts/etc. are good; so are specific aff answers.

---If the links exist in a different world from the hypothetical implementation of the aff, you need to win a framework argument. The argument that “the aff gets to weigh the aff and the neg gets its K” makes no sense to me in such scenarios.

---For that reason, framework arguments on either side often fare better in front of me than they do other judges.

---K tricks are dumb. Most of the time, they are implicitly answered by other aspects of the debate. If your strategy primarily depends on the aff dropping a K trick, I'll be unhappy.

DAs

---I often get hung up on link uniqueness, and I rarely think that "our uniqueness evidence prices that in" is meaningfully responsive, because it still empirically disproves the link. Negative teams fare better if they can qualitatively differentiate the aff from the other things that would have triggered the link. This is one of the places where the quality of evidence matters to me a lot.

---The internal link is usually the weakest part of a DA, typically because of poor card quality. The internal link often says that "X bad thing will contribute to Y impact," but rarely is avoiding the DA sufficient to stop the impact.

---For both of those reasons, I usually think that negative teams should spend more time CPing offense into the debate.

CPs, Competition, and Theory

---As a matter of abstract preference, I'm neg on conditionality—even in 2+ conditional options. I have been persuaded otherwise. This preference comes more from the fact that I think debate is more fun with multiple conditional options in a debate than any feeling about the quality of arguments on either side.

---I’d prefer a competition debate over a theory debate. Theory doesn’t necessarily require an “interp” if you think what they did was unfair.

---Having a solvency advocate that compares the CP against normal means assuages a lot (but not all) of my concerns about process CPs. I'm not convinced all CPs need solvency advocates, though.

---Not sure what the best form of CP competition is. I’m uncomfortable with the notion that CP competition can be determined only by reference to the words of the plan text, but I’m not sure whether competing off of normal means makes the most sense either. I might be persuaded that something like positional competition is the best we’ve got.

---Relatedly, I can be persuaded relatively easily that if the aff chooses not to specify something in the 1AC cx, they don't get to claim offense based on that thing later in the debate. E.g., if the aff says "we don't specify whether we mandate a tax increase," the aff shouldn't get to read an add-on based on tax increases. I'm more agnostic about whether this applies to the aff's agent.

---I will default to NOT kicking the CP. That means if the aff wins PDCP, it will necessarily avoid the link to the DA. I will NOT kick the CP for you if the first time you say "judge kick" is in the 2NR, and saying "logic" on conditionality in the 2NC won't do the trick.

Case

---Necessity vs. sufficiency matters a lot for internal links. If your card says something is necessary to solve an impact, that doesn’t mean the plan is sufficient to solve it. This often gets explained as “reverse causality,” but I think of it more in terms of necessary vs. sufficient.

III. Rules of Decision

The following default rules will apply when I’m making my decision, absent debating otherwise.

---Generally, tech over truth, with the following two caveats. First, the argument needs to pass a minimum threshold of reasonableness. If you say, “PICs are a voting issue because they steal the whole aff, so vote against them even if they kick it,” I probably won’t vote for that argument; it’s a non-sequitur. Second, the argument needs to pass a minimum thoroughness threshold. If you say, “extinction outweighs—it’s irreversible,” and nothing more, I’ll give the argument almost zero weight. This will inevitably involve some subjective judgment on my part, so it’s better to err on the side of more explanation.

---If a complete argument is dropped, you can extend it without explaining the warrant, but you need to at least mention it in each speech (and subsequently impact it). If the neg drops reasonability in the block, and you don’t point that out in the 1AR, can’t re-raise it in the 2AR; but you can say, in the 1AR, “they dropped reasonability—this obviates their offense because XYZ.”

---Presumption is less change.

---No inserting. The mere act of inserting something does not constitute justification for insertion—you need to independently justify it.

---I will not kick the CP, even if you say you're conditional, unless judge kick is explicit. If the aff wins PDCP, they will necessarily avoid the link to the net benefit. If judge kick is raised for the first time in the 2NR and the 2AR answers it sufficiently, I'll likely default aff. Saying "you can kick the CP for us, it's most logical" borders on too blippy.

---Absent any debating, I will assume the CP doesn't link to the net benefit—even if it obviously does.

IV. Immutable Rules

These are rules that cannot be changed by the debating.

---If you ask for certain speaker points, I will give you a 25.

---Speech times and orders

---I will flow only the person who is supposed to be speaking, unless part of a 1AC/1NC performance. If both people are speaking during the 1AC/1NC as part of a performance, I reserve the right not to flow the person who should not be speaking if it seems like allowing them to speak will confer an inappropriate advantage on the team (e.g., if they are considerably faster than their partner).

---CX is three minutes long, and anything said outside of those three minutes isn’t binding—including the status of advocacies, whether there were any theory arguments, etc.

---When marking a card, you must do so during your speech.

---Clipping requires a recording, but I reserve the right to raise it sua sponte if I’m following along and I see you’re clipping.

---If you make an ethics challenge, it will stop the debate. I will consult tab before proceeding. Whomever loses the ethics challenge will get the lowest points possible. My strong preference is that substantive evidentiary issues get cached out over the course of a debate.

V. Miscellanea

---The best CXs are those that subtly get another team to make a concession without realizing it, and then referencing it later. Using CX as a "gotcha" moment is usually unhelpful.

---I don't like saying "clear." It encourages debaters to push the envelope of clarity. I will still try to flow an unclear debater, but I'll be far more willing to give the other team some leeway in responding.

Hi, I'm Spencer. I was a 2N in policy for most of my debates in high school. I went to Chaminade College Prep in Los Angeles. I'm currently a 2nd year at UC Berkeley studying international relations and entrepreneurship.

Email: spencerlevitt@berkeley.edu

Add me to the email chain

General Stuff:

- You do you. I'd rather judge a debate where you're comfortable with your arguments than if you're trying to conform to my preferences.

- Speed is fine, slow down on tags and author, and god damn slow down on theory

- Critiques are fine, but explain your alt and how it resolves the impacts. I'm not too familiar with the proliferation of postmodern literature so if you're into it, be clear and collapse down with your arguments.

- Non-traditional affs are cool, but I think they should probably be in the direction of the topic. Fair disclosure: I almost exclusively went for FW against non-traditional affirmatives, but I definitely see their value in debate. I'd prefer if these two flows actually interacted and there is an explanation of how one resolves or precedes the other.

- Prep ends when the flash is out/email is sent

- I primarily view debate as a game, but how this game is played is up to ya'll

- I love a good politics disad and went for them a ton in high school. If this is your thing, send it. BUT Rider DAs are illegitimate.

- Link debating is the most important part of winning the risk of a disad

- Link and impact turns are underutilized and more fun

- My paradigm is including too many dashes, should probably do headers at some point

- Be respectful, have fun, be funny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arcadia High School ’16, debated for three semesters at Georgetown

email: victor.jx.li@gmail.com

You should always go for the most strategic argument/the one you're clearly winning. Don't let this philosophy dissuade you from executing a particular strategy; this is just how I think about debate personally, and I will be persuaded to shift the way I evaluate things if you make a convincing argument.

I haven’t judged a ton this year, so I’d really appreciate it if you explained the acronyms/topic jargon floating around.

Disadvantages (and I guess advantages): I believe in terminal defense. Card quality is paramount for me – the context within which a card is written in, the specific claims it makes, the research methodology, and a host of other nit-picky stuff matters in determining who’s on the right side of an issue. I will almost always defer to the team that has one card that’s just better versus a collection of a bunch of cards that approximate the claim the other wants to make. I’d also say “truth > tech” but I feel it’s a bit of an overgeneralizing way to view things.

Generally, if the opposing team’s disad/advantage has an internal link card that’s just blatantly out of context/doesn’t match up at all with the previous cards in the advantage, just pointing that out is probably sufficient for me to assign it very low risk.

Counterplans: Conditionality is good, and I’m also (generally) likely to let the neg get away with more egregious stuff (like fiating away some solvency deficits to the states counterplan). However, I do lean aff in terms of the kinds of permutations you can get away with (e.g. “perm do the aff through the counterplan’s method” is almost always a way to beat your classic process counterplan, if explained correctly).

I really enjoy advantage counterplan debates. I’d also really appreciate it if the 2NC rehighlights a lot of the aff’s internal link cards in those debates.

Topicality: I generally think a big topic is better, and overlimiting is a problem. This doesn’t mean T is unwinnable in front of me (debated for a small school in HS, so I am sympathetic) – if you’re neg, providing a caselist and sketching out the logical boundaries of that caselist is probably the best way to get my ballot. I personally think these lists are often intentionally contrived to list the most ridiculous ideas possible, which means most examples don't pass the "this aff loses automatically to states/generic topic cp/standing up and saying 'hey this aff makes literally negative sense'" test, so they wouldn't be read anyway – so being persuasive on “these are actual strategic, unmanageable affs” is super important.

Kritiks: Probably familiar with a lot of the mainstream lit, but explaining it never hurts if you’re in doubt. I think the best way to win a K in front of me is explaining the impact of each link on perm solvency. I think consequences of a hypothetical action matter in determining whether that action is something I want to affirm. Fiat isn’t real, but honestly in like 99% of cases when you say it the alt isn’t either, so we might as well use it.

CJR Topic: "the perm is sufficient to answer the abolition K absent college out round quality link work specific to the aff" -- Scott Wheeler. I agree.

Non-traditional affs: Against framework, my default assumption is that a vision of debate where the affirmative must defend an instrumental affirmation of the resolution is good. I can be convinced this model of debate is a bad one, but I think it’s an uphill battle for the aff if the neg executes correctly. I don’t think arguments about “education” or “switch-side debate” are all that persuasive, but I do think it’s important to have a stable stasis point to focus that education. I also think fairness is an impact.

Generally:

- I take a (relatively) long time to decide rounds – please don’t take it as some sort of indication of the outcome

- I will dock your speaks if you’re being rude, condescending, or making the opposing team feel uncomfortable. We’re all just here to have fun and learn – please try to keep the atmosphere civil

reeceaguilar7@gmail.com

If you can't beat the argument, you generally deserve to lose.

(I'll never insert the reading of an argument I happen to know into the debate for you. This practice always irritated me when certain people did or encouraged this. I'm not supposed to make arguments, you are.)

Very tech over truth. However, the less intuitive an argument is, the more you have to do to explain why it matters and why you win.

Generally I'm fine with anything, but I place a strong emphasis on clarity and explanation. If an argument is dropped or mishandled, explain what it is and how it effects the outcome of the round. The more doors you close in final rebuttals, the better your chances are of winning my ballot.

Order in Which To Pref Me:

1. Planless Aff v Topicality
2. K v K
3. Plan v K
4. Policy v Policy (Despite having experience in this, I don't believe I do enough traditional research to be the best judge)

Final Notes:

1. I'm more inclined to vote on theory arguments than the average judge. This just means I think I'm less biased against these arguments than others. If someone won most of the substance but lost on condo or dropped vague alts I would not hesitate to drop the debater(s).
2. Clarity > Speed
3. Impact Comparison and Solvency Mechanisms matter
4. I'm super attentive to the flow, and I strive to minimize judge intervention.
5. I've voted on arguments I don't believe in plenty of times.
6. I have zero issues voting on suspect impact turn arguments if they are won.
7. Clarity is more Important than Speed
8. In Clash of civs debates, it helps to say what debate looks like in relation to an interpretation of the topic.
9. In Clash of civs debates, impact turning t requires either an explanation of what my ballot or what counter model of debate can do.
10. In clash of civs debates, neg loses when there is a poor articulation of an impact or effort to neutralize aff offense. Aff loses when there is poor explanation of an alternative model of debate or how the ballot changes what we do.
11. In K v K debates, presumption is under utilized --- the less you link the less you probably solve. The neg needs to explain clear distinctions between the aff's tactic and/or theorizations and what the alt does or does not do.
12. In K v K debates, I welcome debates on other procedurals like aff condo bad, vagueness, and various spec arguments that are designed to at least limit what the aff does and secure link to neg positions.
13. In K v Policy aff debates, the neg needs to nullify the aff's offense. Use an alt solvency, framework, root cause, or impact framing argument depending on what your skillset is.
14. In K v Policy aff debates, the aff needs to win that talking about the aff or that the hypothetical implementation of the aff does something important that we can't have if I vote neg.
15. In K v Policy aff debates, the aff can win a permutation, though it is probably dependent on the design of the argument. Pay close attention to the link arguments and anything else that creates or forces competition.
16. In K v Policy aff debates, I find teams are racing towards the middle and are fearful of impact turning link arguments (state good, heg good, cap good, managerialism good). If you are good at this I say debate at your skillset.
17. I will not initially judge kick, but if you make a good argument for why I should I probably will do so.
18. No need for too much hostility and confrontation.
19. I would rather not judge debates about things that didn't happen in the debate.

Background: I have coached at USC, Damien, Loyola, and now I do K research for MSU. It's worth mentioning that unlike most people who say they are flex, I actually was. I was part of an NDT Elims team that only went for Ks (UNLV AK) and an NDT Elims team that was primarily about policy arguments (UNLV AW). If I'm in the back, you have a wide range of options.

Dan Lingel Jesuit College Prep—Dallas

danlingel@gmail.com for email chain purposes

dlingel@jesuitcp.org for school contact

"Be smart. Be strategic. Tell your story. And above all have fun and you shall be rewarded."--the conclusion of my 1990 NDT Judging Philosophy

Updated for 2023-2024 topic
30 years of high school coaching/6 years of college coaching
I will either judge or help in the tabroom at over 20+ tournaments

****read here first*****
I still really love to judge and I enjoy judging quick clear confident comparative passionate advocates that use qualified and structured argument and evidence to prove their victory paths. I expect you to respect the game and the people that are playing it in every moment we are interacting.

***I believe that framing/labeling arguments and paper flowing is crucial to success in debate and maybe life so I will start your speaker points absurdly high and work my way up (look at the data) if you acknowledge and represent these elements: label your arguments (even use numbers and structure) and can demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate and that you used your flow to give your speeches and in particular demonstrate that you used your flow to actually clash with the other teams arguments directly.

Some things that influence my decision making process

1. Debate is first and foremost a persuasive activity that asks both teams to advocate something. Defend an advocacy/method and defend it with evidence and compare your advocacy/method to the advocacy of the other team. I understand that there are many ways to advocate and support your advocacy so be sure that you can defend your choices. I do prefer that the topic is an access point for your advocacy.

2. The negative should always have the option of defending the status quo (in other words, I assume the existence of some conditionality) unless argued otherwise.

3. The net benefits to a counterplan must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy (plan, both the plan and counterplan together, and/or the perm) not just be an advantage to the counterplan.

4. I enjoy a good link narrative since it is a critical component of all arguments in the arsenal—everything starts with the link. I think the negative should mention the specifics of the affirmative plan in their link narratives. A good link narrative is a combination of evidence, analytical arguments, and narrative.

5. Be sure to assess the uniqueness of offensive arguments using the arguments in the debate and the status quo. This is an area that is often left for judge intervention and I will.

6. I am not the biggest fan of topicality debates unless the interpretation is grounded by clear evidence and provides a version of the topic that will produce the best debates—those interpretations definitely exist this year. Generally speaking, I can be persuaded by potential for abuse arguments on topicality as they relate to other standards because I think in round abuse can be manufactured by a strategic negative team.

7. I believe that the links to the plan, the impact narratives, the interaction between the alternative and the affirmative harm, and/or the role of the ballot should be discussed more in most kritik debates. The more case and topic specific your kritik the more I enjoy the debate. Too much time is spent on framework in many debates without clear utility or relation to how I should judge the debate.

8. There has been a proliferation of theory arguments and decision rules, which has diluted the value of each. The impact to theory is rarely debating beyond trite phrases and catch words. My default is to reject the argument not the team on theory issues unless it is argued otherwise.

9. Speaker points--If you are not preferring me you are using old data and old perceptions. It is easy to get me to give very high points. Here is the method to my madness on this so do not be deterred just adapt. I award speaker points based on the following: strategic and argumentative decision-making, the challenge presented by the context of the debate, technical proficiency, persuasive personal and argumentative style, your use of the cross examination periods, and the overall enjoyment level of your speeches and the debate. If you devalue the nature of the game or its players or choose not to engage in either asking or answering questions, your speaker points will be impacted. If you turn me into a mere information processor then your points will be impacted. If you choose artificially created efficiency claims instead of making complete and persuasive arguments that relate to an actual victory path then your points will be impacted.

10. I believe in the value of debate as the greatest pedagogical tool on the planet. Reaching the highest levels of debate requires mastery of arguments from many disciplines including communication, argumentation, politics, philosophy, economics, and sociology to name a just a few. The organizational, research, persuasion and critical thinking skills are sought by every would-be admission counselor and employer. Throw in the competitive part and you have one wicked game. I have spent over thirty years playing it at every level and from every angle and I try to make myself a better player everyday and through every interaction I have. I think that you can learn from everyone in the activity how to play the debate game better. The world needs debate and advocates/policymakers more now than at any other point in history. I believe that the debates that we have now can and will influence real people and institutions now and in the future—empirically it has happened. I believe that this passion influences how I coach and judge debates.


Logistical Notes--I prefer an email chain with me included whenever possible. I feel that each team should have accurate and equal access to the evidence that is read in the debate. I have noticed several things that worry me in debates. People have stopped flowing and paying attention to the flow and line-by-line which is really impacting my decision making; people are exchanging more evidence than is actually being read without concern for the other team, people are under highlighting their evidence and "making cards" out of large amounts of text, and the amount of prep time taken exchanging the information is becoming excessive. I reserve the right to request a copy of all things exchanged as verification. If three cards or less are being read in the speech then it is more than ok that the exchange in evidence occur after the speech.

Email chain: little.pdx@gmail.com

Affiliations

Current: OES (Oregon Episcopal School) 7 years

Past:

- Cornell assistant coach

- UW debater

- Interlake debater (long time ago)

TL;DR

1. Open to any argument.

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

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

4. Don't steal prep.

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

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

Comments on specific lines of argument:

T

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

Theory other than T

I vote for and against theory args.

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

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

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

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

CP/Disad

Straight forward. A couple of pet peeves:

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

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

K

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

Email

emilyluther16@gmail.com

Former policy debater for Gonzaga University.

As a judge, my priority is to ensure that the round is a respectful and positive environment for all debaters.

I am open to any type of argument, but I expect them to be well-supported. If you're going to present a complex argument or theory, please explain it in clear and accessible language.

It's important to remember that debate is a constructive and educational activity, and all participants should maintain a level of respect towards one another throughout the round. Any form of violence will not be tolerated.

Hi! I'm Emmiee (they/them) - emmiee@berkeley.edu is the email

I did 4 years of debate in HS (3 policy, 1 LD) and 3 years of college policy for UC Berkeley. In both I started off reading very LARP/policy arguments and then branched out into more soft left and K territory. The arguments I've spent most of my time reading are queer pessimism, psychoanalysis, and Russian set-col. I've been coaching Harker LD for 6 years now and have taught at ~10 LD/policy camp sessions.

TL;DR/For Prefs:

I try to stay as tab and non-interventionist as possible. There is literally not a single argument I have not voted for. All of my decisions are purely based off of how the flow lines up and I don't care if you're going for an RVI on Nebel, a PoMo FrankenK, indexicals, a heg DA, "surrender to ____", the Hobbes NC, etc. If I stopped voting for downright horrible arguments that were won on the flow, I would quickly end up having to give out double losses.

It's not my job to "preserve the sanctity of the activity" or whatever, especially given all of the things I pulled in my own debate career; it's my job to vote for whoever won and then roast any arguments I didn't personally like in the RFD. There are only three arguments I don't want to see: those that are blatantly oppressive (___icm good, etc), those that are unethically read (clipped, text of article altered, etc), or those that lack a claim/impact/warrant.

Other Important Info:

• In general, I judge a lot of clash debates, bubbles, bid rounds, etc and I get that stress is high, different schools/regions/circuits have different norms and habits, everyone's tired, etc but please do your part to make the round as un-painful as possible. Assume good intent, don't be purposefully sketchy or mean, etc.

• I am 100% cool with post-rounding - if you think I forgot to flow something important, gave a nonsense RFD, didn't address something you think should have decided the debate, etc by all means grill me over it, as long as you're not actively rude to me or your opponent.

• Some rounds I take a super long time to decide and have a lot of comments - it's usually because I'm typing all the comments out on my flow for a while. If I take forever or dump feedback on you, it's not a bad thing - I probably just have a lot of random thoughts, especially if it's a K debate. If it's too fast, too much, it's the end of the day and you want to go to bed, you need to run to another round or prep, etc just let me know I 100% get it.

• Incoherently rapid-spread a million blippy analytics and lose - if you want me to flow your giant analytic wall via online debate without missing anything important, you are going to need at least 3 of the following: [1] doc was sent out with the analytics in it, [2] you are at least somewhat clear and aren't going the same speed you go reading a random line in a card, [3] there's intonation/volume changes when you go from arg to arg and/or on the important terms, or [4] the arguments are numbered/labelled/separated somehow and you more-or-less stick to the flow when you extend them instead of dropping them in a bunch of random places.

• Don't over-accommodate but don't be mean to traditional/novice debaters - if you're in the top 50% of the pool I will boost speaks if you slow down somewhat (especially on tags), are polite and don't clown on your opponent for not understanding something basic, generally try to be helpful and CX and try to help them understand your arguments if they're confused, etc. Likewise, will drop speaks if your strategy for the W is very blatantly just to spread out a newer kid with a bunch of arguments they've never heard of while being rude to them the whole time.

• I also tend to get progressively stupider as the tournament goes on and I'm sorry if you catch me on the end of day 2 and I'm a little spacey. Tournaments tend to aggravate disability-related things and I burn out especially fast. I can still make coherent decisions, but will just take a little longer and give less concise RFDs. If you're going to break a DA with a super convoluted and nuanced I/L chain or get into a super ticky-tacky phil throw down in R6, please adjust your degree of hand-holding accordingly.

Specific Arguments:

• LARP: This is the style of debate that I mainly coach and am most comfortable with (along with Ks). I'll vote for your totally contrived politics DA and for "heg good outweighs the K/soft left AFF" if you win it on the flow.

Various other things of use:

• I default to presuming NEG, unless the NEG reads a counter-advocacy.
• I also tend to rely on how people explain their arguments and don't do a lot of card reading unless I'm forced to or someone asks me to do it.
• If you're AFF and the NR dropped the AFF so the 2AR is clearly going to be impact v. offcase weighing and then all about the DA or CP or whatever please give me at least 1 sentence about the 1AC scenario somewhere so I know how we got to a certain impact outweighing something else or what the PERM on the CP would look like. If the NC totally drops the AFF and you go for 100% SOL we O/W whatever whatever in the 2AR please give me a sentence in the 1AR about the AFF because it's weird to have it disappear and then reappear and very confusing. 
• I'm agnostic on a lot of things that the LARP community seems to be split on and will let it slide or let debaters debate it out in round. If you insert rehighlightings and say in your NC something to the extent of "their ____ scenario is horribly cut - we've inserted the rehighlightings" so I know it's something you meant to insert and not something you didn't read due to time constraints and the other team says nothing, I'll evaluate it. If they read theory, I guess we're having a theory debate now. Same with judge kick - I'll do it if I'm asked to, won't do it if you don't or you do and your opponent wins that I shouldn't for some reason. Multiplank CPs where you kick out of planks, "haha PERM do the CP this is normal means" reveals in the 1AR, etc are all very much in the same camp - I'll roll with it if it's not contested, will evaluate contestation and potentially roll with it anyways otherwise.

• K: I'm generally very down for weird/memey arguments but on god if you choose to pull a bunch of conflicting pomo ev into a doc just so you can spend the round yelling vague buzzwords without making any attempt to say anything specific about the AFF I will tank your speaks. If you're not familiar with whatever you're reading so your arguments or cards you end up cutting aren't phenomenal that's fine. If your K is about the need to sideline the AFF/topic and instead center your performance, community, something else, etc that's that's fine. If you have a genuine defense of why you need to sound like the PoMo generator or remain very nebulous and vague that's fine. I truly don't care what it is you do, but please don't just try to win by being too incoherent/confusing for your opponent. 

Other fun things:

• If someone's reading a K vs. you and you're confused, at least 50% of the time in my experience the argument is just incoherent and you should make the common sense "the alt obviously doesn't solve because ___"/"nothing about their K vaguely makes sense"/"___ isn't a link and the card isn't even about the topic or the tag it's something else entirely" argument that's in your head. I keep having to vote for Ks that I know are poorly executed because the other side psychs itself out. 

• I vote for K AFFs and I vote for FWK all the time - it usually comes down to which side actually engages the other as opposed to reading generic prewritten overviewy dumps because that's the side that doesn't drop a bunch of things in the 1AR/NR/2AR. I'm down to vote for the "debate is a game and only a game ergo procedural fairness" flavor of FWK as well if you win it, but I very quickly start getting turned off if part of that strategy involves being a jerk to the other side. 

• White debaters doing the Race War disclosure stuff confuses me. I'm not opposed to voting on it at all but I simply have no idea what this does so if it's going to be part of your strategy I need you to articulate the I/L link between that and whatever you claim it solves or allows you to do. Strategy-wise, "I'm not ____ but I get to read arguments about ____ group because ____" is a lot more intuitive to me than whatever is going on here.

• If you're going to go for "____ thing that wasn't on-face morally abhorrent is a V/I" I need to hear: [1] a warrant in both speeches and [2] some articulation of why this comes before whatever other framing arguments/layers exist in every speech this argument is made in - you can obviously have a lot more extrapolation on #2 when you go for it, but I find it hard to be persuaded by a 5 word argument that only really gets explained at the end of the debate

• Phil: I'm pretty familiar with the literature at this point even though this really wasn't my corner as a debater. A lot of the stuff immediately below applies - phil debates tend to devolve into each side proliferating a bunch of one-liners and then going for three of them without much weighing/etc and that makes it very hard to parse through. When one side says "nuclear bomb kills everyone so we can't enjoy life or discuss values ergo util" and the other side says "adding a circle to a circle doesn't make it more circular ergo kant" it is two ships passing in the night that hurt my brain. Please for the love of God tell me what the implication of you winning something on your end is for the phil debate writ large, why your stuff comes first, how it interacts with what's going on on the other side, etc. If you extend your 3 hot takes on the NC and do 0 actual interaction with the AC FWK or vice-versa you will either lose or have to sit for an hour while I stare at the flow and try to make it make sense. 

• T/Theory: I will vote for it; I'll vote for the RVI on it. I don't think my personal opinions on how many condo is ok or semantics matter because it shouldn't factor into how I judge. In the absence of clear warranting from either side, I will obviously be more swayed by nebulous abuse or reasonability claims depending on the context of that specific round. The bullet point about incoherent rapid-spreading analytics definitely applies here - I can't vote for what I can't flow and a few good arguments go so much farther than proliferating random impacts and links that'll just get everyone confused all over the place. It's hard to yell "clear" over Zoom because it cuts out the other person's audio for a second so if you're blitzing through huge walls of text I'm probably going to miss arguments.

If you write the RFD for me in the debate that explains how impacts and layers stack up and weigh, you are overwhelmingly likely to have that be the actual RFD. If you end up neck deep in a super messy and dense theory/T debate and manage to stay organized, clear, and pretty line by line, you will get a 29.5 minimum. My biggest issue with these debates by far is the messiness and lack of weighing on both sides. It is really hard for me to evaluate debates when no one explains why they have the stronger I/L to education, why phil education outweighs topic education, why their NC theory should come before 1AR theory, whether T or theory comes first, etc.

Only other relevant things is that I presume T/Theory > K unless told otherwise and am not the best with grammar so I can flow your upward entailment test argument and vote for you off it, but I don't have more than a surface level understanding of it outside of its strategic value in debate.

• Trix: I've voted for lots of tricks debaters, but think that tricks objectively are all silly and false and have adjusted my threshold for responding to them to a comparable level. My bar for responding is "this is nonsense and you shouldn't vote on it because ___". If there's three hidden words in an analytic wall that are dropped, the threshold changes to the above along with "you should allow this response even though it's new because ____" in the next speech. I'm very sympathetic to newer LDers or policy cross overs losing over mishandling some silly spike they didn't know about and personally took a lot of Ls that way, but if you decide to sit the entire round without making a single argument about why "evaluate the round after the 1AC" is a horrible idea, you will lose to it.

All of the stuff in the T/Theory section about spreading through analytics, the fact that no one weighs or implicates anything, etc all applies.

Updated Sept 5, 2022 

Tracy McFarland

Jesuit College Prep - for a long while; back in the day undergrad debate - Baylor U 

Please use jcpdebate@gmail.com for speech docs. I do want to be in the email chain.
However, I don't check that email a lot while not at tournaments - so if you need to reach me not at a tournament, feel free to email me at tmcfarland@jesuitcp.org

Reason for update - I have updated my judging paradigm not because my fundamental views of debate have changed, really.  BUT , as one of my labbies put it this summer, apparently the detail of my previous paradigm was "scary".  So, I have tried to distill down some of the most important ways I evaluate debate.  

Clash - it's good - which means you need to flow and not script your speeches.  LBL with some clear references to where you're at = good.  Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case.

Dates and "real world" matter - with WMD after 9/11 and immigration during Trump as close rivals, this topic seems one of the most current event influenced debate topics I've experienced.  Obviously I mean this in terms of Russia invasion on Feb 24, 2022 - but I also mean in the sense of Madrid Summitt and new Strategic Concept as it relates to the areas; new president in the US as of 2021 with very different policies about NATO and IR; etc.  You do not need evidence to integrate current events into your argument - you do need an explanation about why dates matter - ie what's happened that the other team's arguments don't assume.  But these arguments can go far in my mind to reduce risk of a DA or an advantage - so you should make these arguments and use as indicts of the other team's evidence as appropriate. . I am persuaded by teams that call out other teams based on their evidence quality, author quals, lack of highlighting (meaning they read little of the evidence

Process CPs and other neg trickeration - it's such a good topic that I would definitely prefer to see topic specific arguments.  This means that there are some process CPs or other debates grounded in the lit that are really good debates; there are some that are not.  Particularly as the season progresses, I would expect a discussion of what normal means is - both on the aff and the neg to justify process-y cps.  

DAs - it's possible to win zero risk that the DA is an opportunity cost to the aff.  

Ks - specific links are good.  You should have a sense on the aff and the neg what FW is going to get you in a debate. 

K affs - should be tied to the topic in some way.  If they aren't, then neg args with topical versions or ways to access the education the K aff offers through the resolution are usually persuasive to me.  If the aff has a K of the topic, that's great offense that negs need to have an answer.  I don't think that debate is just a game.  Its a competitive activity that does shape our political subjectivity.  

T - if you have a good violation and reasons why an aff should be excluded, by all means read it.  If you are just reading it as a "time suck" then, meh, read more substance.  And, an argument that ends in -spec is usually an uphill battle unless it's clever [this cleverness standard does preclude generally a- and o-] 

Impact turns - topic specific one = good; generic ones - more meh 

New affs are good - and don't need to be disclosed before a debate if it's truly the very first time that someone at your school has read the argument.  But new affs may justify theoretically sketchy args by the neg - you can integrate that into the theory debate, you don't need a new affs bad 1nc arg to do that. 

Be nice to each other - it's possible to be competitive without being overly sassy.  

Modality matters - when you are debating in person, remember that people can hear you talk to your partner and you should have a line of sight with the judge.  If you are online, make sure that your camera is on when possible to create some engagement with the judge.  

Background: I am a senior at U.C. Berkeley majoring in political science. I graduated from St. Andrew's in 2017 and I did two years of PF and two years of local and "circuit" LD.

If you only have two minutes before round: Proceed with caution spreading. I normally find a slower and well explained card is better than an extra card or excessive highlighting. I don't really like theory and I haven't voted on it yet. I do appreciate a couple voters in your last speech. Assume I am not familiar with your critical lit or philosophy and explain it well. I will not vote on something I don't understand. Do what you are best at, following these adaptations. I am just looking for the best arguments. Excessive rudeness could result in a loss. And if you have questions please ask when all debaters are present in a round.

DO: Be clear. Be kind. Be patient. Read what you are best at and what you believe in. Have a content warning when appropriate. Cite properly and clarify what you read. Make good and complete arguments. Time yourself and your opponent. Give voters.

DON'T: Be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Use excessive profanity. Yell at your opponent. Assume I will read your cards for you. Ask me to vote on something that didn't happen in round. Ask me for unwarranted presumptions.

Speed: I would say I can handle like a 4 out of 10. Please don't spread analytics. It's not useful and makes me think you probably don't care about what you have to say. I will say clear if I don't understand you and if I don't understand I won't flow it. If you ignore me you will lose speaker points at the very least, and I know you don't want that.

Framework: I really like to see something that tells me what you think is important in the round, otherwise you leave it up to me. Assume I'm not familiar with your philosopher or theory and please explain it. I will not do the work to connect the dots for you on what your card means in the round.

Role of the Judge/Ballot: I will default to the role of a policymaker in a simulation and the ballot as advocating the best policy. I am open to other options, just argue for what you want.

The K: Explain what your K does and how it functions in the round, because it is not as intuitive as you might think. Also, I haven't read everything and assume I do not know what you're talking about. If I don't understand your K, I won't vote on it. I have the capacity to understand Ks, so it is really up to you to explain it. If you didn't write it, I will probably know.

Plans/Counterplans: Plans are not a requirement. General advocacy is fine as long as you maintain a consistent advocacy through the round. Topics are typically broad and I find most arguments for nontopical plans unconvincing. Please do not run a counterplan that is not well thought out. I think a good permutation can be very effective. Also, a solvency advocate and a written plan text are a necessities for me.

Tech Stuff: When video sharing, please do everything you can to be within the camera and keep an appropriate volume. I expect you to send a file during your prep time but we will wait for it to come through without prep. I also do not always have excellent internet, so everyone be patient. I think file sharing is appropriate, and asking them to delete after round is also fair.

My name is William Melton. I have judged policy debate for three years on the local and National Circuit. I am a Professional Engineer and an adjunct professor at several community colleges. I understand most arguments and prefer traditional policy debate. Please read the exceptions because I rarely vote for certain types of arguments.

I prefer debaters who are authentic in their arguments, are polite to each other, and have good form. I make my decisions based on the quality of the arguments. This means that I prefer that you prove to me why you should win the debate round. If you spread unintelligibly, I can not vote for unintelligible arguments.

Traditional AFF: I prefer this form of debating. Please extend your arguments effectively through the debate round and it will be a good round.

K aff: I do not prefer this type of debate, I do not find many of these arguments persuasive or well developed. If you use this type of argument you must persuade me and impact your argument. Be clear why you want me to vote for you. Just uttering the words “role of the ballot” is not sufficient---why should the role of the ballot be what you have suggested it to be? Affs should also argue why the aff is sufficiently debatable (negs should argue to the contrary), not merely why the aff is important to discuss.

T---T is a question of should the aff be topical. If you aren't reading cards on T, then you're doing it wrong. I will vote on it if you do a good job on it, do not expect me to vote on T, if it's clear that you are using topicality to waste time, you lose on T. If you run T, make sure you also have a topical version of the affirmative.

Theory: Convince me. I will vote to reject an argument over a team. If this argument is not made, I'll defer to the other team's interpretation on what I should do with the suspect arg (ie, reject the team).

CP/DA's: I like counter plans and clear disad debates and will be persuaded by convincing arguments. Just make sure that it is competitive with the Affirmative and that you do prove to me why I should vote on it. This also applies to the affirmative team, persuade me as to why your affirmative is better.

K: I will vote on K if it is clearly explained. I prefer to be convinced by the team running the K. Any kritik you read must be persuasive, not just power tagging. I encourage underviews for the cards and overviews in the block to straighten out the debate. Any argument on a kritik that is not explained will not be preferred over a well explained argument, as policy is not tagline debate. Make sure that you do impact calculus so that I can know whether to prefer the impacts of the aff or the K first. Explain the framework and why your K's impacts come before the Affs. Also, make sure that the Alternative and Links are explained throughout the debate round, this makes the round flow smoother. I do not vote for vague alternatives, arguments should be flushed out and explained. I believe in a debate that is based on an intellectual level, not one of the "you're bad"/"Truth isn't real" debates. This does not mean that I won't vote for high level arguments, but I prefer more the well explained thoughtful intellectual discussions.

Make sure to include me on the email chain: Wmelton@portofsandiego.org. Any arguments you make need to be on the email chain, including analytics. Otherwise, those arguments will not be considered.

BG:

Currently, I'm a radio news producer and have been for the last two years. Prior to kick-starting my career, I debated in college for 3 years, coached high school debate for 4 years, and competed in high school debate for 4 years.

I'm really up on current events, considering current events are my 9-5 and hobby. However, I love to learn new things and hear compelling and unique arguments.

In college, I competed in parliamentary debate. The best way to describe the event is like policy debate and extemporaneous speaking combined. I coached all forms of debate. And in high school, I did Oregon parliamentary debate and Public Forum.

What I like to see:

I'm a big fan of clash and having a clear flow. If I don't have it down on my paper, I'm less likely to vote for the argument. I'm a bit of a scatterbrain (thank you ADHD) so while I can keep up with a hoppy flow, I would prefer it keep it as clean as possible, for yours and my sake.

I enjoy strong impact and link debate and believe that's usually where the debate comes down to. When judging K debate, I believe framework and the impact debate are most important.

Additionally, I LOVE hearing arguments you wouldn't normally hear or go for. So, that wacky K or questionable disadvantage... free game. Debate isn't just about winning--I believe the fundamental point is learning and getting better at the craft. Try new things out when I'm your judge. I'll give you feedback and let you know how to make the case stronger for your next round.

I'm fine with speed, but will clear you if I have zero idea what you're saying. If I clear you or your opponent does more than twice, I would recommend just slowing down.

Disclaimer: I'm a fan of trigger warnings when talking about sensitive subjects such as sexual assault and suicide. I won't automatically dock you if you don't inform me that you'll be talking about this before the start of the debate, but I probably will have a sour look on my face.

As always, feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round and I will answer them to the best of my ability.

Ryan Mills - Archbishop Mitty High School, CA

Competitor: Damien HS 1980-1984, Loyola Marymount University (LMU) 1984-1987

Coach: Loyola HS (Los Angeles) 1989-1994, Pinewood 1994-1995, College Prep 1995-2000, Archbishop Mitty 2016 - Present

Please put me on the email chain: rmills1916@gmail.com

[My] Framework - Or how do we achieve our best selves by doing this thing called 'debate'?

I approach debate as an educator so for me the primary reason we spend our nights and weekends together is our appreciation of the activity's ability to help us improve our critical thinking skills and articulate complex concepts in a logical and persuasive way. To that end

• Tell the story - the team who ends the debate with a coherent, compelling narrative is generally rewarded. Resolve, rather than merely extend, arguments in the 2nr/2ar.
• 'Debate the debate we're in.' Reading canned blocks, especially through rebuttals, means you're not clashing (or listening, or flowing) which also means I'm left to resolve the debate myself - no one's happy in that scenario.
• I'll be on the email chain, but I'm not reading along and won't fill in my flow from the speech doc what I don't hear comprehensibly. I prioritize flowing the card verbiage over the (very often overpowered) tag, so please don't do the slow tag line/incomprehensible high-speed card read routine. I flow, on paper, which is my detailed record of what transpires in the debate and is what I reference when rendering a decision. If it's not on my flow, it's not considered, so please make sure you tell me where your 2nr/2ar extension originates earlier on in the debate.
• Card clipping is cheating - loss and zeroes if caught.
• If the debate centers around whose evidence is better on a particular argument, best you do the evidence comparison work for me because...
• If you *do* ask me to read a piece of evidence, you are inviting my intervention in the debate regarding the 'quality' of the evidence (whether it actually says what you claim it says). Once you invite me (or any critic) into *your* space, you've lost control of how far that critic engages your invitation.
• Overtly racist, sexist, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ discourse, etc. results in a loss and zero points.
• I welcome a spirited discussion during the RFD, but sometimes we simply won't agree on the outcome. Most judges make decisions on 'meta' arguments governing the overall direction of the debate, not some claim buried in the quickly-spewed third-level subpoint in a block. Even if you come away from my RFD thinking I'm a complete idiot, the best way to approach any critic is to ask probing questions about how we arrived at our conclusions. That way next time you debate in front of me you have a beat on how I think and can craft your approach accordingly (or decide my view is just so antithetical to yours that you strike me, which is fine too). If you treat these exchanges as a training ground for successful future, much higher stakes exchanges you'll have both personally and professionally, you'll have absorbed the best of what this activity has to offer.

That's my framework. Now, a few words on how I default if you leave me to my own devices.

Overview - 'You do you' as long as you warrant it

I do my best to suspend my predilections: whether I love or hate a particular argument, I'll vote for you if you win it unless it's fundamentally reprehensible (genocide good, etc.).

Primary guidance: debate the debate we're in rather than read canned blocks written months ago in a land far far away from the round we're sitting in. Clash is paramount.

Default views on argument types

Topicality

I prefer to understand what specific ground the negative is rightfully entitled to that the affirmative interpretation precludes access to. I care more about what you do than what you might allow. Conversely, I am also receptive to arguments around T as language policing resulting in the exclusion of marginalized voices, so don't be afraid to go for that either. I'm a former English teacher, so to me words matter in both directions.

Plans/Counterplans/Permutations: Words Matter!

Document the exact plan/counterplan/permutation(s) wording before engaging. If there is a real grammatical flaw in the text, don't be afraid to stake the debate on it, properly impacted (the 2003 ToC was decided on a plan flaw argument so it's a thing, at least to me).

Won't 'judge-kick.' It's up to the negative to make strategic decisions about advocacy in the 2NR.

Disads

No link means no link. Offense always helps, but I will easily vote on a well-executed no link/internal link/low risk of impact approach.

I lean toward probability over magnitude. Focus on uniqueness and the link/internal link whether on aff or neg. Debate solvency on case and do the work to weigh impact vs. aff advantage remaining in the rebuttals. Extend impacts in rebuttals and tell the comparative story (again resolve, don't just extend).

Accordingly on the neg, your time is better spent making the link bulletproof than reading impact extensions unless the aff is impact-turning the disad/k. If you want to win on framing/framework invest time there.

Critiques

• Read extensively in the literature of the criticism you're advocating and compile your own positions. CX can be devastating with these arguments, so if you've read the literature you can tease out nuances that teams who take the lazy way out won't be able to account for.
• I'm receptive to specific link and impact assessment. Better to establish how this particular affirmative triggers a unique link to this specific criticism rather than rely on a generic indictment of a particular normative framework or 'you use the USFG' - i.e. a link to the status quo. Advocate an alternative and explain how you access it. 'Refuse' isn't a great option since that just puts the resister on a pedestal divorced from efforts to materially improve the lives of the marginalized, but I'll (reluctantly) vote on it if well defended.
• If your strategy is 'high theory' I'm not the best judge for you so please pref me accordingly. I strive to read enough critical literature to be conversant, but I have a day job so will not be PhD-level familiar with any critical argument. Please debate with this level of familiarity in mind or risk disappointment with the outcome.
• Critical affs/planless affs/Performance: Fine, again just want to understand what I'm endorsing if you're asking for the ballot.

If you have questions about something I haven't covered, please ask before the debate starts.. The activity is meant to be educational, fun, and inclusive - if it's not, we should all be doing something else.

I have not been around debate for over 6 years and judge one or two tournaments a year.  I'm not really sure what my paradigm is anymore, but here are a few pints that might help you when doing your prefs or if I do end up being your critic.  

1. I only judge 1 or 2 debate tournaments a year my flow and my hearing won't be used to the super fast robotic delivery that top POLICY debaters are known for.  If I am not keeping up,  I will let you know.  

2. I have voted for plans, counterplans, interpretations, FW, T, performances, alternatives, permutations, presumption, theory and even on a SPEC argument once or twice.

3. There is judge intervention in every round. Making the judge intervene so it benefits you is for you to figure out.

4. If you aren't winning the thesis of your argument, why does the line by line matter?

5. You don't need to win every argument to win a debate. If you try to win every arg, you probably need more coaching. I know some really good coaches that do private tutoring.

6. If my RFD doesn't make sense, it is probably because I was confused during the round.   If you do #7, I will probably not be confused.  

7. "We are winning the (insert argument here) which wins us the debate. Even if they win (insert opponents arg here)....." is probably a good way to win most judges ballots.

8. I am pretty obvious with my nonverbals. Sometimes even verbal.  I've been known to stop a round or two in extreme situations.  

9.   I don't mind answering questions after the RFD, but please don't debate my decision because it won't change and you probably won't see me again anyway.  If I happen to be judging at a tournament it is probably because I am there to catch up with friends that I have not seen in a long time.   I know this is important to you, so I'll work hard to listen and evaluate all your arguments and to provide a coherent explanation as to why I voted the way I did.  

10.  Try to have fun and make everyone laugh.  I can guarantee that I can make you laugh..... or cry if you want :). 

I did CX and LD in Houston from 2001-2006

hook me in the chain-

jmorales@svudl.org

I like it when the 1AC is well researched and non-redundant. If not, neg on presumption is an easy ballot.

I have a particular fondness for K's, mutually exclusive CP's, and all types of Theory but most of all I like it when arguments are performed consistently and with strong unique links to the 1AC explained thoroughly *cough*casedebatewinsrounds*cough*.

Flashing is prep and you don't need to send an entire speech in order to get started.

A poorly constructed argument that allegedly explains why (your side prevents/the other side causes) a nuclear war probably isn't winning my ballot. Warrants and the news are your friend.

I have no threshold for speed when it's delivering actual analytics - if you are incoherently s(peed)reading I will more than likely not be able to follow and I'm not going to read along to a speech doc. I promise I'm flowing.

you can be funny without being rude.

i don't know who you are.

Please add me to the email chain: mwmunday@gmail.com

Affiliations and History

Director of Debate at Westminster. Debated in college between 2008 and 2012. Actively coaching high school debate since 2008.

Debate Views

I am not the kind of judge who will read every card at the end of the debate. Claims that are highly contested, evidence that is flagged, and other important considerations will of course get my attention. Debaters should do the debating. Quality evidence is still important though. If the opposing team's cards are garbage, it is your responsibility to let that be known. Before reading my preferences about certain arguments, keep in mind that it is in your best interest to do what you do best. My thoughts on arguments are general predispositions and not necessarily absolute.

T – Topicality is important. The affirmative should have a relationship to the topic. How one goes about defending the topic is somewhat open to interpretation. However, my predisposition still leans towards the thought that engaging the topic is a good and productive end. I find myself in Framework debates being persuaded by the team that best articulates why their limit on the topic allows for a season's worth of debate with competitively equitable outcomes for both the aff and the neg.

Disads/Case Debate – While offense is necessary, defense is frequently undervalued. I am willing to assign 0% risk to something if a sufficient defensive argument is made.

Counterplans – Conditionality is generally fine. Functional competition seems more relevant than textual competition. If the affirmative is asked about the specific agent of their plan, they should answer the question. I increasingly think the affirmative allows the negative to get away with questionable uses of negative fiat. Actual solvency advocates and counterplan mechanisms that pass the rational policy option assumption matter to me.

Kritiks – I teach history and economics and I studied public policy and political economy during my doctoral education. This background inherently influences my filter for evaluating K debates. Nonetheless, I do think these are strategic arguments. I evaluate framework in these debates as a sequencing question regarding my resolution of impact claims. Effective permutation debating by the aff is an undervalued strategy.

Theory – A quality theory argument should have a developed warrant/impact. “Reject the argument, not the team” resolves most theory arguments except for conditionality. Clarity benefits both teams when engaging in the substance of theory debates.

Speaker Points

(Scale - Adjective - Description)

29.6-30 - The Best - Everything you could ask for as a judge and more. (Top 5 speaker award)

29-29.5 - Very, Very good - Did everything you could expect as a judge very, very well. (Top 10 speaker award)

28.6-28.9 - Very Good - Did very well as a whole, couple moments of brilliance, but not brilliant throughout.

28.3-28.5 - Good - Better than average. Did most things well. Couple moments of brilliance combined with errors.

28-28.2 - OK - Basic skills, abilities, and expectations met. But, some errors along the way. Very little to separate themselves from others. Clearly prepared, just not clearly ahead of others.

Below 28 - OK, but major errors - Tried hard, but lack some basic skills or didn’t pay close enough attention.

I go by Nish, I'm a current senior at UC Berkeley and I debated for McDonogh School in high school. Competed in hundreds of rounds at all levels of debate, TOC Champ 2017, First Round Bid team to NDT sophomore year of college, Copeland Panel team junior year, ive seen it all ill listen to it all

email chain: nishneel@berkeley.edu

technical prowess is important

debate is most certainly a game, and like any game there will be competitive incentives to maximize your winning chance and I am totally on board with the idea debate is most fundamentally a game. however, like any other game, there are still epistemological consequences for how we play those games that can call into question a matter of procedure; it is undeniable what we do in this activity shapes even our smallest most meaningless political engagements in a meaningful way

k aff v fw debates:

when i vote for the k team my rfd usually sounds like this: aff has a strong impact turn to framework and policy debate, 2nr is behind on the impact turn and has likely spent too much time on the internal link story and has neglected substantive impact debating, there's just enough of a counterinterp extended that the aff doesnt totally break the game, but the risk that playing the game as-is is whack outweighs.

when i vote for the fw team my rfd usually sounds like this: aff needs a stronger substantive impact turn to framework or the activity, the strategy of internal link turning all the fw offense and going for the counterinterp isn't totally enough to convince me that the game as-is is not valuable and that clash minimization is warranted, if there's a significant risk the game produces well intending advocates then it should certainly be played in a way that maximizes advocacy skills and is fair

takeaway: to me these debates are just impact turn debates and if the game isn't being played in a whack way then it should aim to maximize clash (implication: i dont think framework is whack unless it's substantiated well). but if the game does produce uncritical thinkers or whatever, then i see little reason to maximize advocacy skills gained through a broken game nor do i think its procedures must be set in stone.

other things:

- cameras only need to be on during prep time, i dont care if cameras are off during speeches

- if a team requests a debate to be a slow debate, I do not think the opponents have to accede, and I think both parties are allowed to spread as slow or as fast as they'd like in front of me. but certainly if you make an argument about your opponent's decision to spread being a voting issue, i'll evaluate it. and likewise if you make an argument about why debate has to be technical and why that outweighs, ill evaluate it

I am a coach and teacher at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I have been involved with debate on the local, regional, and national circuit as a competitor, judge, and coach for more years than I care to put in print.

Non-traditional Debate Warning: If you are looking for a judge that is into non-plan, non-topical K affs, poetry, or other interp affs, I am definitely not the best (or even second best) judge for you. I love a good POI, Oratory, and DI, but I love them in those event categories.

Speed: Once upon a time, I kept a fairly fast and thorough flow. I think that I still keep a good flow, but perhaps not as fast. I am older now (it happens to us all), and my hands hurt a bit more, so I find that I need a little time to warm up to the pace. Another issue concerning speed is that debaters, more often than not, think they are clearer than they actually are. Paperless debate has made this worse. I'll usually try give one "clearer" or "louder" warning per speaker, but after that, either you or your partner had better be paying attention to my facial expressions and whether I’m flowing. I have a terrible poker face, so it will be pretty obvious. If I don’t flow the argument or card text then that argument or card text it is not in the round and I am definitely not going to ask about it. I am inclined to be more impressed with a debater who is clear, efficient, and persuasive who speaks slightly slower than a debater who feels the need to show me their mad spreading skills. In terms of speed and T, theory, and k’s: SLOW DOWN - slow way down (see notes on kritiks). Please read my comments at the end of this page concerning the ever growing negative aspects of paperless debate.

The Role of the Affirmative: I expect the affirmative to advocate the resolution through TOPICAL PLAN action. Yes, the aff must have a plan and it must be clearly stated in the AC. If you want to run a critical aff stating that the resolution is racist, ablest, ageist, or anything else that suggests an unwillingness to affirm the resolution at hand, as written, then I am not going to be a good judge for you. I am possibly willing to listen to a critical aff that advocates the resolution. (Please see my notes on kritiks later). Performance/Project teams will probably find it a challenge to meet my view of the affirmative's role.

Topicality: It’s a voter. I like a good T debate that involves actual evidence and a description of why the aff does not meet the interpretation. The standards debate should include a viable limits argument. Why is the affirmative's interpretation of limits bad for debate? If you are going for ground, make sure you impact why it's a big deal to you in the round, and/or even for debate as a whole. Negative teams who plan to go for topicality should be prepared to go “all in." At best, you could weigh “T” and one other position. You’re unlikely to get much ground or be terribly persuasive if T is one of 3 or 4 positions in the 2NR (And really, why have four positions remaining in the 2NR?). Impact analysis on T is just as important as it is on any other position. Don’t bother to kritik T with me in the room. T is not racist. Do not run RVI’s on T. It is worth noting that a T debate needs to be a bit slower due to its needed explanation, but it does not need to be handled as slowly as a kritik.

Counterplans: Preferably, counterplans are non-topical, which creates a clearer division of ground. Counterplans also need to be clearly competitive. A CP that is basically just steals the plan is probably not competitive and is just stealing ground, but the idea of PICs can be debated in round. Conditional CP’s are probably a bad thing, but the debate as to why must be specific. A clear net benefit is better for competiveness. If going for the CP in the 2NR, the negative does not automatically get the assumption of the Status Quo as the alternative in place of the CP as a voting issue. This choice must be explained in the 2NR. The aff should definitely argue whether the neg can operate in multiple worlds, or must treat the CP as their new advocacy. Note: I find most severance perms abusive. When I have voted on such a perm, it has usually been because the neg mishandled the flow and allowed the aff to get away with it. The neg needs to note that it is the affirmative’s job to advocate their plan, in its entirety, through the 2AR. It is one thing for the Aff to kick an advantage, but it's an entirely different thing to sever part or all of the plan. Affirmatives should not argue that the "neg does not get any fiat." That's ridiculously limiting.

Disadvantages: I’m old school policy, so I like disads. Disads should have a comparable risk to the net benefits of the AC and/or serve as a net benefit to the CP. There should be a significant link debate (offense/defense) and a clear impact calculus. I hate it when teams wait until the 2NR/2AR to finally weigh the impacts. Reading more cards is not weighing an impact; it’s just reading more cards. An impact calculus requires clear analysis. I will put as much effort into weighing the disad risk as a decision calculus as you spend trying to persuade me that the argument is worth the vote.

Kritiks: Despite Newman having a new director that is well known for his love of the K, I have not grown to love kritiks. This is definitely true in terms of non-topical K affs and neg kritiks that probably have little to do with the actual plan. Some teams have become overly reliant upon them (running the same position every single year) and use them to avoid having to debate the topic or debate policies they don’t like. I find that most kritiks have ambiguous implications at best and the alternative (if there is one) is often not an alternative at all. I have found myself voting for some of these arguments, despite my not even understanding the position, because the other team failed to explain clearly why the argument has little bearing in the round or fails to point out the shortcomings of the alt. You should also be aware that I most likely have not read the critical literature you are referencing and citing. I have a rudimentary understanding of philosophy. I was not a philosophy major. I do not plan to go back to graduate school to study philosophy. If you plan to run any critical positions in my presence, you must do the following:

1) Slow Down. Really. Slow. Down. I mean conversational speed slow down

2) Explain your position clearly – no blippy tag lines or argument extensions

3) Have a specific link

4) Have a clear alternative – something more tangible than “being part of the ___ mindset," “avoiding the evils of capitalism,” or "do nothing." Huh??

Despite my personal disposition on the kritiks, the opposing team will still need to say more than “The K is bringing down policy and should go away.”

Performance/Project Debates: I’m still a cost-benefits analysis policy judge at heart. I have not changed my mind on the position that performance/project positions leave little ground for the opposing team. I have no idea how to weigh your performance against the other team’s position (performance or traditional) for the purposes of winning a debate.

Cross Ex: CX is important for fleshing out a strategy and provide clarification of arguments; I generally think that answers in cross ex are binding. I actually listen to cross ex, often take notes and even find it interesting. I also find it not that interesting on many occasions. Tag team CX is okay, but avoid taking it over. Not being able to handle your cross ex will result in lower speaker points. Taking over a partner’s CX will also result in lower speaks. CX starts when the speaker is finished. If you need 30 seconds to “set up” then that will come out of prep.

Role of the Ballot: My ballot determines who wins the round. That is all. If you win, you are (perhaps) one round closer to clearing. If you lose, you are (perhaps) one round closer to not clearing. My ballot does not send a message to the debate community; it is not a teaching tool; it is not an endorsement of a particular action or philosophy.

Theory: Save theory debates for when they really need needed and warranted. Too many debaters are running theory as their “go to” argument. Debating theory as a "default" argument every round cheapens the arguments and makes judges less likely to take them seriously. Do not run any theory arguments against Topicality (see above).

Miscellaneous:

Paperless Debate: Speaking style has simply become worse with paperless debate. Card reading has become choppy, debaters have problems toggling back and forth on the computer, debaters are taking liberties with prep while flashing or emailing speech docs, and instead of flowing the arguments as they are being presented, debaters are back-flowing from flashed material that may or may not have actually made it into the speech. Some judges have resorted to reading the email chain. These are all poor debate practices. Teams are saving paper and tons of money when flying, but debates have become sloppy.

Prep Time: Your prep ends when you have finished loading the flash drive and hand it off to the opposing team. If an email chain is set up, your prep ends when you hit “send.” This means that you are standing up to speak. If you start conversing with your partner, I will continue to run prep and I will probably dock your speaks for stealing prep.

Flowing: Do it. Follow the flow, not the “flashed” cards. Do not mess up my flow!!

Label Arguments: “First off, A-uniqueness” is not a label for my flow. Label each off case – every single one of them. When you move to the case debate, be clear as to where you are and when you are moving on to another advantage, etc. This is also true for the 1A; the AC needs to be crystal clear.

Reading Cards Post Round: I rarely do so. To get me to read a card requires a specific request during your speech and an explanation as to why and what I am looking for exactly. If I am part of the email chain, this does not mean I am automatically going to read cards. If I call for a card without you requesting it or go to the email chain without direction then something was so unclear that I felt I had no choice. This presents an opportunity to intervene, which I do not like doing if I can avoid it.

Card Clipping: It’s cheating. Don’t do it. If an accusation is brought up in the round, I will take it seriously (even stop the round if necessary). If you bring it up as an accusation, you need to be darn certain you are correct. Be clear where you stop reading a card if you do not finish. "Stop card" is probably not clear enough.

As we say in New Orleans, “Be Nice or Leave”. It is fine to be competitive, but have fun. You are competitors in the round, but you should be friends outside of the round. Being a jerk in the round will not lead to friendships and it will definitely hurt your speaker points.

I competed in Speech and Debate for four years. Most of my experience is in Parliamentary debate, but I have competed in Policy as well.

I can handle speed, but am not a fan of spreading as a tactic. To me, trying to win simply because your opponent cannot address all of your points means that you do not think that your arguments could hold up if they were actually debated, so proceed with caution.

Impacts are very important to me. If you do not tell me why I should care about a point, then I will assume that it is not particularly important. If you impact out your contentions, then you will capture my interest more, meaning you will have a better chance at convincing me.

I am okay with K's, but they need to be well explained and well reasoned. If I feel that you are running a K to avoid the real argument, then I will likely vote you down. 

Be careful with topicality arguments. I understand that they are often necessary, but if they are not needed to improve debate, I will be a very unhappy judge, which we all know is not good for anyone. If you use them, you must prove that your definitions will improve fairness or education of debate. If you do not sufficiently prove this, I will disregard your definitions.

I like contention level arguments. If none of these are made, you have very little chance of winning my vote.

I try to disregard my own biases and knowledge when judging, so if you feel that something your opponent said was factually incorrect, call them out on it or I will regard it as true for the round (and correct them later).

Basically, I want you to have an educated debate about the topic (which I hope everybody wants to have). If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

UPDATE CAL 2024

I haven't judged a debate in over three years. I don't really think I have any coherent thoughts on substance of debates anymore but I do think I am more ardent in the belief that it should be about whatever you want it to be as long as you're able to explain it to me.

UC Berkeley 2018

East Kentwood Highschool 2016

Put me on the chain:

michaelobuchi@gmail.com

I like:

warrants, line by line, effort and humor

I don't like:

rudeness

I will hold the line on:

speech times, evidence quality and clipping

General Thoughts – I try to be as tab as possible. However, I think everyone inevitably comes in with some preconceived notions about debate. Don’t feel like you have to adapt to my preferences--you should do whatever you do best. But if what you do best happens to be judge adaptation, here are some of my thoughts:

Framework – All I ask is that you engage each other's interpretations and arguments--don’t just read and extend. Look to my comments on topicality if you're interested in how I try to evaluate standards-based debate.

Case Debate – I think case-specific strategies that integrate intelligent on-case arguments into the 1NC can be really compelling.

DA/CPs – The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.

Critiques – Most persuasive when they interact explicitly with the 1AC/2AC. For example, I like specific 2NC link analysis (doesn’t necessarily need to be carded) that points to arguments being made in the 1AC/2AC, and I like 2NC attempts to gain in roads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency. I'm fine with critical affirmatives so long as you explain the significance of voting affirmative. A general note: given that I'm trying to evaluate your arguments as though I'm hearing them for the first time, please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other type of argument, but like all other positions, there are central issues that the 2NR needs to resolve in order for me to vote on T. If neither team articulates a framework within which I can vote, then I’ll default to competing interpretations, but I’d much rather not have to default to anything. Assuming I’m voting in a competing interpretations framework, I think of standards as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means comparative impact calculus has a huge place in a 2NR that’s going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative.

Theory – Please engage the other team's arguments--don't just read blocks and talk past one another. If you expect to win on theory (independently), you should probably give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits rejection of the team, and not just the argument.

Nontraditional Debate – As long as I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that I feel both teams can reasonably be expected to meet, you can do whatever you'd like.

In Round Decorum – Don’t be mean. Try to have fun.

Speed – As long as you’re clear, I’m fine with speed.

Speaker Points – 28.5 is average. I'll add points for things like clarity and efficiency, and I'll subtract points for particularly messy debating.

If you have any specific questions, please ask. Feel free to email me after round with questions: miles.owens43@gmail.com

I debated policy and LD at Lynbrook for 4 years and also some NPDA parli at UCLA. The best thing in debate for me was to have a critic with an open mind and the ability to listen to anything. I'll try to be this critic and always make my rfd based on how you tell me to frame the round provided.

T
I'm a huge fan of good T debates but please signpost well and slow down from your top speed.

Theory
Have an interpretation and articulate voters early in the round. The more time you spend on theory in the constructives, the more comfortable I'll be pulling the trigger.

CP/DA
I often went for agent cp/ptx as the 2N and believe that counterplan+disad strategy is one of the best answers to most policy affs. If you're reading politics, make sure to win the uniqueness debate and have solid evidence.

K
Ask me about specific K lit before the round but I've read most of the popular authors used in debate. Please warrant your arguments and focus on articulating how the alternative functions in relation to the affirmative. The K should interact with the case at a substantive level by turning some of the internal links. Also, most K debates come down to the perm so win and use the framework debate to your advantage.

Updated 4/11/23* Email: yungprk23@gmail.com

Me - I debated for Clovis North from 2012-2016. I debated for Cal from 2016-2018. Prior coach for Clovis North and BAUDL. Current coach for Leland High School.

Debate: Debate is a game, maybe it's more than just a game. I find myself adjudicating lots of these debates, and I find these discussions very interesting. Tell me what I should prefer. Some personal thoughts of mine for sake of transparency: I would like to believe that while we are all here to win, debate does have value to influence beliefs, inspire others, serve a platform for performances, and offer community for some. However, it is almost indisputable that competition, maybe for the sake of gamesmanship or maybe not, sustains the activity because it enables debaters to do what they need to do to win. Other side notes: I am indifferent to either a 9 off or 1 off strat, but what you decide to do might demonstrate some validity for conditionality arguments. Teams that treat their speeches as a story rather than a speech doc tend to be more engaging.

Topicality: The more you articulate your impacts or what the neg ground looks like in the world of the affirmative the better. If you want to run more than 3 T arguments, be my guest. Though when teams do this, explanations naturally tend to become repetitive. I will let the debaters choose if I will be weighing competing interpretations over reasonability or vice versa as long as you give a reason why one is better than the other.

Disads: Impact framing such as time frame and case turns are very persuasive arguments to me. External impacts also help me weigh the disad easily.

Counterplans: Do read solvency cards, or at least have a clear articulation of how the CP solves the aff. I don't necessarily need a specific solvency card if exploiting a plan flaw or reading a PIC. Net benefits to the CP vs external add-ons against the CP are often where I hang my decisions. Affirmatives should use their advantages as disads to the CP and pick out solvency deficits from the counterplan text.

Theory: It's a strategic procedural argument. I don't necessarily have strong feelings toward any theoretical positions. I am okay with teams reading 10 off or PICs that do the aff and spend 1 less dollar. However, this gives the other team more credibility if they read theory, but you could care less if you feel confident defending your position. I judge theory the same as I judge any other argument on the flow ie: impact calculus.

Framework/K Affs: - I've been on both sides of the argument, and I tend to judge these debates the majority of the time. For framework, offensive reasons why your interpretation matters in the debate and what the aff does to affect the general principles of the game. I am persuaded by arguments that list what specific affs under their counter-interp explode the limits of the topic. TVA's gain a large advantage over your opponents for strategic reasons. Both theoretical and substantive framework are great so long as you demonstrate your impacts whether that be fairness, movements, etc. Fairness can be a terminal impact. However, fairness can also not be an impact. Tell me what I should think of fairness and persuade me. Otherwise, movements/policy education are also great impacts. For K affirmatives, have some relationship to the topic whether that be negative or positive. Explain why you chose not to go through with traditional policy affirmatives and/or what model of debate you envision to be better. Impact turning framework or having internal link turns with residual offense are absolutely fine arguments.

Kritiks: Most of my experience lies here, but that doesn't mean i'll favor or give you leverage on your arguments in any way, it just means I know the literature enough to give better feedback and etc. High theory is strategic and fine but do be careful about buzzwords that aren't explained and assumed to be made true. Kritiks must be context specific to the aff. Just some of the authors I have knowledge of that might be useful: Marx, Wilderson, Lacan, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Moten, Kroker, Puar, etc.

Performance: Can be very strategic and enjoyable. However, you must have reasons why your performance was good and necessary. I will not allow speech times to be broken or interrupted, mid-round coach interventions, or anything silly of that sort - debate is an argumentative competition, just beat them at it.

Case: Probably one of the most underrated arguments people go for nowadays. I think case-turns, impact defense and solvency deficits are perfect. They lower the threshold of any risk to vote aff as well as give me reasons to weigh your other off-case positions more. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.

LD/Public Forum/Parli: I will likely view the debate from a policy perspective. This does not mean you have to change your style of debate. For example, this does not mean LD debaters need to change their value-value criterion structure and the same applies for public forum and parli. After all, you should do what you do best. However, because of my policy background, technicality and quality of evidence is super important to me. You may also decide to spread and/or read a plan, counterplans, disads, kritiks, and performative arguments. I will vote on these arguments even if unconventional in the practice. However, the other side may assert a theoretical argument that spreading has no place in a non-policy context. They could also assert a framework argument that policy and critical debates are bad alternative models of debate. If you do lean into a policy/K debate, then please feel free to read the rest of my paradigm above. In short, I am fair game and will evaluate such arguments as long as it is justified.

General Notes:

- Ask permission to record

- Don't clip cards

- Have fun! I recognize debate is competitive, but life is much more than debate. There is a clear line between passion and aggression. Give the proper respect to the other team and if for some reason this becomes a problem, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

Add me to the email chain please: vitoperez117@gmail.com

Please email me any questions regarding my decision. On the Subject line, please provide the name of the tournament, your team code, and the round number.

Experience
Bravo Medical Magnet HS (2010-2013)

UC Irvine (2013-14): 2014 NDT Qualifier and 2014 CEDA Octafinals

Overview

My ideal debate has
a) well-researched positions that are communicated clearly, concisely and are easily flowable, and

b) direct refutation of arguments that can be visualized on the flow.

Line-by-line refutation is most preferred. Grouping arguments is acceptable if you identify what premise they all share that you are refuting.

The literature bases I’m most familiar with are around afropessimism, settler colonialism, capitalism, whiteness, biopolitics, semiotics, and (some) psychoanalysis.

Prerequisites to earning the Ballot:

1.) Be Clear: This is a communication activity. You are persuading the judge. I'm slightly hard of hearing, so if I can't understand you, I'll say "CLEAR". I will repeat only twice per debater. Lack of clarity will reduce speaker points and will make it difficult to flow and genuinely understand the argument. This rule is most important during OVERVIEWS and ANALYTICS.

SLOW DOWN for Plan texts, Counterplan texts, Advocacy texts, Permutation texts, and PIC/PIK texts. If I have to look at the speech document for the TEXT, I will remove half a speaker point. This is a speech activity. If it weren't, we would only need to share word documents over email and we wouldn't need to be physically present at tournaments.

Speaking for/over your partner (or puppeteering them) will reduce both of your speaks. Debaters should be able to speak for themselves in a speech activity.

2.) Complete the argument: A complete argument contains a claim, warrant, and evidence. An incomplete argument will be flowed for reference but ultimately will not be evaluated. If an argument is completed in a constructive, I will evaluate it. If it is completed in a rebuttal, it is a new argument and I will not evaluate it.

3.) Explain Key Theories/Concepts: Assume I am a lay judge who only knows how to flow. Do not assume that my familiarity with certain literature bases will allow you to skip over explaining key philosophical, economic, or political concepts and chains of logic. Doing so risks skipping warrants, which means you've made an incomplete argument that I will not evaluate. Returning to the first prerequisite of clarity, if you are not clear I might not completely understand the concepts you explained. Then, your warrants and analytics might be absent on my flow. Don't let that happen.

Also, DO NOT use abbreviations or acronyms until you have spelled them out for me. Do not leave me to guess. I might not flow it.

4.) Tell me who I am: Role of the Judge. Dictate to me how I ought to view the round--as a policymaker, a critic, an educator, a revolutionary, etc. Otherwise, my default position is to evaluate the round as a policy-maker. I have spent too much time post-round thinking about how to weigh impacts and advocacies that clash and are both well-researched. Do not leave me at the end of the round with my biases.

5.) Tell me what the ballot does: Role of the Ballot. Dictate to me what the purpose of the ballot ought to be: for example, does it simply go to the team that did the better debating or does it change the structure of debate or the debate community? Moreover, what the ballot ought to do/be depends on what DEBATE should be about. In short, delineate your model of debate (what debate should be about) and defend why we should affirm that model of debate.

6.) Tech over Truth: I will only evaluate what is said in the round not what I know outside the round. Prioritizing truth claims relies on judge intervention which nullifies the argumentation within the round and the purpose of the activity. Prioritizing tech minimizes judge intervention because the argumentation in the round determines the ballot.

Specifics

Aff/Neg Roles: The affirmative must change the status quo via fiat or performance. The 1AC must make the status quo net better. The negative must prove the affirmative either DOES NOT change the status quo or makes the status quo net worse. Sounds too basic but is a fundamental theoretical issue about the model of debate that debaters gloss over with statements like "we only need to prove the aff is a good/bad idea".

I find myself wanting to vote Neg on presumption in debates in which the Aff does not meet the burden of changing the status quo or does not provide a counter-interpretation to "changing the status quo". To clarify, I won't vote on presumption if the argument is not made.

I believe the neg should have the status quo as an option, only if the neg makes this argument. Unless the debate becomes a method vs method debate, the focus of the debate is the 1AC's effects on the status quo.

Framework: Tell me why I ought to prefer your model of the debate. The more comparative the standards and impact debate, the better. For example, tell me whose scholarship/pedagogy should be preferred with clear disads to the other team’s education claims. As a judge, I do not take a position on the structural fairness vs procedural fairness debate, except that fairness (structural or procedural) should be explained as an impact in and of itself. Otherwise, I am likely to interpret fairness as an internal link to an impact waiting to be articulated.

Topicality/Theory: Will vote on it but my threshold is high because in the debates I've judged, abuse in-round is not clearly articulated (or that it's potentially abusive) or it is unclear what kind of ground the aff destroyed or the extent to which the negative was unable to generate substantial clash or the aff killed education on topic literature. If neg definitively proves in-round abuse, I'll vote on T.

Topical versions of the Aff are extremely persuasive because they prove that the 1AC's content is non-competitive with topicality, which means that being un-topical is not uniquely key to access 1AC offense. Neg doesn't have to prove solvency; only that the content and performance of the 1AC is not competitive with affirming the resolution.

Disadvantages: I’m not always familiar with abbreviations so please explain them at least once. For politics debates, I like case-specific specific links. If you only have generic links available, contextualize the links to the warrants and evidence of the 1AC or the warrants and premises you have elicited from the cross-ex of the 1AC. Returning to the third issue of explanation, explain the economic and political concepts that prove the disad.

Counterplans: Slow down substantially so I could catch the full CP text instead of relying on CX to clarify for me or waiting throughout the debate for the text to be fleshed out. Solve for your net benefits, don't link to them. I don’t dislike any specific CP. Agent, consult, delay CPs...I could vote on them.

Plan-Inclusive Counterplans/Kritiks: May or may not be abusive. I will consider voting on it if neg proves textual and functional competition. If aff does not impact a lack of such competition, then the PIC is legitimate. Provide an impact to "Mooting the 1AC". Provide defense for this impact.

Kritiks: Do not depend on tag-lines and buzzwords for explanatory power. Be well-read on your literature base. If I recognize that you mischaracterize, oversimplify, or misunderstand the thesis of the K, your speaks will decrease.

Starting point debates/Root Cause debates: I evaluate these debates just like a framework debate: competing models of structural analysis. Thus, I compare standards/net benefits. If your analysis has a wider scope, why is that good? If it has a narrower scope, why is that good? If your starting point historically precedes the other team's starting point, why does that mean I should prefer your starting point. I ask these questions because these are the questions I am left with at the end of the debate. Dictate to me the criteria for comparing starting points. Without it, you are asking me to intervene with my own analysis. Don't do that.

Alternatives: By the 1NR, it should be clear how the alt solves. Whether this is via fiat or via scholarship (epistemological/ontological model) should be established BY THE BLOCK.

If something happens in-round and one team argues that the other's performance/language/etc is problematic in some form, explain how the significance of this issue outweighs the rest of the debate (i.e. why should I pay attention to this before analyzing the debate itself)--which means engaging in the framework debate.

If this is a new argument in the rebuttals, you have a higher threshold for proving why this outweighs the rest of the debate or why I should/can moot the 1AC.

Conclusion

Debate ought to encourage safety, fairness, and education.

Everyone should feel as safe and comfortable as the community can make itself to be, even though safety and comfort are effects of power and are not equitably distributed.

Debaters should be able to substantially engage with the topic and each other. Please disclose arguments and evidence properly. Please share enough with the other team before the round so they can understand and at least attempt to make arguments.

Everyone should be able to learn from the activity, win or lose.

The team that violates any of these tenets will be denied the ballot.

Donny Peters

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

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

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

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For LD

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

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

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Notre Dame in CA (2011-2015); University of San Francisco (BA in Psychology); JD from UC Davis School of Law (2022). Previously taught 4 classic week labs at University of Michigan Debate Camp.

Update for 2024 TOC: Currently am an attorney and I judge here and there. I judged a few rounds at Long Beach this year, but have not judged rounds since then.

tldr: I'll judge anything but I like policy debates more. Just make warranted arguments and tell me how I should vote and why.

Newest thoughts:

- steal prep and I'm docking points

- don't make your opponent send you a marked doc for just 1-2 marked cards - that is something you should be tracking - I notice this is something teams do and then they just use the time to keep prepping their next speeches

General Notes:

1. I am definitely very, very flow oriented. I flow on paper and care a lot about structure. That being said, to have a full argument you need to make a claim, warrant, and impact. If those things aren't there, I'd rather not do the work for you and reward the team that did.

2. Other than that, you do you. I'm down to listen to anything you want to talk about if you can defend it well.

3. I'm super easy to read. If I'm making faces, it's probably because I am confused or can't understand what you're saying. If I'm nodding, that is generally a good thing.

4. Be good people. There's nothing I hate more than people being unnecessarily rude.

5. There is always a risk of something, but a low risk is almost no risk in my mind when compared to something with a high risk.

6. I'll always prioritize good explanation of things over bad cards. If you don't explain things well and I have to read your evidence and your evidence sucks, you're in a tough spot. That being said, I would rather not call for cards, but if you think that there is a card that I simply need to read, then say so in your speech.

7. Tasteful jokes/puns are always accepted. They can be about anything/anyone (ie Jacob Goldschlag) as long as its funny :)

Topicality: I love topicality debates because they're techy and force debaters to really explain what they are talking about in terms of impacts. That being said, 2nr's/2ar's really need to focus on the impact debate and explain to me why education is an impact or why I should prefer a limited topic over an unlimited one. Reasonability is debatable. I was a 2n in high school and I lean towards a more limited topic, but I'm very easily persuaded otherwise.

K Aff's: I am very convinced by most framework arguments on the negative side. I think that K aff's need to be closer to the resolution than not and I do not think that many of them are. However, this does not mean that I will not vote for a K aff; I just have had trouble understanding the proliferation of Baudrillard and Bataille affs, so if you are aff, you will definitely need to be doing a higher level of experience. I think Cap K's versus these aff's can be very persuasive, but I also think Framework makes a lot of sense if the aff isn't topical. That being said, do you and make smart args. I'm not the most literate in a lot of high-theory literature, so if you want to play that game in front of me, do it BUT explain your theories and I'll catch on quick.Framework: I think that "traditional" framework debates fall prey to a big exclusion DA from the aff. I think we should be able to talk about K affs and that they should be included in the topic - HOWEVER I believe that K aff's do need to prove that they are topical in some way. I lean more towards the neg in framework debates because I do think that many K aff's have little to do with the topic, but there have been so many times when K aff's actually engage the topic in a great way. That being said, on the aff be closer to the resolution and on the neg, explain how your interpretation and model of debate interacts with the aff. Most teams forget that the aff will always try to weigh their impacts against framework, which sucks because it is hard to resolve real world impacts versus theoretical arguments about fairness and education.

Theory: I will most likely lean neg on most theory questions unless a CP is simply very, very abusive, but even those can be defended sometimes :)

Disads: I love disads, specifically the politics DA. Prioritize impact work! Despite my love for DA's, most of them are dumb and you can easily convince me that they are dumb even using analytics and indicting the neg's evidence. However, I still love DA's and wish I got to go for them more in high school. Good politics debates make me happy.

Counterplans: Everything is debatable in terms of theory, so do you. If a CP is very abusive, hopefully the aff says so. If the aff concedes planks of your CP, you should make sure you say that. I think all CP's need a solvency advocate, otherwise it will be hard for the neg to win solvency and potentially theory.

Kritiks: I really like the K when the link debate is specific and I can articulate a SPECIFIC link and reasons why the aff is bad. Fair warning - I am not the most literate in high-theory arguments. This doesn't mean I won't listen to your Baudrillard K's, but it means that I have a very high threshold for SPECIFIC links and also simple explaination of the argument since I will most likely be confused until you explain yourself. The neolib k was my baby in high school and I think it answers everything. Security was Notre Dame's main thing when I was there so go for that too. Teams need to explain what I need to prioritize first, whether that is epistemology, reps, framework, or whatever, just make sure you say so! I don't like overviews and I am a big believe in putting your link and impact work where it makes sense on the line by line because it will always make sense somewhere.

Put me on your email chains: pointer.debate@gmail.com

I am done with trying to use your speech docs to fill in tags. You need to recognize that there is an expectation of clarity, even when we're debating remotely.

Early thoughts on the criminal justice reform topic, or at least K affs on the criminal justice reform topic:

I find myself much less persuaded by the claim to need to read an aff that refuses to directly engage with the topic than in previous years. The argument that you must refuse to engage with the state as a survival strategy/mode of alternative political organization seems to me to be subject to a higher degree of scrutiny when the topic allows you to abolish prisons or police. This leads me to presume much more that affirmatives that rely on the carceral or policing as metaphor, or just say that policing/prisons are a product of modernity and thus modernity must be abolished because the state/civil society are always bad are much more about the strategic advantage to be gained in the debate activity than a discussion of a model of engagement/activism/thinking. I'm predisposed to be persuaded that the aff getting to abolish prisons/police/etc. is probably good enough aff ground. Does this mean that I think teams have to defend the process of implementation in a traditional fashion? Debateable. It does, however, mean that I should think the 1AC should be willing to commit to defending a reform in policing or sentencing. But seriously, this isn't the arms control topic. Prison abolition or eliminating policing is the topical version of the affirmative. I feel like I will hold your inevitable "but reforms are always bad" claims to a higher standard this year.

This likely may cause me to alter my position on the nature of T/Framework as concerns the fairness/model of debate question. I find it far less compelling that a metaphorical interpretation of the topic language, or some pessimism, or a connection to an analogous logic is part of a strategy of activism/critical thinking rather than an attempt to gain advantage in a debate on this topic (as opposed to other topics). My thoughts on this will likely develop more throughout the year.

And if the Baudrillard aff is still your thing, and you refuse to change that on this topic for whatever reason (I have my theories) please reconsider. I've been generous to you in the past, but come on.

Previous random thoughts and rants:

Debate is better when claims come from some form of evidence. This expanding trend of taking the K in the 2NC, not reading any cards (or 1-2 max) and asserting claims like "the state is always bad" and "humanism is always bad" is not really appealing to me. I don't start the debate with a predisposition to think those arguments are already decided, and I don't find your assertion persuasive. You need some evidence to back up those claims. That being said, I'm pretty open to alternative forms of evidence and will do my best to evaluate them, but there has to be something there.

I've been coaching debate for quite a while now, and I've coached teams that run just about everything. I've judged debates about most things as well, so the odds are that you won't be doing anything that I'm not somewhat familiar with. That being said, I find myself less willing than I used to be to unpack your buzzword-laden cryptic statements about continental philosophy or psychoanalytic concepts. If your strategy revolves around obfuscation or deferral, I am not the most sympathetic judge for you. If you are talking about Lacan, I have a higher burden of explanation than you are probably meeting. I also find rejection as an isolated concept to be a generally uncompelling alternative absent some development.

Debate is a game, but it is a game that needs to have some value. Therefore, any good debate practice should be both fair and educational, but the content of such education and the neutrality claims of procedural fairness become internal links, not terminal impacts, once contested. In other words, be able to defend the value of your model of debate, and you'll have a much better chance in front of me when the opponent offers a different model of debate.

Most of you would be better off slowing down, especially on tags and analytics and overviews. Seriously, most of you read them like they're cards, which just makes them unflowable. Typing time and mental processing time are real things that judges need. I know you are just flowing the speech doc, but please don't make me do that too. Be slow enough that you can be clear.

Now to the stuff you actually care about:

Can I read the K? Yes. But please have a better link than the state or civil society. The more germane you are to the topic, the better.

Can I read a K aff? Yes

Does that K aff have to be about the resolution? It should be. I've been persuaded that it doesn't matter in some debates, but I am going to be skeptical about aff claims about that on this topic, see the initial rant above. Questions of process or implementation are generally up for debate.

Will you vote on framework/T against K affs? Yes. However, you probably need to make inroads against the aff's structural fairness claims about the world to have a shot. I am generally more persuaded by engagement/institutions arguments than fairness arguments, but have voted for both. I think the value of fairness in debate often begs a larger question about the value of the model of debate that particular claims to procedural fairness would preserve, and I'm open to hearing that debate. I think debates about the merits of ending mass incarceration, abolishing prisons, or defunding police are much better and more educational debates than debates about the negative struggling to find a link because the aff refuses to defend abolition.

Can I read a "traditional" policy aff and not automatically lose to the K? Yes. I don't think that because you said the word "reform" that the permutation debate is always already over.

Conditionality? It's good. Contradictory conditional advocacies, however, are probably not. Note that a K that links to the CP as well as the plan probably does not meet this threshold of being a contradiction in this sense. Your 3-4 counterplans in the 1NC are probably not complete arguments, and likely haven't made a solvency argument worth comparing to the case, so those might be better arguments than conditionality. Conditionality only allows you to jettison an advocacy statement and default to the status quo or another advocacy, not the series of truth claims made on a page. Losing that conditionality is bad means at a minimum that the 2NR is stuck with the CP. Rejecting the argument makes it de facto conditional, thus rewarding teams for losing conditionality debates.

Theory arguments? Be clear when you present them. Everything other than conditionality bad is probably a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Judge kick? Not by default. If you make the argument and win it, sure I'll kick the CP for you. Otherwise, you made your choice and I won't default to giving you a second 2NR in my judging.

I like smart, strategic debate and quality evidence. I give pretty clear nonverbals when I can't understand you, either because of clarity or comprehension. I'm not above yelling clear if I have to. Policy teams, your highlighting is bad. K teams, your tags are unflowable.

Despite our best efforts to avoid it, sometimes clash accidentally occurs and a debate breaks out. Be prepared.

About Me: Debated for Notre Dame HS (Sherman Oaks, CA) 2012-2016. Quarterfinals of the TOC in 2015. Top Speaker at NDCA Championships 2015

Favorite Debaters and Coaches: Christina Tallungan, Andres Gannon, Andrew Markoff, Hemanth Sanjeev, Elsa Givan, Ryan Wash, Harry Aaronson, Aron Berger, Alex Miles, Natalie Knez, John Spurlock

General Notes: Down for whatever, just do your thing and do it well. Haven't judged in a while (Berkeley will be my first tournament of the 2018-2019 school year) so go a tad slow and assume I know nothing about the topic. I generally was policy in high school but also went for k's (mostly security) a lot. Generally tech over truth. Went for almost everything in high school at least once, including t, politics, security, heidegger, wilderson, anthro, and framework.

I don't have a personal preference for debate style, I'm interested in your content and interactions. I will flow as you all clarify, otherwise I will default to standard practices. I want you to practice the freedom to think critically, don't like an argument? Tell me why and impact it out. Don't like frameworks of debate? Tell me why, impact it out, also love alternatives but don't need them to win. Think I should toss the ballot? Same deal. Please practice respect for one another, this does factor into speaker points for me.

UC Berkeley '21

I used to debate at Berkeley.

Tech > Truth.

Be clear.

I don't care what arguments you read.

I will read evidence at the end of the round, but that is not an excuse for lazy debating. No, I will not do work for you - no matter what your arg is.

I have never done LD.

Put me on the email chain: rahulramesh0907@gmail.com

Edit for 2021 TOC: I tend to be placed in clash debates, so here are some thoughts: I think the best iterations of FW are ones that deploy skills/testing impacts as solvency turns to the affirmative. The best way to approach debating a K aff is to make smart, technical arguments about the internal link level of the affirmative, paired with a robust turns case argument and some external impact that only your interpretation can solve. This will often shield you from the 2AR using the impact turn as a battering ram against all of your offense.

Conversely...dear K 2As...even if the 2NR doesn't make the above arguments remember that the aff exists outside of the impact turn. You are telling a meaningful story that happens to disagree with the pedagogical model that the other team has forwarded NOT the other way around. This means that you must be answering the following questions during the debate with absolute clarity.

What does the aff do? Why is it key in debate? What does your ideal form of debate look like? Why is that form the only acceptable one to deal with the issues you've brought to attention? Why is your offense against FW intrinsically tethered to their model of debate? etc etc etc

Topicality- Things that will help you out:

1) explaining which affs we should be debating and why

2) which affs they allow that would be bad to have to debate

3) which arguments we should be debating and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion, etc.

I think T debates aren't as great when offense is deployed generically. Contextualize, contextualize, contextualize!

If you are going for FW -

a) have a robust defense of your interp (clear internal link explanations)

b) if fairness is your jam take heed! I think fairness is important, but it's likely not enough outweigh whatever impact turn they're about to go for.

c) perhaps more importantly, impact calc. I think it's generally strategic for FW args to have external impacts outside of fairness, but if that's your thing just comparatively explain why it matters.

DAs/CPs- love them.

Counterplans are awesome. Treat them well and all will be well. However, treat them poorly (not clearly establishing a sufficiency framing, not doing ev comparison, etc etc etc) and... you will likely not win the round.

I'll only kick the counterplans if you tell me to. The neg gets condo. Any other theory stuff is up to debate.

Don’t take counterplan competition for granted, take clever perms seriously. Politics debates- affs, several plan popular cards does not a link turn make - uniqueness is a thing.

Impact calc. Please. Maybe even pretty please. This will win you close debates, because it's all about the spin.

Ks- love them

Long ranty overviews and generic link walls are generally a waste of everyone's time. K debate reveals its intellectual potential when the debaters are committed to the literature and when a team has a unique angle against the aff. If you're doing this, it'll be pretty clear.

Affs will do well by reading as much specific evidence about the neg’s author/-ism as possible.

K affs are great too. Yes, I am more than willing to vote against you on framework. Everything about debate is how well thought through your argument is. Just because you aren't defending the resolution in a traditional sense, that doesn't mean you don't have to defend the consequences of your model of debate. I value narrative cohesion in debates - that's especially true in FW debates. Judge instruction in the 2NR or 2AR will make my life easier and probably win you the debate.

Cross-x- It’s where a lot of evidence comparison happens now. Being smart here can win or lose you the debate. It's also a great speaker point booster.

You are all smart. Be confident and have fun.

mcqspeechanddebate@gmail.com

37th year in the activity; lawyer and elected official these days…

Issues:

-I vote for things that I don't like, the debate is yours to make what you will. That does not mean I have no opinions.

-T: compare evidence and impact T like a DA.

-Things I am unlikely to vote for: ticky-tacky debate; Inherency, "speed kills", claims without warrants, poorly debated T violations, "multiple perms bad".

Read a topical plan----------------------X--------------------say anything

Tech-----------------x-------------------------Truth

Usually some risk---------x---------------------------------Zero Risk

Conditionality Good--------------------X----------------------Conditionality Bad

States CP Good------X------------------------------------States CP Bad

Process CPs------------------X------------------------Ew Process CPs

Competing off immediacy/certainty---------------x---------------------------No

Politics DAs are a thing-------------------x-----------------------Good Politics DAs are a thing

Reasonability-----------------------------------x-------Competing Interps

Limits-----------------x-------------------------Aff Ground

Read every card----------x--------------------------------Read no cards

Lots of evidence--------------------------------------x----Lots of good evidence

Judge Kick---------------------x---------------------Stuck with the CP

Reject the Team--------------X----------------------------Reject the Arg

CPs need cards--------------------------------------x----Smart CPs can be cardless

Competition is based off the plan----x--------------------------------------Neg gets to define the plan

Fiat solves circumvention---------------x---------------------------Trump's President

K alts need to do something-------------------------------X-----------but you're asking the wrong question

K links about the plan---------------X---------------------------K links about a broad worldview

Have fun and be kind.

affiliations/info:

previously: 2x qualified to the toc, won some debates, Berkeley '20, assistant head of ms speech and debate for harker.

more importantly, now: UChicago Law '24, am less "in debate" than i previously was.

my email is sarahhroberts@berkeley.edu – please put me on the email chain!

for novices/new debaters:

- do what makes you comfortable! debate is a ridiculous activity and the best part of it is that you get to say and argue whatever you want. if that looks like a lot of case arguments, great! if that is topicality and a disad, also great! i will listen to your arguments and give you feedback regardless of what you do :--)

tdlr: you should not pref me if:

- you intentionally don’t disclose

- your strategies rely heavily on friv theory/tricks

- you are going to be rude and uninterested in the debate

- your strategies rely primarily on personal attacks of other debaters

- you find yourself postrounding judges for egregiously long times after the rfd

- you read nebel t but 1. do not have an explanation of why semantics is the best frame for debate and or 2. do not understand the linguistic basis of semantics/pragmatics. this is the one thing my linguistics degree has given me.... i have an incredibly high baseline for this!

tldr: you should pref me if:

- you do not do the above

- you like high theory

- you like going 6 off w tricky cps + disads

- you like well researched politics scenarios

online debate:

- record your speeches -- if you, me, or an opponent cuts out, you don't get to re-do the speech -- you only get to send the local copy you made.

- please monitor the chat so that if there's a technical error we can adjust as quickly as possible

- if you are debating w your camera off then i will similarly be judging w my camera off.

- see Rodrigo Paramo's paradigm for essentially all my thoughts on online debate

unsortable thoughts:

· IMPORTANT: flex prep means asking questions during prep time - in no world does unused cx time become prep time - what????? you get your 4 (or 5) minutes that's it no more of this nonsense

· larp>>good k debate>>>theory heavy debate>>bad k debate>>tricks and phil

· i flow cx -- that means i’m exhausted of the arg that "cx doesn't check because judges don't flow it", that doesn't mean you don't need to make the arguments you establish in your actual speech.

· i’m not into postrounding. this includes but is not limited to: talking at me for thirty minutes, trying to re-read your 2a/nr at me, sending me excessive emails about why you think my decision is wrong. if you have had me in the back and have postrounded me every time, you should... maybe think about redoing your pref sheet!

· explain what perm do both looks like (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

· if you want/will need me to look at an interp/counterinterp/perm you read, those things must be sent within the speech doc. i will hold you to what is written, or you will risk me just evaluating the words I heard -- that also means no shifty changing in cx!!

· given how clear it is to me that no one can really flow a debate round as it is delivered based on prep time just becoming a spec review, you are fine to toss out a "slow" at your opponents if you can't flow/understand at their top speed. this is better than you asking 1000 clarification questions during your prep time.

specifics:

speaks --

total average, at present, is a 28.53. i have never given a 30. no ceiling on excellence!

things that help speaks: technical competence, numbering, getting the round started on time, good articulation of k lit, bataille, irigaray.

things that hurt speaks: making unstrategic decisions, no explanation of arguments, messy overviews, messy speeches, morally heinous arguments, unclear spreading of theory blocks.

general --

· if the 2nr is split, it will hurt your speaker points

· i will evaluate judge kick arguments

· please slow down on theory

· bracketing is not good, disclosure definitely is. be reasonable here though -- if your opponent literally has never heard of the wiki and you immediately try to crush them on disclosure theory, i will be unhappy :<

· i am not very persuaded by frivolous theory arguments and will hold responses to a lower level of depth than with well developed, pertinent theory args. if you have to ask me if a theory arg is frivolous before the round i think you probably know what the answer is.

· rvis – primarily on topicality – are not persuasive to me

k affs –

things you need to do when you’re reading these sorts of affs

· utilize 1ac ev through the whole debate and contextualize your answers to the theories in your aff

· explain exactly what the aff does/aims to do – are you working towards a paradigmatic shift in how we approach (x) policy or are you criticizing the structure of debate itself? what does voting aff do to resolve those issues?

· understand that teams sometimes just read framework because they don’t know how else to necessarily engage your aff.

· have good background knowledge... i'm so unenthused by people who pull out their ~fire~ baudrillard aff and then make args about creating meaning being good... like what? i will you to a high standard of background knowledge and contextualization/explanation.

i feel more qualified to judge high theory args than i do performances or args centered on individual identity.

fw vs k affs –

my record shows me leaning slightly more neg on framework vs k affs (maybe around 60/40?) presuming you’re not reading fairness impacts (in which case it drops to like 30/70). i think arguments about the specific mobilization/utilization of skills gained uniquely from debate tend to be much more convincing. things i’d like to see in these debates:

· examples of how movements outside of the political sphere have used political knowledge to further their cause

· reasons why knowing about the way legal systems work/interact is good

· a defense of fiat/hypothetical discussions of policies

· contextualized case arguments (which can often answer back for the “they didn’t engage us” claims)

policy affs vs ks –

too many teams pivot to the left when they hear a k in the 1nc. just defend what you did in the 1ac and explain why it’s good. some things that i think are important to do in these debates:

· win framework/win fiat/win why hypothetical discussions of policies are good

· answer the long k overview from the 2nc

· be able to explain/give examples of what the permutation will look like (you definitely get a perm)

· actually debate the k rather than just reading author indicts

· not back down from big stick impacts. you know what ground you get against literally every baudrillard k? heg good.

ks –

you need to have background knowledge of the lit and arguments, i will know if you just pulled a backfile out or haven't engaged with the lit in necessary ways! i only ever went one off in high school so i will expect a high level of articulation from you in regards to explaining your arguments and contextualizing them to the aff specifically. some things i’d like to see in a k debate

· specific quotes being pulled from the 1ac on the 2nc link debate

· technical debating rather than reading a 6 min o/v and saying it answers all the aff arguments

· having a good, in-depth explanation of the theory of your argument/why and how it interacts with the aff in cx when asked about it

· bataille

some authors i have read/continue to read in my free time/am knowledgeable about (bets are off for anyone not listed) ranked from most liked to “ehhhh”:

irigaray (bring her back), bataille, lacan/psychoanalysis, baudrillard, spanos (bring him back), berlant, edelman, deleuze/deleuze and guattari

disads –

i love seeing a well debated disad as much as i love seeing a well debated critique. i think it is really important to have good evidence and good analysis in these debates.

i am less familiar with very specific political processes disads so i may need more explanation of those whether that occurs in a quick 2nc overview or in cx given the opportunity. some things i’d like to see:

· good case engagement along with the disad. this means good impact calc as well as judge instruction

· clear explanation of the political scenario you're reading if it's a politics disad, clear analysis on the link chains if it's not a politics disad

· actual cards after the 1nc

counterplans –

i’ll grant you leniency in how shifty your counterplans can be. i think really specific counterplans are one of the greatest things to see in debate.

· if you cut your cp evidence from 1ac evidence/authors you’ll get a boost in speaks!

· i also think (specific, not generic word) piks/pics are pretty underutilized -- especially against k affs – i’d love to see more of these.

· i don’t think explanation-less "perm do the counterplan" or "perm do the aff" are legit.

theory –

less qualified to judge these debates imo, but will still listen to them. please slow down and don't spread through blocks -- i'll stop flowing if i can't understand it.

i have no tolerance for frivolous theory. if you are reading arguments related to what your opponents wear or what esoteric word needs to be in the 1ac, i will not enjoy the debate and will most likely not vote for you!

topicality –

a good block/2nr contains a well thought out and developed interpretation of what the topic is/view of how the topic should be explained and debated in regards to specific arguments that can/cannot be justified vis a vis the topic wording.

i really like to see good lists in t debates (untopical affs made topical by the aff’s interp, clearly topical affs that are excluded by the neg’s interp, etc).

case debate –

there needs to be more of it in every debate. go for impact turns. i love dedev. recutting aff cards.... amazing. if the negative drops your case or does not spend time on it you can spend less time on it in the 1ar/2ar too!!!!

ethics –

don't clip. if your opponent is suspected of clipping, you should have a recording of it and highlighted words in the doc that are clipped. if an ethics violation is called, i will stop the round after getting evidence of the violation from the team that called it and make my decision based on the tournament invite, the ndca rules, and the round itself.

Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a@gmail.com

Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton.

thoughts

general: I will listen to anything you have to say. I need you to control how I think about what is going on in the round. Framing weighing and comparing impacts is important. Extending and debating warrants as thoroughly as the debate allows is so important to me especially in the rebuttals . Also because I feel like tech and truth determine each other. You should be able to do a lot more with less. I flow on paper so I will miss quick, short, and intricate arguments. Tell me what it is I need to be voting on and why I should vote on that thing. I am very receptive to an rfd that is straight up given to me. My rfds are broad and I don't ever really get into specifics unless asked and rarely vote on a single argument.

specifics: I like k v k and k v policy debates the most. I have the most experience with arguments about the state, racial capitalism, and the intersection of race/gender/queerness/class. I need to feel like you are politically and/or socially motivated by the world to run the k you are running for me to really be persuaded by it. I need Ks to have a strong explanation of either the world or debate. Ks on the aff need a clear method and solvency. I don't mind if this isn't as strong on the neg unless the aff makes it a thing. In k v fw rounds I need both sides to have models of debate and comparison work being done on the offense. I lean towards skills, clash, tva for the neg. Generally I need links to be as specific as possible for any kind of offense or argument. I will consider any theory argument. But if you are going for them, be as contextual to the round as possible. Frankly, 4+ off is irritating to me no shade but I live for drama so go ahead but that raises the bar for you and lowers it for the aff.

other: sorry if I get sleepy, it's probably not because of the round

Last updated 1/12/24:

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

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

CX / Policy Philosophy:

TL;DR:

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

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

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

Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality

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

Kritikal Affs

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

Case/Disads/CPs

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

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

Rebuttals

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

Misc.

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

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

Background

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

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

Public Forum Judging Philosophy:

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

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

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

A few points that might matter to you:

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

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

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

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

I debated for USC for four years and now am an assistant coach for Cal-Berkeley.

Add me on email chain please --- ideen.saiedian [at] gmail

Top Level

--  While I've done some research and judged on emissions, you should not assume I know all the acronyms or have spent a lot of time considering what the topic should look like. This is most relevant in T debates, where you will benefit from explaining how the literature, argument trends, and the direction of topic uniqueness affect the desirability of your interpretation.

--  Probably more than most judges, I believe presumption/terminal defense is possible. Proper ev and logical explanation should be applied to win a 100% takeout. Burden of proof is on the team introducing an argument. I'm very open to reasonable/less than extinction impacts.

--  I won't vote on arguments I don't understand.

--  Counterplans that have a solvency advocate, use the same agent as the aff, and compete based off the explicit mandate of the plan are legitimate. The further you deviate from this, the more I incrementally lean aff, but the negative can easily win by out-debating the aff. Perms are better way to eliminate unproductive counterplans than theory.

--  I won't kick an advocacy for the neg unless they explicitly make an argument that I can and should revert to the SQ.

Critiques

--  My voting record suggests I am a better judge for critiques than my arguments in college would reflect. Take that for what you will. Here are some of my thoughts in these debates:

--  I find myself voting for critiques more often because the aff mishandles "K tricks" in the 1AR (FW, V2L, Root Cause, Floating PIK). My threshold for answering these is low.

--  Critiques that apply their general theory to the specific claims made by the 1AC and implicate the aff's ability to solve are great and under-utilized.

--  Feasibility is an important, yet under-debated, factor in determining the desirability of critique alternatives.

--  Magnitude of a link is a relevant consideration. Too often, teams let the negative get away with a sweeping impact to a marginal and insignificant link. 

Critique Affirmatives (Non-T)

--  I believe it is possible and desirable for the affirmative to argue in favor of the resolution. If the negative competently extends a framework argument, they will be in a good position.

--  I am especially convinced by topicality arguments that "solve" the aff by identifying a legitimate topical mechanism that enables a discussion of the 1AC content.

--  Magnitude of a link is also important in T debates. I am a better judge for an aff that defends the resolution minus USFG and eliminates a politics link than I am for an aff that is in the opposite direction of the topic or largely unrelated.

--  K affirmatives that choose not to defend the resolution should have a strong defense of why the discussions they create are valuable or productive. I find many of these debates often force the negative to defend polemical positions (e.g. cap/anthro/anti-blackness explain everything in the world ever) in order to avoid losing to a permutation, which turns these rounds into a root cause impact debate and obviates a discussion of 1AC content or means/ends for action.

--  In framework debates, I find myself voting for K affs when negatives read internal links (fairness, ground, predictability) without impacts, so please impact things like ground, limits, etc. with how changing the contours of debate as a competitive activity will change the valuable things we get out of it. 

ssander@polydebate.org

Pronouns: he/him or they/them

Affiliations: La Reina (Thousand Oaks)

School strikes: Polytechnic School

Guidance for all debate activities:

Please be nice to each other. Be aware that disrespectful and discourteous behavior will result in me lowering your speaker points. I see speaker points as a way to discourage that kind of behavior.

I won't vote for you and will attempt to give you the lowest speaker points/ranking possible if you use hate speech *1 or advocate for nazism. So I guess you could say that I'm not a "tabula rasa" judge in the strict sense of the term.

Present a clear, convincing case for why you should win the debate in your rebuttal speeches. Don't expect me to do the work connecting the dots for you. Generally speaking, overviews before the line-by-line are a good place to do this work. Basically, if I have to do a lot of work to unravel who won the debate, I'm gonna be a bit displeased.

Please don't be cringe and try to steal prep time. Please keep track of each other's speech times as well as your own, as well as your own prep time.

Please don't hesitate to speak up and ask, if you have any specific questions before the debate begins! I usually like to wait until all the competitors are present before answering questions about my paradigm, so everyone has the benefit of hearing my answer at the same time, and can ask any follow-up questions.

Thank you and good luck!

Policy:

I consider myself a competent flow judge who is fine with speed as long as I can understand you. *2

When I flow, I'll typically write a summarized interpretation of your tag line, the author's name and the date of the publication, and any key warrants or words I hear you say. And when you make analytical arguments, I'll write a summarized version of it. If I think you're saying something impactful, and you're saying it slowly enough, I'll flow every word you say. Basically, I'm going to try my hardest to rely on the debaters' analyses of their own, and each others', evidence and warrants, to resolve the debate. If you force me to read the speech doc and compare evidence after the debate has ended, you did something wrong, and there's a good chance you're not going to like my decision.

If neither team presents framework arguments, I default to evaluating which team did a better job debating their side of the resolution.

I have a pretty high threshold for T arguments in the sense that I think the negative needs to present a convincing case of why they win the interp vs. counter-interp, violation, standards, and voters debates on T.

I typically evaluate most arguments in the debate using an offense-defense paradigm. I'm usually going to default to giving the aff a risk of solvency and the neg a risk of their DA if there are not any turns on the flow. It's gonna be up to you, the debaters, to do the impact calc. Basically, I want you to write my ballot for me. Let me take the easy way out!

LD:

Fine with speed. See the first paragraph above for more detail. Generally speaking, I'll evaluate the topic in the context of whichever side wins the value/value-criterion debate.

Endnotes:

*1 Not going to attempt to propose an all-encompassing definition of what constitutes hate speech. I will be relying on a "I know it when I see it" approach.

*2 If I can't understand you, I will say, "clear," once during your speech. If I can't understand you, I will not be recording any of your arguments onto my flow for the duration that you cannot be understood. If it isn't too much to ask, could you please start your first speech relatively slowly and gradually pick up speed? That allows me to get used to your voice and manner of speaking. Thank you!

You can view a prior version of my paradigm here: https://web.archive.org/web/20180503224814/https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sander%2C+Steven

Much of that is still at least somewhat relevant and applicable.

2019 Update:

Debate how you want. I'll judge too the best of my ability. I'm familiar with most any K argument (most familiar with Deluze, Queer Theory, Anti-blackness, Semiotics, Affect Theory) - I run them on the AFF and NEG. I cut quite a lot of politics updates for my teams and on occasion a tricky PIC. I think debate is not only a game but it also has many social implications. I coach for the Asian Debate League - I've coached for Blue Valley North, Debate Kansas-City, and Barstow. I currently debate for the University of Missouri-Kansas City where i'm a senior. Debate, have fun, and make sure i'm on the email chain "brennan.schartz@gmail.com"

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

I am a parent judge and I have been judging for the last 3.5 years.

I have judged 3.5 years of Policy, 2 years of Parli, and a very little bit of PF.

I will protect the flow and have experience judging fast debate, but I strongly dislike it when debaters spread and/or introduce excessive off-case arguments. Do not run Kritiks. Theories and Topicality are acceptable only if thoroughly explained. Avoid running anything more complex than that.

I will not default toward any side and I try to judge every round with no prior knowledge or biases.

Experience

Currently the Director of Debate at Casady School.

Competed at the University of Oklahoma and Owasso High School.

Put me on the e-mail chain: snidert [at] casady [dot] org

On Evidence

Evidence quality and consistency is very important to me. I can easily be convinced to disregard a piece of evidence because it lacks quality, is insufficiently highlighted, or is not qualified.

Author qualifications are under debated and if a piece of evidence lacks a qualification then that should definitely be used in debate.

K Things General

One line should dictate how you approach reading the K in front of me:

“You are a debater, not a philosopher.”

This should be your guiding principle when reading and answering a kritik in front of me. Debaters seem to rely more on jargon than actually doing the work of explaining and applying their argument. Unnecessarily complex kritiks won't get good speaker points (90% of the time you could have just read the cap k).

I will not flow overviews on a separate sheet of paper.

If you plan on reading the K

I've got good news and bad news. I'll start with the bad news: You are very unlikely to convince me not the weigh/evaluate the aff. I'm not persuaded much by self-serving counter interpretations on framework.

That said, the good news is that I think people give the aff too much credit and most of the reasons why I shouldn't evaluate the plan are typically offense against it. For example while I don't find the FW interpretation "Debate should be about epistemological assumptions" very convincing, I will definitely vote on "the affirmative's plan relies on a flawed epistemology that ensures serial policy failure, which turns case."

If you're answering the K

While the above may seem like good news for the aff answering the K, I tend to hold the aff to a higher threshold than most in K debates. I don't think "you need a specific link to the plan" is responsive to a K of the aff's epistemology. Likewise, aff framework interps that exclude Ks entirely are pretty much a non-starter.

Theory Issues

Condo seems to be getting a bit excessive, but no one goes for condo anymore so I'm sort of stuck with it.

Tech vs Truth

I think of this as more of a continuum as opposed to a binary. I lean more towards tech than truth, but I'm not going to pretend that I evaluate all arguments with equal legitimacy. For example, I have a higher threshold for arguments like “climate change not real” than “plan doesn’t solve climate change.” I traditionally evaluate the debate in offense/defense paradigm, but there is a such thing as a 0% risk.

K affs/T-FW

I enter every debate with the assumption that the resolution is going to play a role in the round. What role it plays, however, is up for debate. I don’t have a preference between skills or fairness standards.

Common reasons I vote aff on FW:

The neg goes for too many “standards”/"DAs"/whatever-youre-calling-them in the 2NR.

The neg doesn’t even try to engage the aff’s 2AC to FW.

Common reasons I vote neg on FW:

The aff doesn’t have an offensive reasons why the TVA is bad.

The aff doesn’t even try to engage the neg’s standards on FW.

Misc

I only flow what I hear, I won't use the doc to correct my flow. If I don't catch an argument/tag because you're too unclear then *insert shrug emoji*. That said, with online debate I will flow what I hear and use the doc to correct my flow after the speech. Including your analytics in the speech document will make correcting my flows much easier.

Guaranteed 30 if you’re paper debate team #PaperDebate

My facial reactions will probably tell you how I feel about your arg.

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

Pronouns: she/her

Yes, put me on the chain: jasminestidham@gmail.com

Please let me know if there are any accessibility requirements before the round so I can do my part.

Updated for 2023-24

I currently coach full-time at Michigan State University. Previously, I coached at Dartmouth for five years from 2018-2023. I debated at the University of Central Oklahoma for four years and graduated in 2018. I also used to coach at Harvard-Westlake, Kinkaid, and Heritage Hall.

LD skip down to the bottom.

January 2024 Update -- College

The state of wikis for most college teams is atrocious this year. The amount of wikis that have nothing or very little posted is bonkers. I don't know who needs to hear this, but please go update your wiki. If you benefit from other teams posting their docs/cites (you know you do), then return the favor by doing the same. It's not hard. This grumpiness does not apply to novice and JV teams.

At the CSULB tournament, I will reward teams with an extra .1 speaker point boost if you tell me to look at your wiki after the round and it looks mostly complete. I will not penalize any team for having a bad wiki (you do you), but will modestly reward teams who take the time to do their part for a communal good.

October 2023 Musings

I don't mean to sound like a curmudgeon, but what happened to flowing and line-by-line? Stop. flowing. off the doc. Flowing is fundamental and you need to actually do it. Please stop over-scripting your speeches. I promise you will sound so much better when you debate off the flow.

I could not agree more with Tracy McFarland here: 'Clash - it's good - which means you need to flow and not script your speeches. LBL with some clear references to where you're at = good. Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case.'

In most of the college rounds I've judged so far this year, I have noticed that debaters are overly reliant on reading a wall of cards to substitute for actual debating. I don't know who hurt you, but you don't need to read 10 cards in the 1AR. Reading cards is easy and anyone can do it. I want to see you debate.

Tldr; Flexibility

No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I love all aspects of the game. I would be profoundly bored if I only judged certain teams or arguments. At most tournaments I find myself judging a little bit of everything: a round where the 1NC is 10 off and the letter 'K' is never mentioned, a round where the affirmative does not read a plan and the neg suggests they should, a round where the neg impact turns everything under the sun, a round where the affirmative offers a robust defense of hegemony vs a critique, etc. I enjoy judging a variety of teams with different approaches to the topic.

Debate should be fun and you should debate in the way that makes it valuable for you, not me.

My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application.

If I had to choose another judge I mostly closely identify with, it would be John Cameron Turner but without the legal pads.

I don't mind being post-rounded or answering a lot of questions. I did plenty of post-rounding as a debater and I recognize it doesn't always stem from anger or disrespect. That being said, don't be a butthead. I appreciate passionate debaters who care about their arguments and I am always willing to meet you halfway in the RFD.

I am excited to judge your debate. Even if I look tired or grumpy, I promise I care a lot and will always work hard to evaluate your arguments fairly and help you improve.

What really matters to me

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, probably more than other judges. Stop reading cards that don't have a complete sentence and get off my lawn. I can't emphasize enough how much I care about evidence comparison. This includes author quals, context, recency, (re)highlighting, data/statistics, concrete examples, empirics, etc. You are better off taking a 'less is more' approach when debating in front of me. For example, I much rather see you read five, high quality uniqueness cards that have actual warrants highlighted than ten 'just okay' cards that sound like word salad.

This also applies to your overall strategies. For example, I am growing increasingly annoyed at teams who try to proliferate as many incomplete arguments as possible in the 1NC. If your strategy is to read 5 disads in the 1NC that are missing uniqueness or internal links, I will give the aff almost infinite leeway in the 1AR to answer your inevitable sandbagging. I would much rather see well-highlighted, complete positions than the poor excuse of neg arguments that I'm seeing lately. To be clear, I am totally down with 'big 1NCs' -- but I get a little annoyed when teams proliferate incomplete positions.

Case debate matters oh so much to me.Please, please debate the case, like a lot. It does not matter what kind of round it is -- I want to see detailed, in-depth case debate. A 2NC that is just case? Be still, my heart. Your speaker points will get a significant boost if you dedicate significant time to debating the case in the neg block. By "debating the case" I do not mean just reading a wall of cards and calling it a day -- that's not case debate, it's just reading.

I expect you to treat your partner and opponents with basic respect. This is non-negotiable. Some of y'all genuinely need to chill out. You can generate ethos without treating your opponents like your mortal enemy. Pettiness, sarcasm, and humor are all appreciated, but recognize there is a line and you shouldn't cross it. Punching down is cringe behavior. You should never, ever make any jokes about someone else's appearance or how they sound.

Impact framing and judge instruction will get you far. In nearly every RFD I give, I heavily emphasize judge instruction and often vote for the team who does superior judge instruction because I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible.

Cowardice is annoying. Stop running away from debate. Don't shy away from controversy just because you don't like linking to things. This also applies to shady disclosure practices. If you don't like defending your arguments, or explaining what your argument actually means, please consider joining the marching band. Be clear and direct.

Plan texts matter. Most plan texts nowadays are written in a way that avoids clash and specificity. Affirmative teams should know that I am not going to give you much leeway when it comes to recharacterizing what the plan text actually means. If the plan says virtually nothing because you're scared of linking to negative arguments, just know that I will hold you to the words in the plan and won't automatically grant the most generous interpretation. You do not get infinite spin here. Ideally, the affirmative will read a plan text that accurately reflects a specific solvency advocate.

I am not a fan of extreme or reductionist characterizations of different approaches to debate. For example, it will be difficult to persuade me that all policy arguments are evil, worthless, or violent. Critical teams should not go for 'policy debate=Karl Rove' because this is simply a bad, reductionist argument. On the flip side, it would be unpersuasive to argue that all critiques are stupid or meaningless.

I appreciate and reward teams who make an effort to adapt.Unlike many judges, I am always open to being persuaded and am willing to change my mind. I am rigid about certain things, but am movable on many issues. This usually just requires meeting me in the middle; if you adapt to me in some way, I will make a reciprocal effort.

Online debate

Camera policy: I strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but there are valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Tech glitches: it is your responsibility to record your speeches as a failsafe. I encourage you to record your speeches on your phone/laptop in the event of a tech glitch. If a glitch happens, we will try to resolve it as quickly as possible, and I will follow the tournament's guidelines.

Slow down a bit in the era of e-sports debate. I'll reward you for it with points. No, you don't have to speak at a turtle's pace, but maybe we don't need to read 10-off?

Miscellaneous specifics

I care more about solvency advocates than most judges. This does not mean I automatically vote against a counterplan without a solvency advocate. Rather, this is a 'heads up' for neg teams so they're aware that I am generally persuaded by affirmative arguments in this area. It would behoove neg teams to read a solvency advocate of some kind, even if it's just a recutting of affirmative evidence.

I will only judge kick if told to do so, assuming the aff hasn't made any theoretical objections.

I am not interested in judging or evaluating call-outs, or adjacent arguments of this variety. I care deeply about safety and inclusion in this activity and I will do everything I can to support you. But, I do not believe that a round should be staked on these issues and I am not comfortable giving any judge that kind of power.

Please do not waste your breath asking for a 30. I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen.

Generally speaking, profanity should be avoided. In most cases, it does not make your arguments or performance more persuasive. Excessive profanity is extremely annoying and may result in lower speaks. If you are in high school, I absolutely do not want to hear you swear in your speeches. I am an adult, and you are a teenager -- I know it feels like you're having a big ethos moment when you drop an F-bomb in the 2NC but I promise it is just awkward/cringe.

Evidence ethics

If you clip, you will lose the round and receive 0 speaker points. I will vote against you for clipping EVEN IF the other team does not call you on it. I know what clipping is and feel 100% comfortable calling it. Mark your cards and have a marked copy available.

If you cite or cut a card improperly, I evaluate these issues on a sliding scale. For example, a novice accidentally reading a card that doesn't have a complete citation is obviously different from a senior varsity debater cutting a card in the middle of a sentence or paragraph. Unethical evidence practices can be reasons to reject the team and/or a reason to reject the evidence itself, depending on the unique situation.

At the college level, I expect ya'll to handle these issues like adults. If you make an evidence ethics accusation, I am going to ask if you want to stop the round to proceed with the challenge.

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

LD Specific

Updated March 2024 before TFA to reflect a few changes.

Conflicts: Harvard-Westlake (assistant director of debate 2018-2022), and Strake Jesuit (current affiliation).

My background is in policy debate, but I am very fluent in LD. I co-direct NSD Flagship and follow LD topics as they evolve. I assist Strake in LD and policy.

If you are asking questions about what was read or skipped in the speechdoc, that counts as CX time. If you are simply asking where a specific card was marked, that is okay and does not count as CX time. If you want your opponent to send out a speechdoc that includes only the things they read, that counts as your CX time or prep time -- it is your responsibility to flow.

You need to be on time. I cannot stress this enough. LDers consistently run late and it drives me bonkers. Your speaks will be impacted if you are excessively late without a reasonable excuse.

I realize my LD paradigm sounds a little grumpy. I am only grumpy about certain arguments/styles, such as frivolous theory. I do my best to not come off as a policy elitist because I do genuinely enjoy LD and am excited to judge your debate.

FAQ:

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments like I am with tricks. I do not judge many phil debates because most of the time tricks are involved, but I don't have anything against philosophical positions. I would be happy to judge a good phil debate. You may need to do some policy translation so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: No, you shouldn't. He's a very nice and smart guy, but cutting evidence from debate blogs is such a meme. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles and you'll be fine. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. To be clear, you can read T:whole rez in front of me, just not Nebel blog cards.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'new affs bad,' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. Can you throw them in the 1NC/1AR? Sure, that's fine. Will I be persuaded by new affs bad? No.

Q: Will you ever vote for an RVI?

A: Nope. Never. I don't flow them.

Q: Will you vote for any theory arguments?

A: Of course. I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

Q: Will you vote for Ks?

A: Of course. Love em.


Any other questions can be asked before the round or email me.

Add me to your email chain: Graysen.stille@gmail.com

I have kept event-agnostic notes at the top and event-specific notes will have their own section.

This paradigm is meant to reflect various questions that I feel remain unanswered for me in debate writ large. If you don't see something that feels applicable to your style then assume there's a lack of bias.

Catch-All:

I'll admit that I've been out of the game for a few years so my ears are rusty; slow down maybe 40%. This will change as the year progresses and I won't take offense if you ask me where I'm at with speed. That being said, I have a lower threshold than most regarding speed/clarity. I will say clear 2 times and if the speech is still unclear I will stop flowing.

I am most at home with K debates. However, my threshold for explanation is higher than others. I believe that the starting point for a kritik is to attack the rhetorical assumptions of the affirmative and explain the mutual exclusivity of those assumptions and the alternative. Materialized analysis and implications are always preferable to high-level claims. Refusal/rejection alts are not persuasive to me and nor do I think they would be if explained in front of the author you're citing.

Ethos has a grip on debate that I'm not, nor have ever been, a fan of. I'm not persuaded by an author within the field making a simple claim that supports your side. Rather, I want to hear the warrants behind the argument.

Specificity will always be more persuasive than broad-stroke claims. If your evidence does not directly indict your opponents arguments this can be stymied by intricately explaining the causation between both sides. What I want to see is your understanding of the topic and how that translates in-round.

Identifying, explaining, and impacting out key questions to the debate at the beginning of your final rebuttal will influence my decision greatly. Your job in these final speeches should be to write my decision for me. I am lazy and do not want to spend a majority of my time conjuring a decision. Tell me how you've won the debate and work backwards.

Debate is an activity focused on producing individuals who can produce high-quality arguments. Pathetic (pathos-based) appeals will not persuade me.

Evidence should follow normal sentence structure. I'm annoyed and will reduce speaks, or even vote down a team given specific circumstances, if their highlighting sounds incoherent. This is, unfortunately, becoming a norm in debate that I want to see stopped. If your highlighting would make an English teacher shudder change it.

Policy:

From my cursory glances at college and high school wikis I've noticed a proliferation of conditional advocacies in the 1NC. My old standard used to be 2 is fine, 3 is pushing it, and more feels abusive. However, I'm open to changing this opinion given the right arguments. Obviously, what remains post-block will affect my interpretation.

Framework is something that I've struggled to come to terms with. I am not opposed to the argument but I do wonder about its merits as ground for the negative if considered as an alternative epistemological basis for how debate should operate. I'm not opposed to voting on a policy-centric method of debate if you are able to prove why alternative methods are harmful or unable to solve for the harms that the 1AC has outlined.

LD:

I am less familiar with the norms of this activity. I've seen some people refer to "tricks" and do not feel comfortable voting on these arguments.

Do NOT assume that I understand non-policy nomenclature. If you make a theory argument revolving around an argument you think I might not understand take the 5 seconds required to explain it and it will benefit you.

I am not convinced by RVIs and I won't vote on them.

Brandon Sumner

Brophy College Prep

Arizona State University

Debating Experience:

4 years in high school

Debated briefly at Wake Forest University

Coach at Brophy College Prep

Tldr;

My philosophy shouldn’t change the strategy of the 1ac or the 1nc, all it should do is help the way you frame your arguments in the round. You should run what arguments you want to run/are strategically viable, and at the end of the day if you debate better than your opponent I’ll vote for you.

Logistics:

Tech > truth – I won’t vote on what your evidence says or if your argument is more true real world, I’ll only vote on what is said within the round. Even if I ideologically disagree with everything you’re saying, I’ll vote for you if the other side doesn’t respond to your arugments properly.

Prep time – keep track of your own/your opponents prep time, if you steal prep I’ll drop your speaks heavily so don’t do it. Prep time should stop when the email is sent/flash drive leaves the computer.

Evidence – please include me on the email chain (bsumner16@brophybroncos.org).

Speaks – I give 27-30, if you go below 27 its because you were offensive. Best way to get high speaks is to be efficient, clear and have arguments with intention. Beyond that, I like puns and witty one liners about people I know/myself, but those come far after making sure you debate well. Demonstrating mastery of your arguments/the topic climate in cross ex will also boost your speaks.

Speaking style – Any speed/style/form is fine as long as I can understand what you’re saying. I will only say “clear” twice during a speech. After that if I can’t understand what you’re saying I won’t be flowing it. I will not flow off the speech doc.

Argumentative Positions:

Aff -- I read a K aff for 4 years in high school so I’m fine with any form of subversion from the resolution, be it tangential relationships through some critical/identity issue, or performance/high theory rejection of the topic. On the flip side, I have grown to love more traditional policy affirmatives lately, and I think there is a certain ethos to running a big-stick impact and defending your reps. I feel like I might be more qualified to judge “K on K” style debates, but I probably prefer judging a 6+off debate vs a traditional policy aff. Run whatever you want.

Disads – I like good link analysis, and unless the aff is running a lot of “big impacts bad”, “your internal links are bad” or good impact defense, focus more on the link and uniqueness. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t explain your internal link chain, I just think that UQ/Link are easier for the aff to contest than the idea that there is a 0% risk of the disad impact.

Counterplans – I have grown to love counterplans over the last year. Advantage cp’s, pics, multi-plank addons in the 2nc to respond to 2ac addons, generic cps (states), all of them. Uptopian fiat, pics good/bad, solvency advocate requires/not required are all theory debates to be had however, so make sure you answer any theory the aff brings up.

Theory – I’ll vote on theory, and you don’t necessarily need to prove in round abuse. Don’t just read your blocks, I like specific in round examples of how strategies have changed, how the round could have been different, what the aff justifies the neg doing, etc.

*Berkeley update* condo: I will vote on condo, but I think it's good to know that I probably lean slightly neg in my personal ideology (if the debate is 50-50 I'm more likely to default to condo good). If you want condo to be a viable option in the 1ar and the 2ar you should have examples of what types of offense/arguments the negative's interpretation prevents you from using - and why those arguments are important for the topic. On the neg, you should point out what arguments the 2ar can make that solve their offensive claims and what specific ground/education/type of debate you lose when I vote on the aff interpretation. Also, I haven't decided yet if I think condo should be a question of what model of debate is justified or if in round abuse is a magnifier for your interpretive claims, so tell me instead so I don't have to think about it.

Framework – I’m 50-50 on this issue. Probably the best answer to K affs in my opinion, but I was also a 2a against framework for 80% of my high school rounds so I understand how the arguments interact with each other. Please make the distinction between substantive framework and theoretical framework – I am persuaded by the argument that the neg went for only theoretical fairness and the affs 2ac was an impact turn to substantive framework.

Topicality – Love in depth topicality debate, both sides should describe what their model of debate does for the case list, the neg ground on the topic, and the theoretical implications of their interpretation. This debate, even more so than others, is a tech>truth flow. For this topic specifically, don't assume I understand how all of the mechanisms of the aff work in conjunction with the topic literature so if that's going to be a key argument do a little extra work on it.

K – I have predominately been a K debater, and I’ve read a lot of the literature base for most kritiks on the circuit. For me, you need to win a) the link to the aff and analysis on why the perm doesn’t work and aff doesn’t outweigh b) either win framework or that your alt solves the K/the aff. I won’t judge kick the alt for you unless you tell me to (and aff can answer that pretty easily) but if you win that you don’t need an alt, I will vote on reps/method/unethicality. Explain the thesis of your critique, even if I know the argument well I won’t vote on it unless you explain it well. I prefer the 2NC to be more flow/line by line heavy than your 2.5 minute rhetorical block. The only time I think you should wax poetic is if you have specific historical analysis for root cause/proximate cause or you need to explain the more nuanced parts of your critique that frame the rest of the line by line or specifying your argument to historical events/philosophical movements.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me

he/him/his

Pronounced phonetically as DEB-nil. Not pronounced "judge", "Mister Sur", or "deb-NEIL".

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains. If you have my personal email, don't put it on the email chain. Sensible subject please.

Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. I don't think I'd ever be in a setting where I'm the sole lay judge. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread.

Resolving Debates: Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor.

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the speech doc when online. I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

I take an above-average time to decide debates. My decision time has little relationship with the debate's closeness, and more with the time of day and my sleep deprivation. I usually start 5-10 minutes after the 2AR, so I can stretch my legs and let the debate marinate in my head. Debaters work hard, and I reciprocate that effort in making decisions. My decisions themselves are quite short. Most debates come down to 2-4 arguments, and I will identify those and explain my resolution. You're welcome to post-round. It can't change my decision, but I want to learn and improve as a judge and thinker too.

General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018. I am involved in strategy and research and have coached both policy and K debaters to the TOC. I am, quite literally, a "framer", as a member of the national topic wording committee. Before that, I read policy arguments as a 2N at Bellarmine and did youth debate outreach (e.g., SVUDL) as a student at Stanford.

I've judged many excellent debates. Ideologically, I would say I'm 60/40 policy-leaning. I think my voting records don't reflect this, because K debaters tend to see the bigger picture in clash rounds.

Topic Background: I judge and coach regularly and am fully aware of national circuit trends. I'm less in the weeds as many other coaches. I don't cut as many cards as I did in the pandemic years, and I don't work at debate camp.

If you're reading the web3 UBI affirmative, I implemented one of the first CBDC pilots back in 2018/19. If you know what you're talking about, I'm the best possible judge. But if you don't, I'll be much more easily persuaded by the negative, especially on the case debate.

Voting Splits: As of the end of the water topic, I have judged 304 rounds of VCX at invitationals over 9 years. 75 of these were during college; 74 during immigration and arms sales at West Coast invitationals; and 155 on CJR and water, predominantly at octafinals bid tournaments.

Below are my voting splits across the (synthetic) policy-K divide, where the left team represents the affirmative, as best as I could classify debates. Paradigm text can be inaccurate self-psychoanalysis, so I hope the data helps.

I became an aff hack on water. Far too often, the 2AR was the first speech doing comparative analysis instead of reading blocks. I hope this changes as we return to in-person debate.

Water

Policy v. Policy - 18-13: 58% aff over 31 rounds

Policy v. K - 20-18: 56% aff over 38 rounds

K v. Policy - 13-8: 62% aff over 21 rounds

K v. K - 1-1, 50% aff over 2 rounds

Lifetime

Policy v. Policy - 67-56: 55% for the aff over 123 rounds

Policy v. K - 47-52: 47% for the aff over 99 rounds

K v. Policy - 36-34: 51% for the aff over 70 rounds

K v. K - 4-4: 50% for the aff over 8 rounds

Online Debate:

1. I'd prefer your camera on, but won't make a fuss.

2. Please check verbally and/or visually with all judges and debaters before starting your speech.

3. If my camera's off, I'm away, unless I told you otherwise.

Speaker Points: I flow on my computer, but I do not use the speech doc. I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

2. I will vote for the team whose impact comparison most clearly answers the debate's central question. This typically comes down to the affirmative making negative engagement more difficult versus the neg forcing problematic affirmative positions. You are best served developing 1-2 pieces of offense well, playing defense to the other team's, and telling a condensed story in the final rebuttals.

3. Anything can be an impact---do what you do best. My teams typically read a limits/fairness impact and a procedural clash impact. From Dhruv Sudesh: "I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments."

4. Each team should discuss what a year of debate looks like under their models in concrete terms. Arguments like "TVA", "switch-side debate", and "some neg ground exists" are just subsets of this discussion. It is easy to be hyperbolic and discuss the plethora of random affirmatives, but realistic examples are especially persuasive and important. What would your favorite policy demon (MBA, GBN, etc.) do without an agential constraint? How does critiquing specific policy reforms in a debate improve critical education? Why does negative policy ground not center the affirmative's substantive conversation?

5. As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote affirmative. This especially happens when impact turning topicality---negatives do not seem to catch on yet.

6. I quite enjoy leveraging normative positions from 1AC cards for substantive disadvantages or impact turns. This requires careful link explanation by the negative but can be incredibly strategic. Critical affirmatives claim to access broad impacts based on shaky normative claims and the broad endorsement of a worldview, rather than a causal method; they should incur the strategic cost.

7. I am a better judge for presumption and case defense than most. It is often unclear to me how affirmatives solve their impacts or access their impact turns on topicality. The negative should leverage this more.

8. I occasionally judge K v K debates. I do not have especially developed opinions on these debates. Debate math often relies on causality, opportunity cost, and similar concepts rooted in policymaking analysis. These do not translate well to K v K debates, and the team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus typically wins. While the notion of "opportunity cost" to a method is still mostly nonsensical to me, I can be convinced either way on permutations' legitimacy.

Kritiks:

1. I do not often coach K teams but have familiarity with basically all critical arguments.

2. Framework almost always decides this debate. While I have voted for many middle-ground frameworks, they make very little strategic sense to me. The affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge actually compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? As a result, I am much better for "hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik.

3. I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.

4. If the kritik is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.

5. I will not evaluate non-falsifiable statements about events outside the current debate. Such an evaluation of minors grossly misuses the ballot. Strike me if this is a core part of your strategy.

Topicality:

1. This is about the plan text, not other parts of the 1AC. If you think the plan text is contrived to be topical, beat them on the PIC out of the topic and your topic DA of choice.

2. This is a question of which team's vision of the topic maximizes its benefits for debaters. I compare each team's interpretation of the topic through an offense/defense lens.

3. Reasonability is about the affirmative interpretation, not the affirmative case itself. In its most persuasive form, this means that the substance crowdout caused by topicality debates plus the affirmative's offense on topicality outweighs the offense claimed by the negative. This is an especially useful frame in debates that discuss topic education, precision, and similar arguments.

4. Any standards are fine. I used to be a precision stickler. This changed after attending topic meetings and realizing how arbitrarily wording is chosen.

5. From Anirudh Prabhu: "T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet." Topicality 101---the violation is a negative burden. If there's some uncertainty, I almost certainly vote aff with a decent "we meet" explanation.

Theory:

1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.

2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.

3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.

4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.

Counterplans:

1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.

2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.

3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on. That said, if everyone is just spreading blocks, I usually end up negative on the ink. Block to 2NR is easier to trace than 1AR to 2AR.

4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!

5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Absent this instruction, if there is an advocacy in the 2NR and I do not judge kick it when deciding, I'm probably not voting on presumption.

6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo. (To be honest, this has never mattered in a debate I've judged, and it amuses me that judge kick is such a common paradigm section.)

Disadvantages:

1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.

2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.

4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.

Ethics:

1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.

2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.

3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.

4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.

5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.

IMPORTANT: I will only vote on an ethics violation about previously-read evidence (missing an author, missing a year, paragraph missing but no distortion, etc) if the team alleging the violation has evidence that they contacted the other team and told them about the issue. Clearly, you had the time to look up the article. As a community, we should assume good faith in citation, and let the other team know. And people should not be punished for cards they did not cut. But if they still are reading faulty evidence, even after being told, that's certainly academic malpractice.

Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.

6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.

2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.

3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.

4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.

5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.

6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.

Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.

Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!

I have little policy experience, so clearly explain arguments. Speak with good tone and emotion and enunciate words. I prefer quality of evidence of quantity. If an argument goes unanswered no matter how wrong it may be that team will automatically win on that argument.

Put me on the email chain (WayneTang@aol.com). (my debaters made me do this, I generally don't read evidence in round)

General Background:
Former HS debater in the stone ages (1980s) HS coach for over many years at Maine East (1992-2016) and now at Northside College Prep (2016 to present). I coach on the north shore of Chicago. I typically attend and judge around 15-18 tournaments a season and generally see a decent percentage of high level debates. However, I am not a professional teacher/debate coach, I am a patent attorney in my real (non-debate) life and thus do not learn anything about the topic (other than institutes are overpriced) over the summer. I like to think I make up for that by being a quick study and through coaching and judging past topics, knowing many recycled arguments.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
Intelligent story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). It is a hard road, but I think it is possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it based on defensive arguments.

TOPICALITY
I vote on T relatively frequently over the years. I believe it is the negative burden to establish the plan is not topical. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. I have found that the limits/predictability/ground debate has been more persuasive to me, although I will consider other standards debates. Obviously, it is also important how such standards operate once a team convinces me of their standard. I will also look at why T should be voting issue. I will not automatically vote negative if there is no counter-interpretation extended, although usually this is a pretty deep hole for the aff. to dig out of. For example, if the aff. has no counter-interpretation but the neg interpretation is proven to be unworkable i.e. no cases are topical then I would probably vote aff. As with most issues, in depth analysis and explanation on a few arguments will outweigh many 3 word tag lines.

COUNTERPLANS
Case specific CPs are preferable that integrate well (i.e., do not flatly contradict) with other negative positions. Clever wording of CPs to solve the Aff and use Aff solvency sources are also something I give the neg. credit for. It is an uphill battle for the Aff on theory unless the CP/strategy centered around the CP does something really abusive. The aff has the burden of telling me how a permutation proves the CP non-competitive.

KRITIKS
Not a fan, but I have voted on them numerous times (despite what many in the high school community may believe). I will never be better than mediocre at evaluating these arguments because unlike law, politics, history and trashy novels, I don’t read philosophy for entertainment nor have any interest in it. Further (sorry to my past assistants who have chosen this as their academic career), I consider most of the writers in this field to be sorely needing a dose of the real world (I was an engineer in undergrad, I guess I have been brainwashed in techno-strategic discourse/liking solutions that actually accomplish something). In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique Disad in the policy realm. As such it will probably receive very little weight if challenged by the aff. You must be able to distill long boring philosophical cards read at hyperspeed to an explanation that I can comprehend. I have no fear of saying I don’t understand what the heck you are saying and I will absolutely not vote for issues I don’t understand. (I don’t have to impress anyone with my intelligence or lack thereof and in any case am probably incapable of it) If you make me read said cards with no explanation, I will almost guarantee that I will not understand the five syllable (often foreign) philosophical words in the card and you will go down in flames. I do appreciate, if not require specific analysis on the link and impact to either the aff. plan, rhetoric, evidence or assumptions depending on what floats your boat. In other words, if you can make specific applications (in contrast to they use the state vote negative), or better yet, read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you.

PERFORMANCE BASED ARGUMENTS
Also not a fan, but I have voted on these arguments in the past. I am generally not highly preferred by teams that run such arguments, so I don't see enough of these types of debates to be an expert. However, for whatever reason, I get to judge some high level performance teams each year and have some background in such arguments from these rounds. I will try to evaluate the arguments in such rounds and will not hesitate to vote against framework if the team advocating non-traditional debate wins sufficient warrants why I should reject the policy/topic framework. However, if a team engages the non-traditional positions, the team advocating such positions need to answer any such arguments in order to win. In other words, I will evaluate these debates like I try to evaluate any other issues, I will see what arguments clash and evaluate that clash, rewarding a team that can frame issues, compare and explain impacts. I have spent 20 plus years coaching a relatively resource deprived school trying to compete against very well resourced debate schools, so I am not unsympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debates. On the other hand I have also spent 20 plus years involved in non-debate activities and am not entirely convinced that the strategies urged by non-traditional debates work. Take both points for whatever you think they are worth in such debates.

POINTS

In varsity debate, I believe you have to minimally be able to clash with the other teams arguments, if you can’t do this, you won’t get over a 27.5. Anything between 28.8 and 29.2 means you are probably among the top 5% of debaters I have seen. I will check my points periodically against tournament averages and have adjusted upward in the past to stay within community norms. I think that if you are in the middle my points are pretty consistent. Unfortunately for those who are consistently in the top 5% of many tournaments, I have judged a lot of the best high school debaters over the years and it is difficult to impress me (e.g., above a 29). Michael Klinger, Stephen Weil, Ellis Allen, Matt Fisher and Stephanie Spies didn’t get 30s from me (and they were among my favorites of all time), so don’t feel bad if you don’t either.

OTHER STUFF
I dislike evaluating theory debates but if you make me I will do it and complain a lot about it later. No real predispositions on theory other than I would prefer to avoid dealing with it.

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.

I do not count general tech screw ups as prep time and quite frankly am not really a fascist about this kind of thing as some other judges, just don’t abuse my leniency on this.

Speed is fine (this is of course a danger sign because no one would admit that they can’t handle speed). If you are going too fast or are unclear, I will let you know. Ignore such warnings at your own peril, like with Kritiks, I am singularly unafraid to admit I didn’t get an answer and therefore will not vote on it.

I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I probably won’t call for it and assume it says X. However, in the unfortunate (but fairly frequent) occurrence where both teams just read cards, I will call for cards and use my arbitrary and capricious analytical skills to piece together what I, in my paranoid delusional (and probably medicated) state, perceive is going on.

I generally will vote on anything that is set forth on the round. Don’t be deterred from going for an argument because I am laughing at it, reading the newspaper, checking espn.com on my laptop, throwing something at you etc. Debate is a game and judges must often vote for arguments they find ludicrous, however, I can and will still make fun of the argument. I will, and have, voted on many arguments I think are squarely in the realm of lunacy i.e. [INSERT LETTER] spec, rights malthus, Sun-Ra, the quotations and acronyms counterplan (OK I didn’t vote on either, even I have my limits), scaler collapse (twice), world government etc. (the likelihood of winning such arguments, however, is a separate matter). I will not hesitate to vote against teams for socially unacceptable behavior i.e. evidence fabrication, racist or sexist slurs etc., thankfully I have had to do that less than double digits time in my 35+ years of judging.

GENERAL

1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.

6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.

7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.

NEGATIVE

TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.

FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.

DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.

COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.

CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.

KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.

AFFIRMATIVES

TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES

PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.

PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES

As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

zthiede1@gmail.com

Assistant coach at Rowland Hall.

TOC 2024 Update: This is my last tournament judging, for likely a very long time. I have updated my paradigm to be shorter and more to the point. I love debate and everything it has done for me, I will work very hard to fairly adjudicate every debate that I watch. Great job for making it to the TOC and good luck! :)

Debate in front of me like your debating in front of Mike Shackelford ;)

Some debate thoughts...

I strongly believe that debate is a game, read whatever arguments you want. I will not evaluate personal attacks on other students nor some past history that you have with them. Bring that up with Tabroom or your school's administration not me.

I judge a lot of framework v. K AFF debates. I vote for K AFF's more when they go for impact turns. Fairness is an impact.

Don't hide ASPEC, it's annoying and I will let the 1AR answer it.

50 state fiat is a reason to reject the argument.

You must read any re-highlighting if you want it entered into the debate. The only times you do not need to do this are if the other team has totally cut something out of context and you are inserting it for contextual clarity. Generally speaking though, I think it is more persuasive if you just read it.

Asking what cards were read BEFORE CX is prep or CX time. Learn to flow.

1 CARD MAXIMUM IN THE BODY OF THE E-MAIL!!!! DO NOT ASK.

Northside College Prep HS 2012
Pomona College 2016


Graduate student in sociology at UC Berkeley

I debated competitively for Northside on the national circuit for 4 years. I have a deep love for this activity and thoroughly enjoy almost every aspect.
My general paradigm is not going to be very different from the standard judge in that I am open to all arguments (barring blatantly ad hominem or offensive per reasonable standards arguments) and will vote for the team that does the better job debating in the round. I read a wide range of arguments in high school from traditional policy affs, cps, and das to affirmatives with no plan texts or neg strategies that used no evidence and I will be a competent judge of any argument that might be introduced in policy debate. That being said - I am new to judging this year so I know very little with regards to the intricacies of this topic or what the "core of the topic" is shaping into. Please debate accordingly.

Other thoughts:

1. Throughout high school until now I have wavered in my opinion on what is the best for debate from the position that traditional policy debate is exclusionary and unrealistic to the position that non-topical affirmatives are no predictable and that the resolution provides reasonable limits to what arguments can be read. No judge is free of biases but I would say that I am relatively pluralist when it comes to what debate should be and if this is the kind of debate that unfolds I will do my best to evaluate the debate based on the arguments made in the round and a well-argued impact calculus in defense of your vision for policy debate. 

2. Clarity is very important. I'm of the philosophy that one should spread as if they are just reading aloud normally but much quicker as opposed to some of the strange the ways that people have come to speak. This is just a preference I will do my best to try to understand all speaking styles but there is a natural limit to what I can understand and coherently flow.

3. I am a big proponent of viewing debate as an exercise in storytelling regardless of what arguments you read. This is not in the literal sense and it doesn't mean I want you be poetic. I mean to say that I value 2nr's and 2ar's that tell coherent stories about the reason I am voting for them. This often comes down to things like impact calculus, case specific link arguments, and meta-framing questions. 

4. Please be kind to the other team, your partner, me, your coaches, your parents, pets, etc. I think that precision, intensity, and maybe aggression can be integral to debate such as during cross-ex but I think that these qualities tend to be overrepresented in the activity at the cost of basic kindness in debate spaces. Debate is at its best when everyone is comfortable and feels like they belong and behavior that takes away from this kind of debate environment will result in low (potentially very low) speaker points.

After a decade, I’ve now finally decided to update my philosophy. I’ve found that nothing I could say about each of the main argument categories would be particularly relevant because of one simple fact - my ultimate preference is to evaluate the round in whatever way you tell me to. I’m not saying you can call me a “tabula rasa” judge, if people even use that phrase anymore…I’m saying that my goal is to intervene as little as possible in the debate.

-I find myself evaluating every argument in a debate as a disad. This is obvious for actual disadvantages, counterplans, etc but for me, it's also true of theory, framework, and topicality. Did you read framework against a critical race aff? Then you likely have a predictability disad and a fairness disad against the aff’s framing of how debate should be. Did the neg read a conditional CP, K alternative, and insist the SQ is an option? You probably have ground and fairness disads to the CP/K. In those instances, you HAVE to make an impact argument that makes sense. Exclude the aff, reject the CP, reject the team…whatever. I will compare those impacts to the impacts the other side has (flexibility, education, etc.). It’d be a lot better if you did the comparison for me. If you don't, I will read into everything and make a decision for myself.

-Otherwise, debate like you want to debate. I no longer find myself voting against framework all of the time or voting for the K vs policy affs that are going for framework against the alt. I probably have voted the opposite way more often in the last year.

-Lastly, I flow but I also want to be on the email chain (cturoff@headroyce.org). I'm actually trying to model what you are supposed to be doing...flowing the speech and looking at the evidence the team is reading once I've written down what they said ALOUD. If you do this, guaranteed 28.9 or better (which is high for me). If you actually flow AND you are funny and/or efficient at line-by-line and/or making a ton of smart arguments while covering everything, guaranteed 29.5 or better (which is outrageous for me).

------------------------------Online Debate Update------------------------------

My computer setup is way better in my house than on the road. I have incredibly fast internet and multiple screens. But it's not enough to be able to flow full speed debates over Zoom without issues. Please keep that in mind. A few things will help, if you so choose - send out your full speech doc, not just your cards so I can follow along (I'm still going to flow what you say out loud but will cut you a bit of slack in the form of looking at your speech doc to fill in holes) and slow down on theory and analytics (I'm flowing on computer and not paper at home which is both faster in some respects and slower in others).

I debated for UNLV and Damien High School, debating at the National Debate Tournament, Tournament of Champions, and NFLs, as well as coaching teams and judging at each.

I participated in policy debate only, but, I have judged a LD and Parli.

I view debate as a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching.

Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win.

Please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) Few things the neg does are voting issues.

(4) I enjoy T debates because a word's meaning is important.

(5) The neg has to win a unique reason the aff is bad to win the debate.

(6) I am a lawyer, so naturally I think think that law and the state can be used for good.

(7) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

Questions? Ask me before the round.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

Aaron Vinson

Debate Coach, New Trier High School, Illinois

Formerly, Head Coach, Princeton High School, Ohio

Glenbrook North Alum, Miami University of Ohio Alum

email = vinsona@newtrier.k12.il.us

==Updated 8/1/23==

Overarching philosophy of debate/judging (scroll down for thoughts on arguments)

I used to judge a good amount. That has not been the case. I taught at Michigan this summer and probably judged about 15 debates there .

Debate is about having fun - you should read arguments that you enjoy regardless of my past debate background or what arguments my students may or may not read.

Debate is about communication, response, and oral argumentation - if it wasn't in the debate or if it was not clear to me in a debate, it's not a thing. All arguments should have some level of engagement with what the opposing team is saying or they are just floating statements. I try to judge all debates through a lens of, how will I explain to the losing team why they did not win and how can I explain how they could have won.

Debate should be a safe space - be respectful to your partner and opponents; if your "thought experiment" includes trivializing genocide, suicide, x identity, you should consider the impact that that argument might have on your opponents and anyone watching the debate. I understand that discomfort in engaging new areas of literature can be beneficial but there is a line between that and making people feel uncomfortable talking about their own identity (literally referring to CX exchanges with this example). If this is egregious I will feel compelled to intervene.

Thoughts on specific arguments

Topicality - it's fine. Probably hard to win in front of me. What I would call a "low probability victory" because I think most debates fall down into infinitely regressive limits debates that are easily resolved - for me - with reasonable interpretations (that means the aff would have to extend a reasonable interpretation!). To be successful in front of me I think that debating topicality more like a DA (link explanation + impact) and then debating interpretations like a CP (what the debates under each interpretation would be like and why they are good).

Counterplans - they're good. Consult CP's are fine. Condition CP's are fine. Process CP's are mostly fine. Delay CP's are mostly fine. Advantage CP's are good. Agent CP's are good. International Actor CP's are fine. States CP's are good. 2NC CP's are questionable. Offsets CP's can be fine. Affs can be most successful in front of me by explaining what is different between the plan and counterplan and then explaining why that difference is impacted by a specific aff advantage / internal link scenario). Final thought is that the aff often forgets to point out that the billion plank advantage cp prolly links to politics.

Counterplan theory - conditionality is probably good because the alternatives create worse debates. I evaluate these debates technically, which often gives a slight advantage to the neg, and look for impact calculus that never materializes (which is also good for the neg). Also, most things just don't make sense as voting issues except conditionality. If you want to be successful with counterplan theory in front of me, see my notes about topicality. And be very clear about what you want me to do and why (reject the argument, stick them with it, they lose, etc).

Disadvantages - they're good. Politics DA's are good. Elections DA's are okay. Rider DA's are so-so. Tradeoff DA's are good. Economy DA's are good. Spending DA's are so-so. I think intrinsicness is interesting, turns case is a big deal, contextualizing size of DA vs size of case is helpful for all. Negs who make their DA's bigger in the block (impact wise) are often successful in front of me.

Kritiks - they're good. I believe my voting record skews neg because of most aff teams' inability to generate offense. Aff perm strategies are okay but should be contextualized with offense, solvency deficits, etc. I default to fiat meaning "imagine" so sure we arent going to start a world revolution but I could certainly imagine that or we could talk about if that's a good thought experience. I would give myself a "B" for K literacy fluency.

T USFG/Framework - it's good. But ... I believe my voting record skews the other way. I've had the pleasure of many coaches angrily asking me about arguments that weren't in the debate. I view debate as a communication activity and I only consider the arguments presented in the debate. Coaches get upset when this emphasis on technical execution seems to "hurt" their framework team. I think the data bears out that I am winnable for either side. I will say that affs that don't read a plan AND are not in the same direction as the resolution OR don't read a plan AND are not related to the resolution have a low win rate in front of me. See notes about debating topicality in front of me.

Ethics - clipping is bad. Miscutting evidence is bad. Misrepresenting evidence is bad. Misdisclosing is bad. Are any of these things auto-losses in-front of me? Probably not. Context matters. If one piece of evidence is miscut or misrepresented, it seems reasonable to just imagine that card wasn't read. If someone does want to stake the debate on one of these things that can be verified, I can be persuaded. If team A asserts that team B has clipped or miscut evidence, and stakes the debate on it, and is wrong, team A would lose. That's what it means to stake the debate on something.

Speaker points - I know I look 16 but I'm much older. So are my points. I'm trying to be better to represent changing norms but that's a thing. If you lose you're probably getting a 28 something if you were reasonable. If you weren't reasonable you're probably getting a high 27. If you win I try to think about if I would expect the team to break at the tournament. If so they're probably getting a 29. Then relative comparisons to other people in the debate kick in. Things that bump your points up: clarity, cx, respecting your opponent, judge instruction, evaluation and assessment based arguments at the end. Things that can bump your points down: being hard to understand/follow, being mean, not kicking arguments correctly, not attempting line by line, only reading cards, not answering / not letting your partner answer in cx, not disclosing to your opponent before I get there, tech incompetence, prep shenaningans.

Debate History:

Juan Diego Catholic: 2011-2014 (1N/2A and 1A/2N)

Rowland Hall-St. Marks: 2014-2015 (1A/2N)

University of Michigan: 2015-2019 (1A/2N)

University of Kentucky: 2019-2020 (Assistant Coach)

Wake Forest University: Present (Assistant Coach)

*Please put me on the email chain: caitlinp96@gmail.com - NO POCKETBOXES OR WHATEVER PLEASE AND THANK YOU*

TL;DR: You do you, and I'll flow and judge accordingly. Make smart arguments, be yourself, and have fun. Ask questions if you have them post-round / time permits. I would rather you yell at me (with some degree of respect) and give me the chance to explain why you lost so that you can internalize it rather than you walk away pissed/upset without resolution. An argument = claim + warrant. You may not insert rehighlighted evidence into the record - you have to read it, debate is a communicative activity.

General thoughts: I enjoy debate immensely and I hope to foster that same enjoyment in every debate I judge. With that being said, you should debate how you like to debate and I’ll judge fairly. I will immediately drop a team and give zero speaks if you make this space hostile by making offensive remarks or arguments that make it unsafe for others in the round (to be judged at my discretion). Clipping accusations must have audio or some form of proof. Debaters do not necessarily have to stake the round on an ethics violation. I also believe that debaters need to start listening to each other's arguments more, not just flowing mindlessly - so many debates lose potential nuance and clash because debaters just talk past each other with vague references to the other team's arguments. I can't/won't vote on an argument about something that happened outside the debate. I have no way of falsifying any of this and it's not my role as a judge. This doesn't apply to new affs bad if both teams agree that the aff is new, but if it's a question of misdisclosure, I really wouldn't know what to do (stolen from DML and Goldschlag). *NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me. (stolen from Val)

General K thoughts:

- AT: Do you judge these debates/know what is happening? Yes, its basically all I judge anymore (mostly clash of civs)

- AT: Since you are familiar with our args, do we not have to do any explanation specific to the aff/neg args? No, you obviously need to explain things

- AT: Is it cool if I just read Michigan KM speeches I flowed off youtube? If you are reading typed out copies of someone else's speech, I'm going to want to vote against you and will probably be very grumpy. Debate is a chance for you to show off your skill and talent, not just copy someone's speech you once saw on youtube.

K (Negative) – enjoyable if done well. Make sure the links are specific to the case and cause an impact. Make sure that the alt does something to resolve those impacts and links as well as some aff offense OR have a framework that phases out aff offense and resolves yours. Assume I know nothing about your literature base. Try not to have longer than a 2-minute overview

K (Affirmative) / Framework – probably should have some relation to the resolution otherwise it's easy to be persuaded that by the interp that you need to talk about the resolution. Probably should take some sort of action to resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. I think FW debates are important to have because they force you to question why this space has value and/or what needs to change in said space. Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Affirmative teams should have a robust reason why their aff is necessary to resolve certain impacts and why framework is bad. Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like if I sign my ballot aff or neg and why that vision is better than the other side’s. Fairness is an impact and is easily the one I'm most persuaded by, particularly if couched in terms of it being the only impact any individual ballot can solve AND being a question of simply who's model is most debatable (think competing interps).

T is distinct from Framework in these debates in so far as I believe that:

- T is a question of form, not content -- it is fundamentally content neutral because there can be any number of justifications beyond simply just the material consequences of hypothetical enactment for any number of topical affs

- Framework is more a question of why this particular resolution is educationally important to talk about and why the USfg is the essential actor for taking action over these questions

Case – Please, please, please debate the case. I don’t care if you are a K team or a policy team, the case is so important to debate. Most affs are terribly written and you could probably make most advantages have almost zero risk if you spent 15 minutes before round going through aff evidence. Zero risk exists.

CPs – Sure. Negative teams need to prove competition and why they are net beneficial to the aff. Affirmative needs to impact out solvency deficits and/or explain why the perm avoids the net benefit. Affs also must win some form of offense to outweigh a DA (solvency deficits, theory, impact turn to an internal nb/plank of the cp) otherwise I could be persuaded that the risk of neg offense outweighs a risk a da links to the cp, the perm solvency, etc.

DAs – Also love them. Negative teams should tell me the story of the DA through the block and the 2nr. Affirmative teams need to point out logical flaws in the DA and why the aff is a better option. Zero risk exists.

Politics – probably silly, but I’ll vote on it. I could vote on intrinsicness as terminal defense if debated well.

Topicality – You need a counter-interp to win reasonabilty on the aff. I default to competing interpretations if there is no other metric for evaluation.

Theory – the neg has been getting away with murder recently and its incredibly frustrating. Brief thoughts on specific args below:

- cps with a bunch of planks to fiat out of every possible solvency deficit with no solvency advocate = super bad

- 3+ condo with a bunch of conditional planks = bad

- cps that fiat things such as: "Pence and Trump resign peacefully after [x] date to avoid the link to the politics da", "Trump deletes all social media and never says anything bad about the action of the plan ever", "Trump/executive office/other actor decides never to backlash against the plan or attempt to circumvent it" = vomit emoji

- commissions cps = still cheating, but less bad than all the things above

- delay cps = boo

- consult cps = boo (idk if these exist on the immigration topic, but w/e)

- going for theory when you read a new aff = nah fam (with some exceptions)

- 2nr cps (yes this happened recently) = boo

- going for condo when they read 2 or less without conditional planks = boo

- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps for any perm

- theory probably does not outweigh T unless impacted very early, clearly, and in-depth

Bonus – Speaker Point Outline – I’ll try to follow this very closely (TOC is probably the exception because y'all should be speaking in the 28.5+ category):

(Note: I think this scale reflects general thoughts that are described in more detail in this: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html - Thanks Regnier)

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity policy debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

Email: goconnorw@gmail.com

About me:

I debated for 4 years (2013-2017) at New Trier High School. I have judged 18 debates on the water topic.

About my philosophy:

Everything I say here is simply a reflection of my preferences as a debater, which may or may not be useful to you in debating in front of me. I will always attempt to evaluate the arguments on the flow irrespective of my personal opinions, but as a human being I feel it’s useful to inform you of any predispositions I may unwittingly retain.

Things I believe about debate:

Tech over truth. Dropped arguments are true assuming a claim and a warrant. The implication of the argument is up for debate unless there is also a dropped, warranted implication to the initial argument.

Inserted rehighlightings are bad - you should read it.

Card quality matters a lot, but only if you explain why. I don’t want to do evidence comparison for you. One great card is usually better than five okay ones, but like anything this is debatable.

T/Framework:

Outside of round, I believe that teams should read topical advocacies and went for Framework all the time in high school.

Is fairness an impact? I don’t really even know what this question means. Economic decline is an impact, but despite this classification its desirability is still up for debate. Fairness is “an impact” but that doesn’t mean it’s intrinsically good and I generally think other impacts are more strategic.

T vs. Plans:

I think the desirability of an extremely limited topic is more debatable than most judges.

I generally believe in competing interpretations.

CP Theory:

As a debater, I thought CP’s competing off certainty and immediacy were cheating and not competitive.

I hated textual competition, loved PIC’s, and enjoyed taking advantage of teams’ unwillingness to go for conditionality.

I presume theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team absent an explicit warrant otherwise.

Kritiks: Quite a few of my favorite and least favorite debates as a debater involved a kritik. Kritiks that critically engage an affirmative are often very effective strategies, but many kritik debates turn into blobs of incoherent philosophy babble vs. policy relevance. Contextualization and examples will probably win you the debate.

Affirmatives will be granted a lot of leeway when the block extrapolates or alters the thesis of the kritik unpredictably based on the 1NC. Line by line will be rewarded and long overviews will not.

DA’s/Case:

Zero risk is definitely possible.

As a debater, I hated most variations of politics/elections DA’s but read them anyway.

Most DA’s and advantages are terrible and should lose to smart analytics.

Other:

I love plan flaws and thought structural inherency was a great arg on the China topic.

I'm currently a head coach at New Trier Township High School outside of Chicago, IL. I've been at New Trier since 2012. Prior to that I was the director of debate at Cathedral Preparatory School in Erie, PA. I debated at the University of Pittsburgh ('07) and at Cathedral Prep ('03).

Here are some defaults into the way I evaluate arguments. Obviously these are contingent upon the way that arguments are deployed in round. If you win that one of these notions should not be the standard for the debate, I will evaluate it in terms of your argumentation.

*I evaluate the round based on the flow. Technical line by line debating should be prioritized. That's not to say that I'm always a "tech over truth" judge. I'm willing to listen to reasonable extrapolations, smart debating, and bringing in some context. However, I don't think I can interpret exactly how an argument in one place should be applied to another portion of the flow/debate unless the debater does that for me. To me, that injects my understanding of how I would spin one argument to answer another and I don't want to do that.

*Offense/Defense - I'm not sure if I'm getting older or if the quality of evidence is getting worse, but I find myself less persuaded by the idea that there's "always a risk" of any argument. Just because a debater says something does not mean it is true. It is up to the other team to prove that. However, if an argument is claimed to be supported by evidence and the cards do not say what the tags claim or the evidence is terrible, I'm willing to vote on no risk to that argument. Evidence needs to have warrants that support tags/claims.

*I prefer tags that are complete sentences. The proliferation of one word tags makes with massive card text (often without underlining) reduces the academic integrity of the activity.

*Evidence should be highlighted to include warrants for claims. I am more likely to vote on a few cards that have high quality warrants and explained well than I am to vote on several cards that have been highlighted down to the point that an argument cannot be discerned in the evidence.

* Teams are getting away with some real scholarly shenanigans on evidence. I've seen cards that run 6-7 pages long and they are highlighted down to a few sentences. I think it is up to the debaters to exploit this, but I'm less and less impressed by the overall scholarship in the activity.

*Arguments require claims and warrants. A claim without warrant is unlikely to be persuasive.

* A note on plan texts: start defending things. I find that most plans are extraordinarily vague and meaningless. They are "resolutional phrase by X." There's no plan text basis for the fiat claims AFF teams are making. All of the sudden, that becomes some wild extrapolation on how the plan is implemented, what a Court decision would look like, that it is done through some random memo, etc. all in an effort to avoid offense. I've just grown a little tired of it. I'm not saying change your plan because of me, you need to do what you need to do to win the round, but the overall acceptance of plans that do not say anything of substance is trend a frown upon.

*Performance/Non-traditional Affirmative -

I can still be persuaded to vote for an AFF that doesn't defend the topic, but it's become much harder for me. I find myself being increasingly on the side of defending the resolution.

My old paradigm read as follows: I would prefer that the debate is connected to the resolution. My ultimate preference would be for the Affirmative to defend a topical plan action that attempts to resolve a problem with the status quo. I think that this provides an opportunity for students to create harms that are tied to traditional internal link chains or critical argumentation. Teams should feel free to read critical advantages, but I would prefer that they access them through a topical plan action. For example, reading an Affirmative that finds a specific example of where structural violence (based on racism, sexism, heteronormativity, classism, etc.) is being perpetuated and seeks to remedy that can easily win my ballot. Debaters could then argue that the way that we make decisions about what should or should not be done should prioritize their impacts over the negative's. This can facilitate kritiks of DA impacts, decision calculus arguments, obligations to reject certain forms of violence, etc.

Teams who choose not to defend a topical plan action should be very clear in explaining what their advocacy is. The negative should be able to isolate a stasis point in the 1AC so that clash can occur in the debate. This advocacy should be germane to the resolution.

I am not wedded traditional forms of evidence. I feel that teams can use non-traditional forms of evidence as warrants explaining why a particular action should be taken. An Affirmative that prefers to use personal narratives, music, etc. to explain a harm occurring in the status quo and then uses that evidence to justify a remedy would be more than welcome. I tend to have a problem with Affirmative's that stop short of answering the question, "what should we do?" How a team plans to access that is entirely up to them.

*Kritik debates - I like kritik debates provided they are relevant to the Affirmative. Kritiks that are divorced from the 1AC have a harder time winning my ballot. While I do not want to box in the negative's kritik options, examples of kritiks that I would feel no qualms voting for might include criticisms of international relations, economics, state action, harms representations, or power relations. I am less persuaded by criticisms that operate on the margins of the Affirmative's advocacy. I would prefer links based off of the Affirmative plan. Kritiks that I find myself voting against most often include Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.

*Theory - Generally theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. The exception is conditionality. I find myself less persuaded by conditionality bad debates if there are 2 or less advocacies in the round. That is not to say I haven't voted for the AFF in those debates. I am willing to vote on theory if it is well explained and impacted, but that does not happen often, so I end up defaulting negative. Avoid blips and theory blocks read at an incomprehensible rate.

*CP's CP's that result in the plan (consult, recommendations, etc.) bore me. I would much rather hear an agent CP, PIC, Advantage CP, etc. than a CP that competes off of "certainty" or "immediacy."

*Case - I'd like to see more of it. This goes for negative teams debating against nontraditional Affirmatives as well. You should engage the case as much as possible.

Other things
*If your strategy is extinction good or death good, genocide good, racism good, patriarchy good, etc. please do all of us as favor and strike me. These arguments strike me as being inappropriate for student environments. Imagine a world where a debater's relative recently passed away and that student is confronted with "death good" for 8 minutes of the 1AC. Imagine a family who fled slaughter in another part of the world and came to the United States, only to listen to genocide good. These are things I wouldn't allow in my classroom and I would not permit them in a debate round either. Since I can't actually prevent people from reading them, my only recourse is to use my ballot.

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

add me to the email chain pls!!! adelinecorinnewilson@gmail.com
i am very short and am often confused for a high school child. yes I am your judge.

Who I am:
Denver East/Denver Independent '17
UC Berkeley '21 (go bears)

I debated policy in high school, TOC qualified, almost entirely as an independent entry. currently coach for Harker.

tldr: if you're wondering if you can read *x* argument in front of me, the answer is yes. I am familiar with and have read K literature, the politics DA, performance, framework, counterplans, high theory, heg good affs, etc. don't tailor your argument to fit what you think I want to hear. do what you're good at and explain your arguments well and there won't be any problems.
in terms of speaking—despite spreading, I believe debate is still an exercise in persuasion and public speaking. look at me! make jokes! be charismatic! make fun of the other team's arguments/yourself/people I know!

Things I think are rules of debate:
tech > truth
you cannot clip cards
you must flash/show your evidence to your opponents
speech times
you cannot text or communicate otherwise with anyone who is not your partner during the round
you cannot steal prep
debater-directed sexist/racist/prejudiced speech or behavior is never acceptable

Things I do not think are rules of debate:
whether or not you are topical
using the internet to look up what the hell that weird K word means (this is ok)
being nice to your opponents (tho you will lose speaker points if you are not)
being nice to me (tho I'll like you more if you are)
what you choose to do with your speech/prep time

LD DEBATE:

This is somewhat new to me! I have been coaching/judging LD for about 3 years now, but I never debated LD in high school. so, for whatever this means to you, I will approach the round from a somewhat policy perspective. sorry. some stuff just gets ingrained. that being said, I like judging LD! feel free to ask any clarifying questions, but these are my main thoughts:

Theory:

If you're thinking of going for the most convoluted, tricky, weird (no offense), LD jargon-y theory argument, I'm probably not your gal. too often I have found myself frantically trying to keep up with someone as they spread through some theory block their coach wrote for them years ago or some absolutely ridiculous violation of a made up rule with little to no contextualization to the round. this will not be particularly persuasive to me.

don't get me wrong, I'm good with speed and I like a good theory debate. that being said—call me crazy, but ripping through your theory block SO QUICKLY that i practically break my keyboard trying to taking down maybe 70% of what you say is a BAD theory debate. if I can't flow it comfortably, I won't.

Other stuff:

no RVIs on T. just no.

pretty much everything else applies from my policy paradigm (see below). I vibe with both Ks/fun, critical affs and heg good affs/tricky econ DAs. do ur thing.

POLICY DEBATE: see everything below

K affs:
do what u want! this is what I did. I will hold you to a very high threshold when it comes to answering framework because this is an argument that you ABSOLUTELY need to have good answers to if you are choosing to read a K aff. if you chose to advocate something (which you probably should), tell me what it is and why it matters. tell me what my ballot means. use your 1AC. too often the actual aff gets lost in clash of civ debates and I hate when the 2AR is nothing but "framework bad". framework is not bad or evil. it is an argument to test the compatibility of your argument with the activity of debate.

FW:
as a judge, my perspective on FW debates has evolved considerably from when i was a debater. you are on the side of truth—use it. read specific interpretations and topical versions of the aff. tell me specifically what about the aff is unfair/abusive. HOW DOES THE AFFIRMATIVE ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT DEBATE IS A COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY WITH A WINNER AND A LOSER. please don't make it hard for me to vote for you—if the aff reads a bunch of "disads" against your framework, ANSWER THEM.

Ks:
yes!!!! I like Ks. read them well. this includes going very in-depth with the link debate in the block, articulating your alternative well, explaining the relationship between the squo/the world of the aff/the world of the alt, and most importantly: clear, developed framework that tells me how I should evaluate the round and what my ballot means in terms of the K. *side note* if you're reading a K your coach just threw at you moments before the round because you think I'm a K hack and I'll like it better than a policy arg, don't. I will be sad.

Language/Rhetoric Ks:
I decided to add this here after some thought, and my goal is not to offend anyone with this section. please be careful when reading language/rhetoric Ks in front of me (ex. "you guys"/ableist rhetoric). unless the K is either connected to the argument you are reading or genuinely comes from a place of passion and desire to improve debate, please don't read it. a simple call out during CX should suffice and is often a more effective way of changing this kind of speech. obviously I will deal with any egregiously offensive language. but if the team you are debating unintentionally lets slip a word that carries offensive connotations to a certain group—this should not be treated as an instant ballot for you. it is an opportunity to educate and should be handled as such. if you have questions feel free to ask me :)

Affs v. Ks:
pretty much the inverse of my stance on Ks. attack each and every link, point out flaws in the alternative, tell me why the aff is better than both the squo and the alt, and make good framing args. for critical affs against the K- articulate and execute the permutation if you have one, but please explain what the perm looks like.

T:
yep. compare and explain your definitions/interpretations and tell me why they're better. attach your interpretation specifically to the topic and the necessity to exclude THIS aff in particular. fairness can be an impact, but explain why it is at stake in this round.

CPs/DAs:
I love them!!! the CP should be both textually and functionally competitive. I will listen to it and vote for it even if its not, but it should be.

disads are great by themselves but are best when paired with a more offensive argument in the 2NR. specific links will get you far.

Theory:
I don't air a certain way on any theory arguments, however I believe they are almost never reasons to reject the team. the only thing important to me is that you contextualize all of the arguments you are making to what is happening in the round.

I feel like I'm pretty normal in terms of baseline views—the neg should be allowed to read counterplans, etc etc.

PF DEBATE:

I also sometimes judge this lol. in that case, ignore all of that ^ because it won't affect how I judge PF. the only way that my policy/LD background sneaks into my PF judging is that I think almost every final focus goes for too much. I know this isn't as common of a practice as it is in policy, but pick an argument you are winning and go for it. frame my ballot around it. I will not punish you if you don't extend every aspect of your case‚ unless you needed to because the other team did something funky/put offense on it.

also, I am probably the most informal judge you will ever have. you don't have to ask me if you can stand or sit during crossfire or if you're allowed to use the bathroom, take your jacket off, etc. I do not care.

Berkeley '21

Encinitas Independent '17

School conflicts: Green Valley, San Dieguito

Put me on the chain, ericwimsatt@gmail.com

tldr; I'm a Wimsatt. I like Ks more than the others; Do your thing; Explain your thing; everything will be fine.

I was a TOC debater in high school, I stopped debating in college. I study computer science and have been doing research around misinformation for ~2 years. Do what you wish with this information.

Do what you do best, I'd rather watch a good debate than have you try to throw something together to match my paradigm. I've read big far right affs, gone for different Ks, answered Baudrillard with heg good and read weirder philosophers than anything you've heard of. All I ask is that if you do something that's not traditional policy have a good explanation for why I should vote for you.

That being said, as my name may suggest, I do have a slight preference for policy style args. But as long as you explain what's going on I can be a great judge for any kind of argument.

Ks: I've run em. I've argued against em. The links are super important. If I can't find a specific link I probably won't vote for you. I think the alt is often the weakest part of the k. I do find I'm more willing than most judges to give extra weight to the framework portion of the debate (for either team) so long as it's done well

K affs: I've run em. I've argued against em. I don't know the newest framework lingo for either team so please, for everyone's sake, explain what's going on instead of using buzzwords

Theory: I care about impacts to theory arguments a lot. Treat them like any other impact and you'll be fine. If you're A strat is condo bad I'm probably not your guy.

Politics: Love it. Not sure why everyone gives it a section in their paradigm.

Counterplans: I like em. I'll default to not judgekicking, but it won't take much to get me to kick it for you.

I don't judge very often. I want to see some good debates. Please.

UC Berkeley 2021 (go bears)

College - caldebatechain@gmail.com, debatedocs

High School - ktwimsatt at gmail

- Tech over truth. Only exception is death good arguments/spark. Do not read them; I will not vote on them.

- Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.

- I'm more convinced by affs that commit to, and defend, an action coming out of the 1ac.

- Ks should prove the plan is a bad idea.

- I'm not convinced by CP theory arguments like condo or PICs bad. Private actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, or object fiat definitely have merit.

- I default to judge kick unless 1ar and 2ar convince me otherwise.

Have fun!

Pronouns: He/ Him. Will respect whatever your preferred pronouns are.

Role/ Experience: Director of Debate @ Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose, CA. Formerly debated circuit Policy & coached @ Logan, & Parli @ UC Davis.

Evidence: Put me on the chain: mwoodhead@mitty.com & mittypolicydocs@gmail.com. However, I try to avoid reading speech docs for substantive issues- you have to make the arguments, interps, weighing clear to me in your verbalized speech. I will try to intervene/ "do work" for the debater as little as possible, so don't expect that I will buy all of the "fire analysis" of your card if you aren't extending or explaining any of it. Prep stops when you send out the doc. Don't burgle. Don't clip cards. Mark your docs if you end early.

Decorum: Be respectful of all in the round. Ad hominem attacks (about a person's immutable identity/ characteristics/ background) are never OK and will cost you speaker points at the very least. If you cross the line, expect the L and a talk with your coach. Attack arguments and their justifications, not the person.

Policy:

• Open to any argument. I would say that I default policymaker but am completely open to K arguments/ affirmatives. If going for the K, please overcome my general skepticism by clearly explaining the role of the ballot and demonstrating some level of competitive fairness in your framework. I want to know what exactly I am voting for, not simply that the other side was thoroughly confused.
• Speed is fine, but slow down on tags, blippy analytics, interps, alts, and CP and perm texts. Pause after cites. Introduce acronyms. I'll yell clear if necessary. Avoid other distracting behaviors like loud tapping, pen-dropping, and super-double breadths. Non-speaking teams should limit their decibel level and overt facial indignation.
• T, theory, Ks, etc. are fine. But, as with any argument, if you would like for me to vote for these, you need to give me a clear reason. I am not as well-versed in some K Affs or high theory Ks, but am certainly open to evaluating them if you can make them make sense. I am more comfortable adjudicating T, CP, DA/ case debates, but I am open to voting for arguments of all types (Ks, K Affs, etc...). I will vote for non-conventional argument forms (songs, dance & poetry, etc...), but will be very acutely focused on the education and fairness implications of these alternative styles. I will give you more leeway on unconventional arguments (on the aff) if they bear some relation to the topic. Topic education is valuable. But, other things matter too.
• I leave my assessment of the round largely in the hands of the team that presents me with the best explanation of how to frame the major issues in the round, and why that favors their side. If that work is done thoughtfully and clearly, then my decision about which way the round should go becomes much easier. Oh yeah, it typically helps when you win the actual arguments too (warrants, evidence, links, impacts, & all that micro stuff).
• On theory, I usually will only pull the trigger if I can see demonstrable abuse or unfairness. The "potential for abuse argument" alone doesn't usually cut it with me (unless it's cold-conceded). Show me what specific limitations their interp caused and why that's bad for debate. Condo bad may be a good time trade-off for the aff, but probably won't convince me without some demonstrable in-round fairness/ education loss.
• I appreciate strategy, creativity, and maybe a little humor. Speaks typically range from 27-29.5. I am not impressed by shouting, bullying or obstruction- these will cost you points!! Most importantly, have fun! If you have questions, you can ask me before the round.

LD:

(Please see my policy paradigm above as this is where I draw most of my experience and perspective from. You can also find my thought on speed/ evidence/ speaks there. The gist is that I default as a policymaker, but this can be upended if you convince me your framework/ ethical system is good or preferable)

Cross: Speaking over or past your opponent goes nowhere fast. If you ask a question, allow them an answer. If you want to move on, kindly ask to move on, don't shout them down.

Plans: I love them since they impart a clearer sense of your advocacy and one concrete comparative world. Still, you will be held to that plan. Shifting advocacies, vagueness on key functions of the plan, inserting extra-topical provisions to deck case neg offense are likely to get you in trouble. Spec args and funding questions need to be reasonable. Aff can, and probably should, defend normal means in these instances, but clarify what that probably looks like.

Whole Res: This style of debate is fine, but it makes affs vulnerable to a large set of topical, but terrible, ideas. It is each debater's job to weigh for me the preponderance of the evidence. So, even if you prove one idea is the res could cause nuke war, I need to weigh that eventuality's probability versus the rest of the aff's probabilities of doing good. This is a daunting task given the limited speech times, so make your examples as clearly defined, relevant, and probable. I am often persuaded by the most salient example.

Theory: I am far more receptive to theory arguments that pertain to choices by the opponent. Attacking structural differences of the aff/ neg in LD as a justification for some unfair strategy choice is not likely to persuade me and often ends up as a wash. Tell me what arguments their interp specifically limits and why that's bad in this round or for debate in general.

Other things: I do not favor whimsical theory arguments that avoid debating the topic or avoid normative questions of public policy in general. So, save your font size theory for another judge.

Parli:

Plans are cool/ extra-topical planks are not. Evidence is cool, but warranted and empirically supported reasoning is best. DO NOT take 45 seconds between speeches. DO ASK POIs! Please take at least 2 POIs in constructive for the sake of clarity and education.


PF:

Years Judging Public Forum: 9

Speed of Delivery: moderately fast, I would say full speed, but since people throw 8 "cards" up in 20 seconds in PF, you're better off at like 70% of full speed.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Line by line with some framing/ voters if it helps to clarify the round.

Role of the Final Focus: Establish voters, demonstrate offense, and weighing.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: do it, please don't shadow extend everything, I won't do the work for you.

Topicality: cool
Plans: fine/ unless impossibly narrow
Kritiks: if it links, sure
Flowing/note-taking: Do it, I will.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Arguments matter more. But, as a member of the human species, style and conviction impact the level to which I am persuaded. Still, I prefer a style that oriented to a calm and reasoned discussion of the real facts and issues, so I think they go hand in hand.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Typically, yes, especially in the summary. The rebuttal may not necessarily have to extend defensive elements of the case.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Opponents case only; though, you won't get back the time later to explain and frame your best responses, so I'd try to cover responses to case too.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Not unless something unique prompted the response for the first time in the immediately prior speech/ grand-cross.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. Be civil, succinct, and provide plenty of examples (either common knowledge or your evidence).

Very experienced judge and coach for Saint Francis high school. I will consider pretty much any arguments that are not blatantly sexist, racist or crudely discriminatory (blatant is the key word here, much of this stuff is debatable and I will try not to punish you for my general feelings about your arguments).

It is important to me that debaters be respectful and polite to each other, this puts the spotlight on the arguments themselves and I am not a fan of extra drama.

I try hard to be fair and the following things help me do that:

- I rarely call cards. I like to focus the debate on the analysis given by the debaters (of course I will usually give more weight to analysis that is taken from qualified sources). I do not like to decide debates on random parts of a card that neither debater really focused on. I will call cards if I forget what they said, if there is a conflict about what they say and I can not remember, or if I am personally interested in the card.

- I try to judge on the flow in the sense that I evaluate the debate on the arguments presented, explained and extended into the rebuttals. I will occasionally do the work to weigh impacts or decide framing if the debaters are not doing that for me.

- I will not yell "clear", so mumble and slur at your own risk (I don't yell clear because I don't want a team to find that sweet spot where I can understand them but their opponents can not). I will also not evaluate arguments that I can not hear. I do not read speech documents during the debate rounds, sometimes I will look at them after the round (see calling cards stuff above).

Argument preferences:

I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.

I am cool with framework (I like the debaters to work this out and I am pretty neutral on this question).

I like clarity (both in speech and arguments). I am not impressed by things that are "too complex" for me to understand but I will do my best to try to make sense of it. I am confident enough to not pretend I know your position and I will not fill in the blanks for you.

I am cool with policy arguments.

I have a wide breadth of knowledge but little depth on certain positions, don't assume I know your literature.

Speaks:

I give high speaks for clarity, efficiency, a pace that I can flow, respectfulness and occasionally speaking style.

I feel like the speaker point range I give is pretty close to average (I am not a reliable source of high speaks for everyone, but I will reward excellent debate with high speaks).

Contact info

mail all speech documents to: headofthewood@gmail.com

anything else (if you want me to read the e-mail or respond): thomaswoodhead@sfhs.com

Elisa Rae Yeung (she/her)

B.A. English Literature, Minor in African American Studies from the University of San Francisco

I debated at Wallenberg High School with BAUDL & qualified for the Urban Debate National Championships twice (yay). I have also been an Alumni Ambassador with NAUDL twice (2018 and 2020) and my senior thesis about food and identity was recently published in the University of San Francisco's Writing for a Real World in February 2021. Now I judge debates because I know how lovely it is to have an experienced judge!

TLDR: Do you, I have run super policy and super K args on the aff and neg so I'll be able to keep up unless you spread suuuuuuuper fast. Tag team cross ex is fine, as long as each speaker answers at least one question (:

Specific Things:

DA's! CP's! I love a good politics DA...as long as it’s been updated! Provide an overview of these (and all) off case positions in every speech.

FW! Emphasize real world change created as a result of your framework.

T! Only run this if you're actually going to go for it

K's! Please use specific links! Links of omission are fine and all, but don't usually make for the best debate in terms of clash

Performance/Poetry/K debate! Would love to see it, but be prepared for cross ex!

---

Please be on time and early. If possible, be ready to send the 1AC before I get there or have it sent already so we can start ASAP.

Puns are my fave so +0.2 speaker points if I think they're funny (:

YES, add me to the email chain at elisarae415@gmail.com or if you need to contact me before the round for any reason.

Stanford '21

Almost everything I know about debate I learned from David Weston and Liam Hancock. Ask before round if you have specific questions, but in short, you do you and I will follow :)

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

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

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

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

Email: jasoncxdebate@gmail.com

Experience:

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

Feelings about specific things:

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

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

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

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

I have judged a minor slew of the wild'n'crazy debates over the past few years. This has lead me to a strong appreciation of the fundamentals: line-by-line, "even if" statements and strong impact calculus. That said, I like to learn and experience new things. If you introduce me to a word or an author or a frame of thinking, I am more likely to reward you with whatever ballots mean. 

My definition of a *good debate* is as follows: words are clear and discernible, arguments are distinct and comparative, speeches are well-organized and contain multiple historical and situational examples, debaters are cordial and crafty while always keeping a sense of humor, paperless wastetime is kept to a minimum and the final two speeches are spent writing my RFD.

Unless you are doing something wrong, I almost always flow cross-ex.

While not impossible, I don't typically vote for teams that solely extend defensive arguments.Since definitions of offense/defense differ among judges, mine are:

Offense = what they advocate is/leads to something that is bad/dangerous/catastrophic. Defense = something they said is incorrect/unlikely/false.

If you are using debate to fashion a new Total World-Image, you should realize that I might not care that hard. I leave you with the following kernel of empuzzling wisdom from the Haruki Murakami:

...there is nothing unusual about a dairy cow seeking a pair of pliers. A cow is bound to get her pliers sometime. It has nothing to do with me.

(Older Extra-Long Version, All Of Which Is Still True-ish)

My primary goal as a judge is to enjoyably resolve debates with a minimum quantity of my own intervention. While true tabula rasa is impossible, I think that attempting to constrain the influences on my decision to arguments in the debate is a necessary thought experiment in the interests of pedagogical competition. Therefore, I will attempt to prevent my prior knowledge of the topic, history, and certain authors or literatures from influencing my decision and will consign such interests to post-round suggestions and comments.

That being said, I have some presumptions which are generally reflected in the way I make decisions in really bad/unresolved or good/close debates, where key questions are left to the judge. If you want me to judge in a different way, then you should introduce a judgment calculus as an argument in the debate itself and tell me how you’d like things resolved. Below are a list of some of my considered presumptions.

STRUCTURE

Debate is a game — it is supposed to be fun and it is supposed to stimulate participants’ intellect. Rules and constraints on arguments are a vital element of motivating this stimulation, in the same way that constraints on poetic forms motivate novel plays of language. Debating the rules, the framework and the impact calculus within that framework has always been a component of winning debates. This is true whether the framework argument concerns a stipulation that the affirmative defend the minimum number of votes necessary for legislative passage, that the judge is a logical policy-maker, that the affirmative must defend a topical plan or that every debater must answer the cross-ex questions posed to them. Fiat and policy implementation are black boxes that can be uniquely unpacked in every debate for strategic gain, whether via an intrinsicness argument or an argument about one’s personal connection to the topic.

Line-by-line is pretty important — it’s how I flow and my flow typically dictates how I decide debates. If there is a compelling reason not to decide a debate on dropped arguments, tell me what it is during the debate and if the other team drops it I’ll make a good-faith effort to embrace your paradox. Conceded arguments may be treated as true, but the scope of that truth is limited by arguments which remain contested. I try to remain vigilant of new arguments in final speeches.

Scope matters — an argument that is thesis-level is more powerful and wide-ranging than a specific argument, but because there are more opportunities for counter-example, general arguments are logically easier to disprove. If you concede the truth of a thesis-level claim without taking the opportunity to find a counter-example, then you should not be surprised when the debate is decided at the level of generalities. See Karl Popper’s explanation of Occam’s Razor for an explanation of the logic behind this.

Warrant depth and diversity are key — it’s how I decide most contests between given claims. Counter-intuitive, improbable and morally repugnant claims are totally winnable with diverse and high-quality warrants.

Cheap shots aren’t a great idea — I’m a pretty good flow but I have a high threshold for clarity. If you mumbled out a voting issue or trick perm in pig latin that the other team missed there’s a decent chance I missed it too. I won’t vote on an argument that I didn’t record during a speech unless all four debaters agree that it was made or concede the same

Offense/defense is standard — with some obvious exceptions it seems like everyone wants to debate this way, so I’m happy to go along with it. I do think there are serious problems with the logic of offense/defense, most easily highlighted in debates over the link differential between a plan and counterplan. I am also susceptible to offense/defense bad arguments (“Arguments are sentences that are either true or false…the counterplan either links to the DA or doesn’t… therefore link differential as a concept is incoherent… you’re either pregnant or you’re not”), but I’m sure there are good responses to such objections

THEORY

Remedy is the most important question for theory debates. I will assume that the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument unless it is explicitly stated otherwise prior to the final rebuttals.

Conditionality is usually a good thing, but then again it is possible to have too much of a good thing. Nuanced theory is key — I’m more sympathetic to the aff if conditional advocacies contradict or steal the aff in some way, as opposed to the debate over whether or not conditionality in the abstract is good or bad.

Postround conditionality is sweet for the negative but terrible for the aff. I am very sympathetic theoretical objections against it. I won’t kick arguments for the negative unless explicitly told to, and then only if the aff doesn’t object.

Permutations are tests of a link unless explained otherwise. If there is a link argument extended by the negative, then it must be explained how the permutation resolves the link arguments.

DISADS

Uniqueness controls the direction of the link if decisively won by either team — otherwise I’ll evaluate all arguments probablistically via offense/defense

Diverse case turn arguments are a great way to persuade me that you’ve won the debate

I find that I begin most of my decisions by looking at impact uniqueness — the part of debate that determines whether or not either side truly controls “try-or-die”. If a team decisively controls impact uniqueness, then I may be inclined to vote for them even if they appear to be losing much of the rest of the debate.

Extreme-low-risk causal chains fall within the penumbra of statistical noise and in principle only dictate possibility rather than probability. In other words, if you lose a key defensive argument on a DA, you have proven that the link-chain suggested by the DA is possible, but not probable. Because lots of things are possible, the fact that the DA is possible may not be significant in my decision.

COUNTERPLANS

PICs done right are some of my favorite arguments. Case specific, functionally and textually competitive, with specific solvency advocates are awesome

Counterplans that steal the aff are probably unfair for the aff to have to debate — I’m more aff-leaning on condition/consult than most

Cross-ex is the best way to establish competition

Solvency advocates in general are preferable but not a must

KRITIKS

Specificity is key — if you aren’t pointing to specific 1AC cards to do link analysis then you are depriving yourself of both a speaker point opportunity and strategic advantage

Think through what the alt is — if you get embarrassed on the alt being vague and/or naive and/or dumb in cross-ex then I may feel hard-pressed to vote for you

Floating PIKs are silly but really strategic — if you make them too sneakily in the block and then claim that they were “dropped” I think the 2ar probably gets a few new-ish logical answers

CROSS-EX

I flow it sometimes, it’s binding and vital for speaker points

INTERNETS

Only use it for research questions during debates — fine for Wikipedia checks or to get the context of a full article, not cool to open an email with a bunch of new updates half-way through the debate. If you want to use time during a debate to cut a cards, that’s your own business

SPEAKER POINTS

I give speaker points for rhetorical and persuasive flourish, use of historical examples and creative analogies, humor and technical talent. I may lower points for debaters who fight with or interrupt their partner, are cruel or disrespectful to their opponents, who prompt excessively, who make poor use of cross-ex. I will also punish the speaker points of debaters who use prejudicial or discriminatory language in a debate, or violate ethical norms of conduct.

ETHICS

I don’t vote on ethics challenges. There are other remedies that solve better, and I don’t think that it is worth ruining an entire debate over one person’s opinion of what constitutes “community norms” or “ethical practices”. That being said, please don’t lie, cheat, steal, cross-read, fabricate evidence, text/chat with your coaches during a debate and so on — it fosters a weakness of spirit if you get away with it and makes you look pathetic and/or stupid if called out on it.

PERFORMANCE

Arguments are arguments, whether made by voice, image, song or body. That being said, sometimes it’s difficult for me to flow the warrants of the body, so make sure you explain your arguments in plain language. I appreciate rhetorical debating, and will give higher speaker points for performances that look like some effort was put into composition and rehearsal.

I find that reading evidence often distracts from / undermines the rhetorical force of a performance. I appreciate warranted argumentation — you don’t need to hand me a lot of evidence.

Your opponents influence the way that I judge your solvency. Make sure that the other team understands what you’re argument is, or at very least give them the opportunity to understand. Performance teams whose arguments are excessively complicated, vague or constantly morphing can undermine their own raison d’etre.

I am more sympathetic to performances that either justify the resolution or have advocacy statements that are germane to the topic. I think that topicality and framework are different arguments. Make sure you can defend your education in the context of the education facilitated by the resolution.

2024- 2/4/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:

Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:

Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:

I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:

Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:

Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:

Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:

Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:

Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:

Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions

selena zhang (she/her/hers)

current conflicts, affiliations, organizations: harker (ca), okemos (mi), fairview (co).

if you would like me to know about anything to make the round more accessible to you (gender pronouns, where to sit, coronavirus/virtual debating accommodations, trigger warnings, etc), i encourage you to talk to/email me beforehand.

logistics

hi! i'm selena--i debated policy in high school on the colorado circuit and at uc berkeley. i graduated from cal in 2020. i have been coaching harker for 3 years and judge upwards of 50 rounds per season between policy and LD.

email for email chains: firstnamelastname 17 @ gmail [substitute as necessary]

if you are pressed for time, read the bolded parts.

online debate

1. please go at about ~80% speed of what you would normally go at. i will say "clear" if your audio is muddled or cutting out.

2. please remember to record your speech locally and to check after every speech/cx that no one has dropped off the call. if internet issues do arise, i will only evaluate the recording and will not allow any redos.

3. i would prefer if you turn your camera on during the debate; however, i totally understand that this may not always be feasible [feel free to turn it off during prep, if you're away, or if you're waiting for RFD]

4. start rounds promptly and early if possible. this includes having the email chain ready, having the file downloaded and open, and being ready to give your speech.

general

- i will listen to whatever you choose to present, but tell me why you win.
- clarity over speed. i will very explicitly stop flowing if you are unclear.
- tech ≥ truth, regardless if you are running 1 off, 10+ off, or anything in between.
- open cx is fine and emailing/flashing does not count as prep, but keep both to a minimum. time yourselves and hold each other accountable.
- being assertive is fine; being rude is not. i trust you all to know the difference.

method

at the end of the debate, i holistically evaluate the round, with the strongest emphasis on the 2nr/2ar. i then work my way backwards and determine how well earlier speeches set up the final rebuttals. dropped arguments are not automatically true, but must be warranted. i will not intensely read cards unless if you tell me to or if i feel like it would help me understand the analysis done in your speeches.

this process is slightly different for LD and PF. the speech times for both activities do not allow for extensive argument development, so i tend to evaluate the earlier speeches with a little more weight than i would in policy. however, your 1ac underview/spikes should not be longer than your actual 1ac case.

thoughts on specific arguments

case: i love case debates. i am a huge fan of ones that have more than just impact defense in the block. case turns, author indicts, and recuts of the opponent's evidence are great to see in a round. extinction good and de-dev are valid arguments provided you explain it well. however, morally abhorrent arguments such as "racism/sexism/etc. good" are not valid.

counterplans: are generally good if they are well researched and have a thorough solvency advocate. i am not against any specific counterplans, but if you do choose to go for ones that are considered to be somewhat illegitimate and/or abusive, be ready to defend them.

disads: great. i especially like case specific ones that have a strong link chain. impact calculus is important.

kritiks: sure. i am relatively well-versed in some of the more common kritiks, but i am not very familiar with some of the hyper-specific k's on this year's topic. it would be in your best interest to explain and contextualize your k to me in relation to the affirmative. this could involve (but is not limited to) excavating a very specific link to the affirmative, showing how the thesis of your k highlights the truth of the 1ac, pulling out lines from the aff that link into your kritik, among others.

i have a high threshold for kritiks, so make sure you understand the literature behind the theory. alt solvency is important, but you do not necessarily need to win the alt in order to win the K. make sure that you can clearly communicate how your alternative would function if it were actualized. flesh out the link debate and the perm debate. provide a clear framework of how i should evaluate the round.

K affs/nontraditional affs: a lot of what was written above is applicable to here: i am fine with them. i would prefer that your aff is somewhat relevant to the topic, and unless you are able to clearly show me why you deserve to win with an untopical aff, i am more inclined to vote negative on these. understand your k aff from the inside out, and make sure you have good framework answers.

topicality (for policy affs): i genuinely love a good T debate, but i do have a high threshold for it. that just means i want to see it debated well. tell me why you win on T.

T-USFG and framework vs K affs: great arguments. i do not have any strong opinions on this argument, but i hope to see fleshed out impacts, contextualized answers as to why your model is good/why their model is bad both inside and outside the debate sphere.

theory: this description is for any type of policy-oriented theory argument, ie PICs bad/good, condo, ASPEC, etc. refer to the LD section below for my thoughts on "tricks" theory arguments.

since many people do not actively go for theory, i naturally have not judged many theory 2ar's. theory can be fine; however, i usually do not vote on it because the arguments and impacts are not fleshed out very well in most rounds. i find that i vote on theory if one side was at a clear and severe disadvantage coming into the round, and that the debater was able to explicitly contextualize this disadvantage.

ethics violations: (mis)disclosure and evidence fabrication can be voting issues, but i would hope that everyone appropriately discloses and correctly cuts evidence beforehand. if you would like to call an ethics violation, i will ask if you would be willing to stake the round on it. if you agree, i will evaluate the violation and grant wins and losses based on my decision. if you do not agree or would prefer to present the violation in a different manner (ie recutting the card), i will let the debate continue.

clipping: do not clip cards. i am comfortable dropping you on clipping, but i am generally reasonable if you stumble on a word or two. do not misrepresent what you read.

speaker points

my scale is relative to the tournament that i am judging at or the division of the event. other than that, my thoughts on speaker points do not differ much from everyone else’s, and i try to keep up with community norms. in general, i add points for clear speaking, well-developed arguments, and strategic argument choices, and i subtract them for the inverse of these qualities.

with the exceptions of CP/DA and other sensible combinations, a split 2nr will hurt your speaker points. saying "clear" either means your voice is muddled or that you are routinely messing up words or syllables that are critical to understanding your speech. i will say "clear" 2 times before i stop flowing.

judging LD

i judge LD quite extensively and have become very familiar with the style and format. most of what i wrote above is highly applicable to LD, especially at the circuit level. with my policy background, i have found that i am the best suited for LARP/K debates. however, please do what you do best: while adapting to your judge is important, i believe that a characteristic of good debaters is that they are able to win with their own style regardless of the person they are debating in front of. i like impacts, but i am also down to judge a good traditional/lay framework debate as well.

i am seeing an increasing number of tricks and troll arguments, so here is my stance on them: my threshold for answering these are generally low, so expect an uphill battle if you choose to go for frivolous theory, tricks, or RVIs in the rebuttal.

i normally do not judge that many phil/tricks debates, so if you insist on that strategy, please spend some time contextualizing and explaining your arguments as if i have never heard of it.

judging PF

in PF, i follow a very similar method in evaluating debates as i do for policy and LD. tell me why you win; write my ballot for me. i am open to any kind of argument as long as it is well-warranted. most of what i have defined above in regards to presentation are also applicable to public forum. keep your off-time road maps and formalities (asking to take the first question, for instance) to a minimum. i am more lenient on speaker points in pf than other pf judges and care more about your arguments instead of your actions.

paraphrasing cards equates to evidence fabrication -- have the whole card ready throughout the debate.

addendum

• engage with the other side's arguments and use your best judgement!

• i flow CX. flex prep is fine, but my decision will only be based on what is said during your designated speaking times.

• i understand that there will inevitably be disagreement no matter the decision, but i hope you can learn from the loss to win any of my future ballots. i can clearly tell the difference between asking questions with the intent of improving vs. saying snarky remarks/asking frivolous questions in an attempt to undermine my judging skill and character. if these decorum issues persist, i will end the discussion and ask you to hash out your further questions through email.

• if you ever need any clarification on RFDs on tabroom or what i said after the round, please feel free to reach out to me.

• i am generally fine with any of your personal preferences when it comes to debate, as long as your actions are not affecting anyone else's ability to engage with the round. i reserve the right to intervene in cases of bullying, harassment, or violence.

I debated for La Canada High School from 2013-2017.

Email: axyzhao@gmail.com

POLICY

Familiar with common kritiks like neolib, security, and biopower. Please thoroughly explain your links in the context of the aff.

I'm probably best at evaluating a counterplan/DA strategy, but obviously will listen to everything else to the best of my ability.

I err neg on condo, but don't default judge kick.

Know less about the topic than you do, so please over-explain acronyms and topic-specific jargon.

__

LD

I default to epistemic modesty when evaluating philosophy/framework debate. "Winning framework" does not mean that I will only evaluate impacts under that framework; I will treat framework as a weighing mechanism, making certain impacts more or less important than others.

I default to debate as a comparison of advocacies - you have to win offense to your advocacy.

Explicit extensions of every card in the 1AC are not necessary. Debaters only have to explain their offense briefly if it's dropped.