Glenbrooks 2018 Update: I haven't judged a debate tournament this year. Don't assume that I have extensive knowledge about the topic.

Table of Contents Summary: Specific Preferences Speaking/Presentation: Policy Arguments: Framework: Theory: Defaults: Additional preferences: Kritiks: Tricks: Miscellaneous: Evidence Ethics: Speaker Points:

Conflicts: Lexington, Oakwood

Background: I debated in LD at Lexington High School, primarily on the national circuit and qualified to the TOC my Senior Year. I graduated in 2015. You can email me at DanAlessandro23@gmail.com with any questions about my paradigm.

Summary:

This is an excerpt from Paul Zhou's wiki that sums up how I feel about judging:

"I think part of what makes debate great is its incredible openness. Given that fact, I am fine with speed, theory, policy-style argumentation, dense framework arguments, kritiks, micropolitical arguments, a prioris/prestandard arguments, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Debate is your game. Play it how you want to."

I am open to any style of argumentation; just do what you do best. Even though I primarily read policy arguments as a debater, I enjoy watching and judging good kritik and framework debates as well as any other style as long as it's done well. I will do my best to evaluate all arguments objectively. I prefer debates with heavy clash and engagement with your opponents' arguments.

Specific Preferences

Speaking/Presentation:

• I can flow any speed as long as it is clear. I'll say clear as many times as necessary without docking your speaks. That being said, if I am saying clear repeatedly I will visibly indicate that I am unable to flow your arguments, and I won't vote on an argument that I didn't flow.
• When you are transitioning between flows or arguments on the flow, state the argument or flow you are going to next and then pause for 1-2 seconds for me to find it so I'm ready to flow your responses- if you do this well it will give you a speaks boost.
• When making multiple responses to an argument, make sure to label them through numbering or lettering.
• Go slower on tags, plan texts, counterplan texts, theory interpretartions and K alt texts.
• Try to give an overview establishing how I evaluate the round during final rebuttals; this will make it much easier for me to vote for you.
• Don't say "we" or "our argument"- you don't debate with a partner

Policy Arguments:

• I read these a lot as a debater and will be able to follow any policy-focused debate.
• Make sure to give good weighing between impacts. When doing weighing, make sure to not only tag why your impact outweighs e.g. it has greater magnitude, but explain why that weighing mechanism means one impact is more important than another.
• I really like seeing well researched and specific strategies.
• I prefer watching high-quality impact scenarios rather than a high quantity of impact scenarios. Take time to establish uniqueness, solvency, brink for each impact scenario rather than reading several short and underdeveloped impact scenarios.
• I view perms as advocacies that can be kicked in the 2AR when the aff reads a plan.

Framework:

• What counts as offense under a framework is determined by the framework warrants and not an ad hoc statement of what impacts link. For example, the aff may not read a Rawlsian framework and then just assert "this means only means-based impacts matter" without justifying through framework arguments why ends-based impacts aren't also relevant.
• I enjoy judging good philosophical framework debates. Don't assume that I'm knowledgable about your framework; all framework arguments need to be clearly explained in the first speech, or I will not vote on them.
• Contingent standards or triggers are fine as long as they are supported by an argument made in the first constructive that states why defense on part of the framework would trigger a different framework
• Framework debate is comparative- explain why your framework is good in relation to your opponent's framework

Theory:

Defaults:

The following are a list of soft theoretical defaults that I have. If any argument is made that opposes any of my default beliefs, I will always prioritize an in-round argument. These defaults merely indicate which way I will side on an issue if it isn't spoken to at all in the round.

1. Theory is a reason to reject the argument.
2. Theory is evaluated through a competing interpretations model where the better interp is the one that has more offense to it in the context of this specific round.
3. No RVIs
4. I presume aff in the absence of offense on either side at the end of the round

Additional preferences:

• I will vote on any theory argument that is justified and won, so long as it isn't blatantly offensive.
• I believe that the voter section is usually the least-developed section of a theory argument. If your opponent only spends 10 seconds arguing why fairness is a voter and reason to drop the debater, then exploit that. Debaters rarely justify specifically why a given theory violation is so egregious as to reject the debater, so if you go for theory as a voter, develop "reject the debater" well.
• I prefer theory debates that center on what interp would be best for this specific round over potential abuse claims or arguments about why a given rule would make another round worse. If you point out why your theory offense is relevant to this round and their's isn't, that will help put you ahead.
• Sign-post clearly on theory.

Kritiks:

• I'm fine with any "K" or critical positions.
• I'll be much more inclined to vote on these positions if the role of the ballot/role of the judge is well-developed. Reading a card that says "x is bad" is not sufficient to prove why my specific obligation as a judge is a reason to stop x, given that there are a million bad things in the world.
• Be clear about what the alternative does/advocates for
• I will evaluate arguments for why the K comes before theory or T based on the flow as I would with any other argument.

Tricks:

• Tricky arguments are fine with me as long as they are clearly explained.
• If I don't flow the implication of an argument in the first speech, then I will grant your opponent new responses to the implication in the next speech because it is unreasonable to expect them to flow an argument that I couldn't flow.
• New responses to tricky arguments can be made against the new part of the trick. For example, if the NC concedes the claim and warrant for an argument, but the impact doesn't come until the 1AR, then the 2NR can respond to the impact, but not the claim or warrant.
• I would prefer to judge positions that rely on clash rather than positions that seek to obfuscate the meaning of your arguments in the hope that your opponent will drop them and/or have their arguments precluded by them. However, I will vote for tricks if they are won on the flow.

Miscellaneous:

• I'm fine with debaters asking questions to each other during prep time (flex prep).
• You won't get higher than 20 speaker points if, upon request, you don't make an electronic copy of your case available to your opponent.
• Compiling your speech into one document is prep time; if your opponent tries to do this without using prep time, then call them out on it.
• Claims must have warrants for me to vote on them.

Evidence Ethics:

Evidence ethics are important. If debater A proves that debater B miscut or clipped any pieces of evidence, I will immediately drop debater B with 0 speaks and report them to the tab room. You may make an ethics challenge via an in-round theory argument or by stopping the round and staking the debate on the ethics challenge.

Speaker Points:

Guideline:
0-25.9 = bad
26-26.9 below average
27-27.9 = average
28-28.9 = good
29-29.9 = very good/excellent
30 = one of the best performances I've ever judged

Things that will give you higher speaker points:

• Answering abusive arguments well without theory
• Reading your opponent's evidence and making specific responses that reference their evidence
• Good use of CX
• Sitting down early
• Good overviews in final speeches
• High amounts of substantive clash
• Being clear, persuasive and efficient
• well-executed strategy
• perceptual dominance
• interesting and unique arguments
• Being funny
• Doing high quality weighing that makes it easy for me to write my ballot

Things that will give you lower speaker points:

• Plans bad theory
• Avoiding specific clash
• Frivolous theory arguments
• Excessive use of the word "probably"

I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Big Questions 2024

Without having coached it and seen what the topic literature looks like (or if it even exists), this seems like the worst topic I have ever judged. If there's a way to define "incompatible" that lends itself to interesting, balanced, and substantive debates, then by all means read it and emphasize how great your definition is. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the resolution isn't trivially true or false depending on the definitions, so a lot of time should be spent there.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
• I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
• I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

• This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
• Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
• The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
• As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
• Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
• You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
• Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
• Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
• Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
• Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
• Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
• Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

Byron R. Arthur

The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men

Judging Since September 1983

Debate Events Judged : All of Them

Debate Events Coached: All of Them

Overview:

I have worn a number of professional hats through the years and they all influence how I see the debate. First, I am an attorney. This means that I insist upon evidence and its integrity. Under no circumstances do I tolerate debaters who play fast and loose with interpretation of evidence. Second, I am an educator which means I seek to maximize education for all of us who are involved in the debate. Please join me in that effort when you are debating in front of me.

Public Forum

I encourage you to read the LD section of this paradigm from the section on Points through the end. That information pertains to you as well.

During practice rounds I have had debaters ask me if I am ok with speed. Please see my comments below but I will add this to the mix: Why? Given the format of this event, I have seen debaters strain to make a plethora of arguments in the first two speeches that they never mention again due to time constraints. I would rather you seek a depth of arguments rather than breadth.

I can tell you that if I don't hear it in the Summary, I am not paying any attention to it in the Final Focus.

I am not going to supply analysis for your arguments. Explain what you say and tell me its implications. This is not an exercise in how much I know but what you can convince me to be true

LD:

Topicality – I am happy to vote on T if it is argued well. You should know that I tend to interpret T very broadly so in some instances you might want to choose something else if your violation is one that is based upon a fairly strict interpretation. Not a huge RVI fellow. I tend not to ignore all else in the round in order to give the AFF a win for meeting one of its burdens.

Types of Arguments – There are no arguments that I reject out of hand. While I was in high school when LD was created, I am not opposed to all of the ways in which it has evolved. Counterplans are not only acceptable but encouraged as long as they are meeting all of the traditional burdens such as competition and net benefits. I would say the same for the disadvantage and its burdens.

I am very fine with the K debate as well. But at the end of the day, there must be a link for me to consider. I love debates about race, gender, sexual orientation, and other opportunities for debaters to engage in discourse about issues that are important. Yet, I also believe that individuals spend time crafting topics for a reason and call me old-fashioned but I still like those discussions. Most topics allow us to have the best of both worlds but at times they do not. Learn to recognize the difference if I am in the back of the room.

Theory is a means to an end and those who love the idea of theory as its own thing should definitely strike me.

Speed – There was a time when I would walk out of a room very impressed with the debater who was incredibly fast and offered a cornucopia of arguments. That was about 40 years ago. Now I am impressed with the debater who does more with less and values depth of discussion and argument. If I can't understand it then I can't vote on it.

Points- My range for points is generally between 26.5 -29.9. 26.5 is reserved for those who are incomprehensible, disengaged, non-responsive, or simply missing the boat. 29.9 is reserved for the debater who demonstrates a mastery of argument, communicates nuances, has the ability to analyze arguments and make meaningful comparisons, has on-point evidence, and has outstanding communication skills. THOSE WHO ARE RUDE TO OPPONENTS OR USE PROFANITY WILL RECEIVE A 20. IF YOU ARE UNEASY WITH THIS YOU SHOULD CONSIDER STRIKING ME.

I am very sensitive to the way that we treat each other in this activity. I take allegations of bullying and intimidation very seriously. As an adult in the room, I will immediately deal with these issues and protect the rights of all individuals involved. If you feel that there is an issue when you are debating in front of me, know that we will proceed in the following manner:

1. Please raise the issue when you are aware of it. I will then allow both debaters to go and find their respective coaches/adult chaperone before we proceed. I will not engage students on issues of this magnitude without their adult advocates present.

2. I will listen to both sides of the discussion to determine whether or not we can proceed with the debate or if it should be brought to the tournament director for further resolution.

2018----Update:

I no longer care what you read, as long as it is not oppressive in any matter. I only ask that you explain your arguments and their impacts well.

Add me to email chain: nirmalb@u.northwestern.edu

Also, if you can sit down early in a speech, please do. That way we can all just go home and be happy a little earlier.

***old stuff**

LD:
General:
- Speed is fine, please be clear, I'll call it as many times necessary but I will get frustrated and dock speaks
- I won't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, it is your responsibility to explain that
- Prep stops after you have compiled your stuff into one document. If you're flashing- it stops after the flashdrive leaves your computer
- I'm comfortable with most arguments as long as you can explain and weigh them explicitly and clearly
- Disclosure is good norm- if you don't disclose or disclose insufficiently and it's brought up in the round, I will dock your speaks by 1-5 speaker points (based on how I am feeling about this violation) from whatever I would have given you, but I will still evaluate the theory debate and the rest of the round.
- You must make your evidence available
- I enjoy policy debates the most, please weigh
- I also enjoy theory debates that are well executed

Policy-esque arguments:
- Impact comparison and weighing is crucial, otherwise i have no idea where to look first
- Utilize argument diversity
- Framing is very important, if you don't explain implications of winning arguments, then i don't know their use even if you have won them
- please compare evidence
- i personally think that hard work should be rewarded, so well executed strategies will increase your speaks

Phil:
- I understand the basics of most theories/general responses. If this is what you're good at- feel free to go for it.
- Explanation is crucial, your framework should be organized in a well explained syllogism, and your explanation should follow from that
- A lot of people just don't cut evidence that warrants their philosophical arguments or use big buzzwords when going for philosophical arguments- don't do that
- Be comparitive: reading dumps on their ethic is insufficient, explain why your ethic is better

Kritik:
- Please have good evidence and diversify/nuance your kritik and when you respond to it
- Tech and ethos are both very important on the K debate, make sure that you can do both
- Long dumps and generic responses aren't that great, make them better by tailoring it to the round and explaining the 2NR or 1AR against these very well
- I am pretty convinced by policymaking arguments against these, that being said, be super responsive and err on the side of overexplanation against these
- Not well read in high theory, my understanding will solely depend on your ability to explain it.

Theory:
- Default to competing interps, no rvi, drop debater- will still be convinced by arguments for other sides
- Frivolous theory: I will listen to it because it is strategic but if it's clear that it's used as argument avoidance and just for strategy rather than actual abuse, I probably won't be too thrilled and that might reflect in your speaks
- Good theory debates are better to watch especially when they are utilized well against tricks and abuse-
- Weighing and framing is important

Tricks:
- Not a fan of- they prioritize gimmicks over hard work which isn't what educational activities should do
- I will still listen to them but they will reflect in your speaks
- Implications need to be clear in the initial speech
- these include: a prioris, triggers, INCOHERENT framework applications, etc.
- If you come up with some very nuanced and interesting applications against various scenarios, then I'll probably be more receptive to it.

Evidence Ethics:
If you are caught clipping, it will result in a Loss 0. That being said, if you accuse someone of an evidence ethics violation and you are proven to be wrong, the same punishment will be given to you. Accidentally skipping 2 words in a card is not clipping.
Clearly miscut evidence or misrepresentation should be brought up by opposing debaters in round as evidence indicts.

Policy Paradigm:

I am a policy maker/stock issues judge. If I am going to vote affirmative, it is going to be because the affirmative team presents a clear case that maintains all of the stock issues throughout the debate round. If I am going to vote negative, it is going to be because the negative team has taken out one or more of the stock issues or has presented a counter plan with a clear net benefit. I believe that all three elements of rhetoric – ethos, pathos, and logos – should be evaluated equally, and as a result, I will weigh your speaking ability equally against logic and evidence. I value strong analytical argumentation, clear links in your logic and clash in debate. While I will listen to K, I expect links to the stock issues at hand. The current trend of not valuing flow because you've flashed evidence is extremely problematic for me. If you drop arguments because of your unwillingness to actually listen to your opponent, that will count you against in my evaluation of the round.

LD Paradigm:
I am a traditional LD judge. Even though I understand K's, counterplans, etc., I am not a fan of them in LD. Plan on referencing the philosophers and why your case offers the values and criterion needed to win the round. Clear speaking, not speed counts.
I am not a fan of speed but I can deal with it to a certain extent. Your analyticals and your tags must be clear or your speaker points will suffer accordingly. I will not tolerate rude, racist, or sexist behavior in the round. In my other life, I am a teacher of English and rhetoric.

Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA | mbietz AT hw.com

I am diagnosed (and am on medication) with severe ADD. This means my ability to listen carefully and pick up everything you say will wane during the round. I would strongly suggest you have vocal variety and slow down, especially for what you want to make sure I get.

Jonah Feldman, friend and former coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments

I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument.

I am primarily interested in voting on high-quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low-quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...

How should this affect the way I debate?

1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending many different answers to an advantage or off-case argument, pick your spots and lock in.

2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained the important components and implications of winning that argument.

His full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6366

More stuff:

I never thought I'd have to say this, but you have to read aloud what you want me to consider in the round. Paraphrasing doesn't count as "evidence."

The affirmative probably should be topical.

I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

I consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over the long-term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic, so it is NEGS failing to engage the Affirmative Case.

Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.

Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.

Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they need to catch up on actual issues.

Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, your opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means their risk of solvency is very low. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think it is ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.

- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will likely not end up well for you.

- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.

Some considerations for you:

- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.

- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.

I'm a first year out from Newsome. I did LD for three years, mostly traditional but I went to my fair share of circuit tournaments also. My email is rabisnath@uchicago.edu if you want to ask questions before the round, or just add me to an email chain. I probably don't know anything about the topic.

I'm not super picky about what arguments you run, just make sure you give me plenty of weighing, especially for non-T affs.

I can flow speed decently well; make sure to slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. If I can't understand you I'll say "clear."

Framework: I love nuanced, interactive framework debates. I think framework needs to be justified, but I'm pretty open minded about what fw can be.

Ks: K debates are fun, just make sure there's interaction at the fw level.

Theory: I default to competing interps and no RVIs. I don't have much patience for frivolous theory; the sillier a shell, the lower my standard will be for responses.

Tricks: I really don't like tricks, it's probably in your best interest not to read them in front of me.

Don't be racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive. But also, just be nice to each other.

Updated for CPS 2018: This update is to mostly reflect how I've been judging rounds lately.

Background:
I debated for four years for Loyola high. I broke at multiple tournaments and had a 4-3 record at the TOC.

I am more familiar with policy arguments, philosophy, and theory, and am less familiar with kritiques. However, I am not really a fan of how most philosophy and theory debates are done today, and thus my familiarity does not always correspond to what arguments I vote on.

Specifically, I think that moral philosophy positions that involves tricks are doing a disservice to the literature. Further, theory debates are often frivolous, although what I may consider frivolous may be different than what others consider frivolous. Some examples of what I consider frivolous theory are the following: font-size theory, must spec status in speech theory, some spec shells, etc. My litmus test for frivolous theory might be the following: does the theory shell isolate an issue of fairness that has actual educational implications on the debate round?

Kritiques usually have good explanations attached to them, so I've voted on them in the past and will probably continue to vote on them in the future.

Overview:
I evaluate the round via an offense/defense paradigm. Thus, I will vote for the debater who provides comparatively more offense back to the framework that has been won in the round, lest there are other issues (theory or kritiques) that precede this evaluation. Beyond this, I will try to evaluate the round in the most objective way possible. However, as all judges do, I have certain basic preferences that it would help to conform to.

First, when there is a clash on an issue or position, I tend to default to the more thorough and comprehensive explanation that makes sense to me. While technical drops are important, I don't think they automatically preclude good analysis. Strong weighing matters more to me than a dropped blippy argument on the flow.

Granted, this threshold only exists when there is clash on a position (and maybe sometimes across positions). If a position is totally conceded, or mostly conceded except for a couple of weaker arguments, my threshold for explanation and extensions becomes much lower (if totally conceded, it approaches zero).

Second, I flow CX, both because of theoretical implications of answers, and because I think your position is only as well warranted as your CX answers indicate. If I don't think there's a warrant after a particularly devastating CX on a position, you're going to have an uphill battle to convince me of the argument. (This is true only if the other debater brings up the flaws they pointed out in CX during a speech. CX by itself is not a rebuttal and thus cannot be the sole basis for my decision).

Third, I heavily favor debater's original analysis and arguments in later rebuttals (2NR and 2AR) as opposed to cards. While cards are good at setting up a position in constructive speeches, I heavily prefer debate styles that can go beyond cards with good explanations.

Theory defaults:
I default competing interpretations. I default no-RVI's. Topicality is a voter. All other issues must be justified by the debater.

Random Notes:

I like numbered responses to arguments, and clear distinction between line-by-line analysis and overviews.

I will only vote on arguments that I have flowed. During rebuttals, I mostly flow from what you're saying, rather than from the speech doc, so adjust accordingly.

While debate is a game, it is an educational game that brings lots of enjoyment to many of our lives. Please treat other debaters and it with respect.

I debated for four years in PA and a little bit of national circuit.

If you're affirming, please ground normative claims. I will evaluate all impacts through a framework that is either won or both debaters seem to kind of implicitly agree on. Please weigh your arguments.

You can spread but I'm pretty out of practice. Please slow down and clear up when I yell 'clear.' I'll do this twice before deducting speaks.

I'm not a good theory judge. Default to reasonability (sorry) and drop the arg (double sorry). Obviously you can win other positions.

I will not assume that certain arguments are worse than others. I will not automatically reject people for death good or racism good arguments. They are easy to beat, but I won't just assume it if someone puts an argument on the flow and it goes unanswered.

Performative positions sure just win the ROTB and take that and ROJ arguments seriously.

Most importantly please be kind to one another. This is just an activity. I will not tolerate bullying or behavior that makes people feel personally unsafe. You will lose if you are actively unkind.

I love philosophy and would be happy to talk about it to anyone who wants to.

I'll answer any questions before the round.

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

Update for Newark: I haven't been involved with debate in a long time so please go 80% of your regular speed as I get accustomed to judging in an online format. Please record your speeches just in case there are connection issues. I don't have any preferences anymore for the types of arguments you read, but follow the general guidelines below. Good luck.

Email: devansh.chauhan28@gmail.com

Conflicts: Princeton High School

speed is fine, progressive stuff is fine, don’t make shitty/offensive args, tech > truth.

I’ll vote on anything so long as it has a warrant/impact and isn’t offensive. If someone reads those types of arguments, it is also the burden of the other person to call them out on it, and if you don’t, both of your speaks will suffer.

I’m fine with spreading and will call clear/slow/loud as necessary, but it is your burden to make sure I can clearly understand your arguments so slow down somewhat on tags and especially author names and pause between cards so I can differentiate them.

If you are reading something prepared, I expect you to flash/email/pass pages or whatever to your opponent. I won’t count flashing/emailing as prep, but please be reasonable with it, and compiling docs definitely counts as prep time.

please weigh and clash with your opponents' arguments instead of just reading shit off a doc and extending through ink with no implications, those debates are irresolvable and show me you have no skill.

If you claim your opponent has miscut or is misrepresenting evidence, or has been clearly intentionally clipping (by which I mean they haven't been reading the full text of what they say they have been) I will stop the round and the round comes down to the ethics challenge. If it's an elim round, I will stop flowing and call the evidence after the round. If an evidence ethics challenge is won, the debater who miscut evidence will get a Loss-20. If an evidence ethics challenge is wrong, then the debater who initiates the charge will get a Loss-20. No other argument will be evaluated.

How to get high speaks and a ballot:

1. Collapse strategically
2. Weigh
3. Have overviews/framing issues
4. Engage/Clash effectively with your opponent’s positions
5. Explain your arguments as much as possible

I decide speaks based on strategy/skill, conduct, and effective communication skills (perceptual dominance, intonation, emphasis on key ideas, etc.)

email chain: matt.mc2018@gmail.com

strake '18, uchicago '22 - no conflicts besides strake

TL:DR - i do not care what arguments you read or how you present them, with the following exceptions

A) repugnant / offensive ones (racism / homophobia / ableism good)

B) ad homs - any argument about the debater as a person or what they did out of the round, I will not evaluate

C) anything asking me to evaluate the debate before any speech that isn't the 2ar - I don't consider speech time / structure up for debate

D) anything with a warrant that isn't fully developed - "competing interps bc reasonability is arbitrary" isn't a full argument. I know what that means but you have to explain it beyond the buzzwords

Also, don't be rude or condescending. I'll drop speaks for it

Speaks: won't disclose, don't ask. I'll try to average a 28.5 though with above a 29 being for someone I think should clear.

things you can do to get higher speaks:

1. start slow and build up to your top speed. Actually on second thought, go maybe 85 percent of your top speed at peak. I haven't flowed in a long time

2. i'll say clear as often as needed, and as long as I can tell you're trying to meet my accomodations I won't deduct speaks. however, if you just ignore me, that'll be annoying

3. the more clearly you understand how a judge evaluates a round, the better your speaks will be. your final speeches should very clearly have a vision of what issues the judge needs to decide in the round, and an explanation for how these issues are resolved in your favor. in other words, round awareness will get you a long way

4. warrant comparison in the earliest speech possible - if you read a solvency deficit in the 1N, compare it to 1AC evidence then and there. i dislike sandbagging

5. Being tech matters but i value well-structured speeches more than perfect tech (not to say you should neglect technical execution).

Ideology: not that my beliefs matter at this point, and they're very weak beliefs anyways and will go away the second an arg is made, but if you want ideological stuff?

1. plan focus isn't actively preferable to other models of debate, but it still has value and the fact that you're not in Congress isn't a reason researching and debating usfg policy is fallacious / bad, nor is it preclusive of grassroots activism or the like

2. rejoinder / role of the negative is important. whether that requires a topic focus is less clear. procedural fairness probably has an impact but that should be explained like anything and its by no means preclusive. restrictions on content are probably not exclusion or violence

3. your representations are less important than your advocacy and criticisms should be leveraged as reasons the advocacy is undesirable - reps can still be a reason, but the closer you can argue those reps are to the thesis of the aff, the more convincing they are. that said, i enjoy k debates when the kritik fundamentally engages the aff. usually tend to think the best 2ars vs most ks are 3 minutes throwing down on the perm

4. dont really think most skills/education arguments are compelling voting issues, and largely believe any style of debate has educational value as a byproduct as long as it encourages clash. someone even convinced me once that tricks affs provide skills useful in law school. that said, argue your model of debate pedogagy as you see fit

5. generally a believer in 'lit determines legitimacy" of most things in debate, especially CP theory and topic T args (by this I mean definitions grounded in the context of the literature with intent to define, not "if ppl write about my aff it's predictable and thus within the bounds of the topic so you can prep for it")

6. most tricks aren't unfair, they're just bad arguments with low opportunity cost to make that lose to making 1 true objection and moving on. i appreciate innovative tricks though like well-thought out framework hijacks, contingent standards (this isn't just skep triggers btw!), or well justified burden structures. emphasis on innovative

7. theory arguments have an opportunity cost (by that i mean the uplayering itself is somewhat unfair) and the abuse story should probably outweigh that opportunity cost if the shell is DTD. yeah specifying the status of the CP is marginally better than not, but is that unfairness worse than the dtd implication mooting 7 mins of 1nc offense and ending the debate?

8. i find that a lot of theory arguments (specifically combo shells) unfortunately boil down to "they said something that's hard to answer and that's bad" and most of the "good" theory arguments are probably reasons the objectionable argument in question is either bad / not competitive / non responsive. that said, i understand the strategic value of making those args as full shells so go off. also, i despise side bias arguments and genuinely think they have no place in debate (probably my strongest actual bias) - id prefer you just make actual arguments.

9. good case debate is always appreciated and should definitely be incorporated into a good k or framework debate

10. i like framework (LD) debate best but think its often not done well due to incentive to misrepresent authors / lean on generic blocks / make dishonest preclusion arguments as a crutch instead of in-depth explanation. good philosophy args can be analytic or continental and i'm reasonably versed in both, but its been a long time since i thought about most of these arguments so explain well. If I don’t have a clear understanding of your warrants, I have no qualms voting against you and starting my rfd with “yeah I didn’t understand your explanation”

1. Introduction: I competed for Durham Academy for five years, the last three of which were in LD. I competed on the National Circuit (Holy Cross, Yale, GMU, Emory, Harvard etc.) as well as the North Carolina circuit. As such I’m familiar with progressive and traditional argumentation. I attended GDS and most of my attitudes towards debate stem from there. I’m a senior out at UChicago (where I do not debate). For email chains use ochilkoti@uchicago.edu.
2. In Round Etiquette: I expect that you are polite at all times. Passion is encouraged but personal attacks will result in me tanking your speaks. If you are debating someone who is clearly less experienced than you, be kind. Debate is an educational activity and being unfair/rude/abusive significantly reduces its educational potential for all parties involved. Do not be offensive. I will not vote for discriminatory or offensive positions.
3. Speed: I prefer to flow what I hear. If you’re flashing/emailing docs I still want to receive it, but I will try to evaluate based on the flow. Start at a conversational speed and increase from there. Slow down for tags, cites, theory, and super dense phil. If you do not slow down or speak more clearly after the first two times I ask, I will start to dock your speaks.
4. Run whatever you want: Just because I did or didn’t run an argument doesn’t mean I won’t vote for it if it’s executed and explained well. I share that information merely to let you know what I am most familiar with.
5. Argumentation Styles: I have zero tolerance for tricks — I think they’re unfair and rob debate of its educational value. Plans/CPs/Disads are fine. I only ever ran theory as a way to check abuse in round. As a result that is the limit of my confident ability to evaluate theory, and I’d rather not judge rounds that collapse to theory/high theory. FAIRNESS IS NOT A VOTER IT IS AN INTERNAL LINK TO EDUCATION. I’m familiar with critical positions but wasn’t a K debater so take that as you will. Because I see K’s as an indictment of problematic practices/mindsets, I will evaluate it before theory, which I conceive of as rules/norms for the debate space. You’re probably going to have a hard time convincing me to vote for a non-topical case. I have little to no experience with performative debate, but I think it’s absolutely fascinating so if it's what you do best, go for it. My favorite cases are framework heavy philosophy cases; that being said my in-depth philosophy knowledge is uneven/esoteric so as always please explain things clearly.
6. Judge intervention: It is your job to make my decision clear for me. I will not substitute my knowledge of the topic of any given author/lit to supplement unclear argumentation, and you should not assume what authors I am familiar with. I will however intervene if there is blatant abuse. I will also call for cards if I feel that’s necessary.
7. WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS: I want to see comparison of whatever framing is going on on both sides, impact calculus that links back to framing, and EXPLICIT VOTERS IN THE 2NR/2AR. (You should probably number them as well)

Dear All: As you can tell from judging history, I judge LD sparingly if at all over the last few years. My role in the activity is mostly yelling at people to start their rounds. Take your chances with my abilities to follow what is taking place. I don’t have predispositions to vote for anything in particular. My views that “bait theory” incline me to not want to vote for you if that is your primary strategy is still as true now as it was five years ago. Outside of that, I am open to whatever you can do well and justify that is interesting.

Since I am judging more PF these days:
Clear ballot story. I care about evidence. If you are paraphrasing in your case constructive, you had better have tagged, cited, and lined down carded evidence to support what you say. If you are looking for evidence in your prep time or in cross ex or I have to wait 5 minutes for you to find something before prep time even starts, you are debating from behind and your speaks will reflect your lack of preparation.

CX: Don't talk over each other. They ask a question, you ask a question. Bullies are bullies. I don't like bullies.
If it wasn't in the summary, it doesn't become offense in the Final Focus. Sign-post well. Have a ballot story in mind.

I hate generic link stories that culminate in lives and poverty. The link level matters a lot more to me than the impact level. Develop your link level better. High Probability/Low Magnitude impacts > Low Probability High Magnitude impacts.

Don't be a baby. If you and your coaches are trying to get cheap wins by bullying people with Ks and Theory and hand-me-down shells from your teams former policy back files, go to policy camp and learn how to become a policy debater. Disclosure is for plan texts. If you are running a plan, disclose it on the wiki. If you are not, no need to disclose. Disclosure privileges resource-rich debate programs with a team of people to prep your kids out.

Update for Glenbrooks: The following is still mostly true. Treat me as a very a traditional judge who is trying to learn about tech. I will listen and evaluate tech but probably not as well as you would like. I have not learned speed so go at most at a fast converstional pace.

Hello, my name is Beth Cukier. I did Old School LD back when I was in high school and Parli in college. I am a still learning how to be a tech judge but am doing my best. The following are my main views as translated by my son:

In General:

put me on email chains: beth@cukier.net

Don't Spread

Clash

Be Respectful

Spend time debating the Resolution

Minimize Jargon, explain what you mean, just because a word is in this paradigm does not mean I'll remember what it means

Implicate everything

Framework/Phil debate:

Understand basic FWs (Util, Social Contract, Kant, Structural Violence, Rawls)

Besides that EXPLAIN everything

Remember to impact back to framework

Don't assume I have previous knowledge on anything except the frameworks above

Counterplans / DAs / Plans

Do these if you want to

If you want to use the following terms, explain them instead. There are suggested phrasings courtesy of my son. This is not a comprehensive list.

PERM -> The counter-plan actually affirms/is better if we do......

SOLVENCY DEFICIT -> Does not fix anything

COMPETITIVE -> Does not affirm

CONDITIONAL -> I may abandon this advocacy and ignore this flow

UNCONDITIONAL ->I may not abandon this advocacy

------------------------Novi can stop reading, I will only evaluate the below in JV and varsity rounds---------------------------

Theory/T

I am still learning but will do my best to evaluate.

Legit T is good and I will easily buy it

If theory is a wash I will turn to substance. My version of a wash probably happens more often than yours.

Continue the substance debate. Do not rely on theory (see above)

Try to keep it to not blatantly frivolous

I default RVI, drop the debater, Education and Fairness are Voters, and Competing Interps

Try not to use other voters, if you do, be sure to make the justification clear

I will not "gut check," for other reasonability brightlines, add them as a plank to the counter interp ex. a reasonability brightline of substantive abuse becomes a counter interp of "I may do x if I am not substantively abusive" OR explain why there is no abuse on the shell directly

If you want to use the following terms, explain them instead. There are suggested phrasings courtesy of my son. This is not a comprehensive list.

GIVE ME THE RVI -> If I win on theory, vote for me even though I didn't initiate it

REASONABILITY -> Do not use, see above

COMPETING INTERPS -> Do not use, I assume this structure but might forget what the word means

TOPICAL - Actually affirming the resolution

Ks

Some of these become very hard to evaluate and buy, use cation, if I don't understand it, I will not evaluate it

I prefer post-fiat to pre-fiat but will try to evaluate both

I evaluate these similar to a new framework and a counterplan

no Wilderson

If you want to use the following terms, explain them instead. There are suggested phrasings courtesy of my son. This is not a comprehensive list.

PERM - the K still actually affirms/ affirms if we do__________ because...

ALT - the counter advocacy

REPS -what they said/did

Tricks

I will most likely miss them

I will most likely not understand how to implement them

If they are used to prevent clash, I won't like them

I did policy debate at Oak Park and River Forest High School and then at the University of Kentucky. I know that debate takes a lot of preparation, and want debaters to make whatever arguments they feel are best with the time that they have. I try to do my best to not intervene in the round, but unfortunately, we are all human and bias always plays a part in the judging process.

I enjoy judging cordial competitors, who ask good cross-x questions, and who have fun making arguments that they want to make.

Add me to the email chain: dean.doneen@gmail.com

I coach LD Debate at Roseville Area High School in MN

Speed is fine under most circumstances, probably not great to plow through Deleuze at top speed though. I'll say clear/slow 3 times max.

Please debate the resolution

27.5 is average speaks

I will not vote for a prioris (this doesn't include thought out deductive argument like an amoral state NC)

If you have a dog, please include a picture at the bottom of your speech doc

I think I flow pretty well and speed is fine, but if you make 6 quick arguments at top speed and don't remind me of them when you give voting issues and I missed one of them, I won't change my vote based off of the argument I missed. I'd encourage your summary of the round to be at a slower pace.

What a 30 looks like

- I learned something from you

- Your time management was great

- It is clear you are very knowledgeable on everything you read and arguments you made

- You won the round

- You did not do any tricks/ you did not read any a prioris

- You had a great under view/voting issues in your final speech summarizing the debate

- You spoke slower than your opponent (this can still be spreading)

Policy Making

- Advocacy needs to be clear. This doesn't necessarily mean a plan text.

- I won't weigh for you

Critical Theory

- You should have a ROB

- Jean Baudrillard ruined my life, and for that I am forever grateful

- I'm uncomfortable judging debate rounds centered around identity politics. You can do it and you won't lose any speaks, but these debates are harder for me to evaluate.

- Just because an activity produces meaning (a sign) does not mean it is harmful or "co-opts" something. Signs are an important part of communication, if not the entirety of it.

Theory

- I default to reasonability, no RVIs, drop the argument, and it is getting harder every day to convince me otherwise.

- Sometimes I just won't vote for your shell if I think it's really bad.

- I don't believe that Theory is not a strategy. If abuse is real, go right ahead.

- If you consider yourself a theory/tricks debater, I am not the judge for you

- I will not vote for disclosure theory in LD. However, disclosing is probably a good thing to do and parity in document access is important

- I will not vote on potential abuse.

Tricks

- don't

Lay Debate (MN Circuit)

- I don't really care much about the value debate. You could literally just say your value is "good" and I'd buy it

- The standard/criterion debate DOES matter, very much so.

- Being easy to weigh isn't a real reason why your ethics are best

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

I’m a very simple judge, not many presences or bias towards different types of arguments. I am good with understanding theory or T. My decisions are made simply based on what arguments are won on the flow. Technicalities are a big thing for me, if you make drops or fail to properly extend arguments I will not consider them. I have over 5 years of judging experience in Policy, LD. PF.

My name is Nick and I debated for Princeton High School. I graduated in 2018 and Glenbrooks will be my first tournament judging on the 2018/19 season. If you need to contact me, email me at nje3@illinois.edu or message me on Facebook.

Short Version: read what you want, be clear, and don't exclude anybody.

Long Version:

I can flow most speeds as long as you’re clear, but if your top speed is slightly unclear, please slow it down a bit. If you consider yourself fast, starting at 50% and working your way up would be appreciated.

I don’t count flashing as prep, but please don’t steal prep. Flex prep is good but I won’t pay as close attention so if a question is important try to get my attention.

I have some defaults but these can all be changed as I try to be as tab as possible. I default to tech over truth, truth testing, drop the debater on T, drop the argument on theory, and no RVI's. Out-of-round arguments are OK generally, and I won't hack for it, but disclosure is a good norm. As soon as you take a stance on one of these issues, the default goes away.

Here’s some specifics:

Theory- I’m most comfortable judging theory debates, mainly because I had to judge more of them between Daniel Shahab and Daniel Lin than I can count. I’m fine with any shell, but if you find yourself considering something like font color theory, I can almost guarantee you there’s a better shell, and your speaks will reflect that (same goes for reading >4 shells). Explicit, extended weighing between standards is the best way to get my ballot on a theory debate. Anything from skep takes out theory to reading meta-meta theory is fine as long as you justify why you’re able to do that.

LARP/Policy Args- I'm a big fan of LARP cases because I feel like they avoid trying to mislead or trick your opponent, so if you've done your research, go for it. I won't knock you for reading the same generic util framework as everyone else. Please don't read a 2 minute plan/fw and then a 4 minute underview. Creative counterplans that solve the aff are cool, I'm fine with condo (unless you lose a theory debate on it), and any DA is fine as long as it has a structure. Perms need a net benefit. If you go top speed or are heavy on jargon, please have an overview or slower explanation of the overall story of your case to contextualize everything else.

K's- really broad category, but I'm a fan of most things that fall under it. As long as you set up an explicit ROB and have a link/impact/alt structure (or similar structure for aff K's), I'll follow it. It really helps if you delineate the sections while spreading (e.g. a quick pause between two different parts of the K).

I like to think I have a pretty fair background in the literature bases people draw from for LD K’s, but err on the side of caution. When it comes down to it, hopefully you do a good enough job explaining the K that my background doesn’t matter.

Performance- big fan. You do you, and if you want to win, give some kind of reasoning. You'll probably get high speaks regardless. The flipside is that I'll evaluate T-Framework, Cap, and other generics as responses. If you link some further reading on whatever topic you're addressing in the speech doc, I'll do my best to check it out.

Phil- my personal favorite type of debate, so if you’ve got creative philosophical approaches to the topic, please bring them. For reference, my favorite case I ever read was a Hegel AC on the 2018 Jan-Feb topic. That said, please go light on the jargon where possible. I’ve noticed a lot of cases centered around recent continental philosophy that have average word lengths around 9. Please don’t do that. But if you like Kant, Hobbes, Fanon, Aquinas, Butler, or anyone in between, I’d like to hear it.

Tricks- my least favorite type of debate, but I feel like it’s strategic, so I’ll vote for you all the same. I’ve got a very solid background in LD tricks, so I’ll catch the one sentence Resolved A-Priori you read in the middle of a paragraph if you emphasize the wording enough. I won’t read the speech doc to fish out each and every trick though, and if I miss it I won’t vote on it in a later speech. Truth testing and then a list of a prioris is fine, I feel like that’s as clean as tricks can get. My main gripe is people being asses in CX and while extending stuff. I really hate super elusive CX (what’s an a priori?) or debaters acting condescending to their opponents because they dropped a trick. If you debate tricks, just be upfront about what they are: cheap ways to get a ballot. That way, your speaks will be fine and I won’t be upset.

Miscellaneous-

• Don’t let anything else in this paradigm fool you- speaker points are assigned based entirely on laptop stickers (laptop stand stickers do not count)

• If you extend a skep trigger or something to similar effect and fail to say “You activated my trap card” I will consider you a grimy tricks gremlin and assign speaks as such

• I’ve only seem someone shout at full force in round once. I’d prefer if it wasn’t twice

• If you can think of more than 5 responses to Sinhababu I’ll give you 0.1 speak per argument (counting the original 5).

• If your opponent reads “all negative interps are counter-interps” and you read RVIs good, a bunch of theory, and then argue that they don’t get to add standards in later speeches to their “implicit interps” I will vote for you with a 30

• If you begin the AC with “Welcome to Trump’s America” I expect you to say “Welcome back to Trump’s America” and “Welcome once again to Trump’s America” in the subsequent speeches to avoid confusion on where we are

• Reciting (from memory) the entire intro to Avatar: The Last Airbender guarantees you at least a 28.9

• I believe in you

Email Chain: evanaengel@gmail.com

I debated LD for 3 years for Harvard-Westlake School (2014-17) - 13 career bids, Dukes and Bailey 17', won some tournaments/broke at the TOC. I loved debate because of the variety. I could be a fan of any argument you want to read, provided it 1) is explained in a way I can understand and 2) has an explicit reason why that means you should win. I like when debaters appreciate the space they've been given and use it to do what they like. This means engage in the resolution and your speaking time however you want whether that means dense moral philosophy, theory, or critical debate. Just do what you find meaningful even if that just means doing what gives you the best chance to win. My biggest preference in terms of what you run is that you make good arguments which you understand and execute well. I hated judges that said "I won't vote on X because I disagree with/don't like it" so I try not to be one, but I reserve the right to hold debaters to a reasonable standard of quality argumentation.

Housekeeping

You must share your speech docs with your opponent. Flashing, emailing, speechdrop, NSDA Campus message; whatever method of sharing you prefer as long as it's more effective than looking over your shoulder.

I think disclosure is very good for debate. This is not to say you cannot beat disclosure theory in front of me—it just means you will have a very hard time. This is not an invitation to whip out your “must disclose 1ar frontlines” or whatever race-to-the-bottom shell—my preference is for fairly disclosed debates, not gotchas disguised as legitimate theory.

Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer/the email is sent

***Online Debate***

• Here is the procedure i will follow if a student drops off a call, or I drop off a call: students are expected to maintain local recordings of their speeches - if they drop off, they should complete the speech and immediately email their recording upon completing it. I will not allow students to restart speeches / attempt to figure out how much time they had left, particularly in elimination rounds.
• If someone drops off a call, please do not steal prep time.
• It will make the round easier for all of us if you figure out a way to be able to see both me and your opponent on screen - non-verbal communication is really helpful for e-debate working at its best, and if we both nod at "everyone ready," you need to be able to see that, not just be waiting on us to un-mute ourselves and speak up! if you do not hear from me or see me indicate I am ready in some form, you should not assume i am ready. one thing i think this means is that "is anyone not ready" is no longer the right question to ask - "is everyone ready" is gonna be key to ensure no one misses anything.
• Slow down. i think online you should be going at 70% or so of the speed you would go in person. if you do not slow down and technical difficulties mean i miss arguments, i will not be very sympathetic to the post round - I have had a lot of kids not be able to hear me bc of the way zoom handles microphones - i am sorry if you do not hear me say "slow", but i cannot emphasize enough the need for you to slow down.
• You should have an email chain - if you are flight b, the chain should be set up before you hop on the call if possible.

Kritiks

I like good K debate a lot. An NR containing a well explained, and well impacted K that doesn't forget about the case is a good thing. An NR containing a K you've never read the lit for is hair pullingly frustrating. Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category.

I'm not generally a huge fan of the 4 minute K overview followed by line by line constituted primarily by "that was in the overview". Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff.

Non-T/Performance Affs

I believe people should be able to do whatever they want with their affirmative, and I will by no means auto vote you down for not being topical. That said, T/Framework was my favorite argument in high school, and I will be hard pressed to vote aff absent a robust defense against it—whether that comes in the form of impact turns, a counter-interp, or something else is up to you. I find myself voting aff during these debates more often than not for two reasons: 1) The NR on framework is more whining about how hard the aff was to prep than it is clear impact comparison; 2) The NR doesn't engage the 1ar arguments properly—the 2nr should both deal with the warrant AND implication of these arguments because too often I have on my flow "this doesn't make any sense" without an explanation of why or why that matters.

Policy

I think these can be some of the best debates around. I would love you if you did good evidence comparison and comparison of links to the impact rather than doing superficial weighing of impacts. The straight turn and impact turn are both deeply underutilized arguments in LD. I'm sick of judging 1ARs that are 80% defense against the DA.

I'm not normally a fan of rote plans bad theory arguments. I think you should either read a T shell or a more nuanced reason why their type of plan text is bad.

Topicality

Your interp needs evidence, standards and voting issues. A good T debate is one of my favorite debates and should involve a deep comparison of the world of debate each interp justifies, not just competing 6-points of the limits standard. Textuality as a voter just barely meets the standard for coherent argument, i'll vote on it, but it will be defeated easily in front of me. RVIs on T are not a thing.

Theory

I'm not a fan of frivolous theory, I'll vote on it, but there is a low bar for answering it. If you're struggling to figure out whether a certain shell is too frivolous for me to give the benefit of the doubt, don't read it. I am extremely persuaded by infinite regress/arbitrariness arguments against the vast majority of spec shells.

Ethical Philosophy/Framework

I am far and away the least versed in this part of LD. I'm not unwilling to vote on anything you choose to read, just understand that if it's more complicated than the simple end of ripstein or util, you will need to explain it to me like I'm a distracted 5 year old. You should know that I, generally speaking, am a firm believer that comparative worlds is the best interpretation for debate and, as a result, I will likely not love your burdens aff/whatever postdating related trend is popular.

Note: I have had this section of my paradigm virtually unchanged for a long time and, while I do now have a degree in philosophy, I have left it intact. In my experience, the vast majority of debate moral philosophy is kind of like the theory debate—there seems to be a fairly small universe of arguments (mostly straw-men of what authors actually have to say—“induction fails so consequences, no matter how great, can’t even be considered in moral calculus”) that both sides already kind of know and trot out against each other over and over. I describe myself as a distracted 5 year old here because I remain mostly in the dark about how to evaluate these kinds or arguments and about how to compare offense under means-based frameworks. I would be tremendously impressed by a debater who was able to deliver a speech on one of these positions that didn’t leave me frustrated by its lack of nuance and argumentative clarity and would reward them with very high speaker points.

Spikes/Tricks/Skep

I will vote for these arguments if I absolutely have to, but I greatly dislike and generally don't understand them. Chances are if you're winning in front of me on a blippy theory spike or an a priori, it's because the rest of the debate was literally impossible to evaluate and you will not be happy with your speaker points because of it.

Experience-

I have done all debate events, but I have substantially more experience with LD (both traditional and progressive). Four time state qualifier and two time national qualifier, once in Extemp and once in Worlds. While competing in Worlds, my team placed sixth and I placed fourth speaker.

Worlds-

I will judge the round how it should be judged according to Worlds norms and standards. Don’t try to be too limiting with framing, definitions or models. I will not evaluate the round using any other influences (LD, CX, PF). Ideal speed would be about conversational, and spreading will result in a a reduction of speaker points, speaking quickly to cover everything may not. I love POIs when done tastefully. Don’t stand up constantly with the sole purpose of distracting your opponent, but everybody needs to be asking them (not just the same team members). I also think that using POIs as more than just questions is a phenomenal strategy (20% of your overall rank).

LD-

Framework-

I prefer to have a framework to weigh the round with. Some sort of weighing mechanism makes the round more clear. I tend to evaluate different impacts though that weighing mechanism presented and won.

Arguments-

I need warrants and impacts. I will vote on most anything not obviously offensive (racism, sexism, homophobia ect.). While I have some familiarity with K's, it is not anything close to being extensive. If you decide to run one, you will probably have to give me more analysis and slow down more for claims and warrants (adding me to an email chain or flashing it won't hurt). I also require clash.

PF-

A framework is preferred, but not necessary. There needs to be clash and the other team's case must be addressed. My least favorite debates are those that heavily center on only one case because that usually results in a purely defense/offense debate.

Speaking-

I would rank myself as about a 7 as far as speed goes. Answers to questions-

I don't care where you sit

I don't care if you time on your phone

I don't need to see if your laptop/phone is on airplane mode

I don't care if you sit or stand for cross ex

Um, so, like, so, ummmm, so ... yeah.

He/Him/His pronouns

Add me to the email chain or involve me in flash trades -> noodleevers@gmail.com

I guess I should put my experience here:

I debated 3 years at Appleton East in PF, competing both in state and in the national circuit. Since graduation (2-3 years now), I have coached LD mainly on the national circuit.

General beliefs

How to win my ballot

I default to an offense-defense paradigm to evaluate rounds (maybe that's bad, terminal defense is a thing, but I generally have a high threshold for terminal d). This has a few implications for how I make my decision. First, I love turns, especially if they are not just blips in the rebuttal. I will happily just vote on your opponents' case if you turn each of their arguments and extend those turns. Second, if you only extend defensive arguments and your opponent extends one offensive argument I will vote for them even if they do not point that out.

Above all, I try not to intervene. I do as little work for you as possible, I flow very well, and I put a lot of thought into my decision. I judge because I like doing it and I think Public Forum specifically needs more flow judges that want to be there.

Speed

I do not care about how fast you talk in PF or local LD. For nat circuit LD, I can usually handle a 7-8 dependent on how tired or hungry I am (If it is an 8 am round, I'll prolly be a bit rusty so that that with a grain of salt). If I can't understand you, I will yell "Clear" (yeah, this almost never happens, y'all are pretty good at understanding when I'm tired). Jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what you are saying. If it stops being helpful, my expression will let you know.

Extensions

I guess I'm kinda picky about extensions. Just saying "extend this piece of evidence" is not gonna be enough in my eyes. I will only extend evidence that is warranted, especially if it is key to your offense.

Speaks

I will reward debaters for clarity, humor, tech skill, strategy, and topic knowledge. Here is my scale: 30 - You were amazing, I will remember your performance six months after the round. 29 - You were great, I was impressed by your performance, but not overwhelmed. 28 - You were good, but there is room for improvement. 27- You were below average or didn't disclose :[ . 26 - You were not so good. 25 and below - You said something offensive.

PF

Technical Beliefs about PF

EVIDENCE (updated 4/28/19)

- I've done a lot of thinking about evidence quality in PF specifically. I've come to the realization that paraphrasing is not just bad for the debate community (because it allows for power-tagging, misconstruing evidence, the whole shebang) it is also intellectually dishonest and should be punished. If you paraphrase cards in front of me in the constructive or rebuttal, I will regard that evidence as an analytic that has no empirical backing and you will likely get an L. If you don't have a card cut and instead pull up a pdf that makes it impossible to determine what you actually read in the round, I will also consider that an analytic and you will likely get an L. This is not negotiable. Cut cards, ask your coach the proper formatting, and PF will be much better. Strike me if you don't want to engage in norms that every other form of debate has practiced since at least the 70's.

SUMMARY/FINAL FOCUS CONSISTENCY

- In order for me to evaluate arguments in the final focus, they MUST be in the summary. This includes offense from case, turns from the rebuttal or defense you want to extend. If you want to win with me at the back of the room, you must be consistent.

SECOND SPEAKER REBUTTAL

- I do not believe that that second speaking team must return and answer the entirety of the first rebuttal as the time skew is much too great. I do think that this second speaking team should adapt to the round and answer major offense that could be damning to them in the speech.

RULES BASED ARGUMENTS

- Plans and counterplans have their own place in PF and if justified by the language in the resolution - I'm okay with. I am not very sympathetic to "you can't have a plan/counterplan in PF" or other rules based arguments unless well laid out. Impact the breaking of the rules by the opposing team or find a better argument against it.

ARGUMENTATION

- I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. As a debater, I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction. I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. and have had some decent experience evaluating these types of arguments in national circuit LD. Read my LD paradigm for thoughts on those more progressive arguments.

- I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space."

- PF specifically needs more T/Theory arguments. Too many of y'all are getting away with really bad interpretations of debate. I am not afraid to pull the trigger on disclosure good arguments and if you're not disclosing, particularly on the national circuit, you're going to have a rough time with me at the back of the room. Spending the extra minute to disclose your positions is not that tough and has never hampered good debates in LD and Policy. I expect the same in PF.

More evidence stuff that won't cost you an L but might lower you speaks

- During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. I prefer to use an email chain at the beginning of rounds (yes, even in pf - y'all gotta stop power tagging every damn card you read), but if you don't, evidence will be exchanged off of prep time unless they read it during a speech or crossfire. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available I will disregard it. I will call for evidence if not in an email chain after the round in four scenarios.

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you give me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Fourth, if there is a "tie" I will ask for evidence from both teams. (This occurs when neither team weighs any of their arguments, extends clean offense, or has an obviously bigger impact.) If either team has misrepresented evidence pertaining to their key arguments I will vote against them. If each team has a similar quality of evidence I will intervene in the best way I can.

Ok, if you’re a pfer, this is where you can check out (read the bottom if y'all feel like getting some extra speaker points tho).

LD

Great, you made it this far, congrats.

Topicality

Bad topicality debates are just the negative whining that “the aff is obviously untopical because we didn’t have any evidence prepared against it.” This is not a winning argument whatsoever. To more easily win a T debate, debaters should have two things:

1. A clear, exclusive interpretation of the resolution. This doesn't necessarily need to be carded.

2. An impact showing why your interpretation is better, whether that be a clear disadvantage to the opposing team’s interp or advantages to your interpretation. This includes clear impact calculus and comparison to outline which definition is superior for the activity and why.

I usually don't default to reasonability but can be persuaded to fit check interps. I often find myself in debates where t isn't really an issue, but often times negatives don't realize when they are ahead on the t debate. Either way, do what you do.

Counterplans

Bad, cheaty cp's are really bad, but good ones I really enjoy hearing. Don't be afraid to go for the PIC, process, or consult CP if the aff undercovers it. Don't let my predispositions decide the debate, particularly when the flow dictates it. Counterplan theory is a good way to answer this. I default to rejecting the argument and not the debater. Also, seeing as people in state (WI) don't really run counterplans that well, I need to hear a net benefit to the aff. If you don't have that it's going to be an uphill battle to win my ballot.

Theory

I weigh theory in an offense-defense paradigm. If the negative gives some crappy answer to a theory argument that only has defense, don't be afraid to go for it. If you have the only offense, you'll win. Generally, I think theoretical objections are a reason to reject the argument (except for condo), but I can be persuaded otherwise if you show me a reason how the other team has caused irreparable damage to the fairness of the round. I don’t think that theory necessarily comes down to a debate of competing interpretations as it should in T debates, but if a question comes up as to where a bright line should be drawn between what is (for example) a process counterplan and what is not, you should be prepared to provide that bright line so that your theoretical objection has a clear basis as to what is and what is not legitimate. I do believe the negative in particular gains a lot from defending an interpretation of what is legitimate (especially as it pertains to conditionality). Additionally, slow down on the theory debate. I don't have your old ass condo block file in front of me like you do. If you just blow through like 5 subpoints in just as many seconds, I will probably not catch all of it. If I don't catch it, I won't be flowing the "extension" of it in later speeches.

Kritiks

Typically, I see K debates as a double-edged sword. Usually, teams either are great at what they’re doing and have blocked responses to typical 2AC answers and know how to employ those responses at later points in the debate OR a team throws together a 1NC shell and thinks if they say “it’s better to have no life than to live one with no value” enough times then they win. Don’t be the latter team. On the other hand, affirmatives should be far less fearful of the K. It truly isn’t all that much more than a uniqueness counterplan and a generic disad (most of the time). That being said here are the things I should see from a successful negative team debating the K:

1. A clear explanation of what the alternative does and why it solves

2. A link that is specific to the affirmative

3. An impact that is explained as per the context of the debate; the impact debate is oft-ignored by the negative

An explanation of an alternative shouldn’t just be “we break down capitalism.” You need to explain to me how. If I don’t know what the world of the alt is like it makes it hard for me to vote on it. A link specific to the affirmative should be more than just cherry-picking a representation from an impact in the 1AC. Tell me specifically how the aff presentation of that representation is especially problematic. The impact is where this debate is won and lost. Whether the impact comes from extinction, turning aff solvency, structural violence, etc. you need to tell me why your impact is worse in the context of what the impact to the affirmative is. Just because you’re reading a K doesn’t excuse you from doing impact calc. Do your K tricks and whatnot too. Floating PIKs, serial policy failure, etc.

K affs

I'm cool with them. I have had limited experience running and judging k affs, so take that with a grain of salt. T/Fw is usually a good response to K Affs, but that may just be my experience speaking.

As far as clash of rev debates go, I have little experience adjudicating or debating them. I'll try to judge them as best I can and have judged a fair number of them on the LD nat circuit, but do not construe that with me being comfortable with them (though I will try my best to interfere as little as possible)

Disads

A good disad should have a clear link and impact and be able to turn the impacts to the affirmative. It's cool if they act as the net benefit to the cp or on its own. Using the DA to turn the case is prolly a good thing. I love a good politics DA debate (but this congress is weird so the link and il is gonna be crucial to win).

Phil, Skep, and the like

- yeah, so ummmm...

- This is the thing I am least comfortable adjudicating. I'll evaluate it the best I can and have voted on phil plenty of times, so don't discourage that from letting you do your thing, but ... yeah.

One last thing,

"'"If you haven't disclosed you will not get above a 27."- Akhil Jalan' - Kedrick Stumbris" - Joshua Evers.

- Plz put me on the email chain --> noodleevers@gmail.com

Regards,

Judge person

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

For an email chain, my email is tgilbert@alumni.stanford.edu

Background:

University of Iowa MD '26
Stanford University BS '21
Valley HS '17
Conflicts: Valley HS

I debated LD for 5 years and coached for 2 years at West Des Moines Valley High School. During my time as a debater, I attended the TOC my sophomore, junior and senior years and attended Nationals my freshman, sophomore, junior and senior years. I cleared at the TOC and got ninth at Nationals during my senior year. I've also worked at NSD, TDC, and VBI as an instructor.

Overview:

I will evaluate any arguments you make in the round so long as they are not blatantly offensive. I have found that I am often more compelled to vote on line-by-line comparison in rounds rather than overviews that are not directly implicated as responses to arguments on the flow. That said, an overview clarifying the way line-by-line argumentation functions in the context of the round as a whole generally makes it a lot more clear for me on how to evaluate certain arguments.

It was really maddening to me when a judge didn't seem to care about making the correct decision, so please know I'll make my best attempt to fairly and accurately judge your round. I'm okay with you asking me questions after the round about my decision so long as they don't hold up the tournament and your questions don't become insulting to me or your opponent.

UPDATE: I guess I will also add here that I've decided I will no longer intervene against any theory (yes, this does mean I will vote on disclosure theory, an update from my initial paradigm)— this is not to say I'd like to hear either disclosure theory or brackets theory though, and you'll be quite displeased by the speaks you receive if you go for disclosure or brackets bad and didn't contextualize the abuse story to what specifically happened in the context of the debate round.

Theory:

I will try to default on paradigmatic issues to what's assumed by the debaters (for example, if no one reads a fairness voter, but both debaters talk about fairness like its an end goal, I'll evaluate the round with the assumption that fairness is a voter. To clarify, though, I won't assume fairness is a voter if one debater contests whether or not it is and points out that no fairness voter was read). I also will evaluate internal links on standards if they are embedded implicitly (within reason) to the standard.

If no one seems to take a stance on any issue, here are my defaults:
1) I default to fairness and education are voters.
2) I default to drop the argument.
3) I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI)
4) I default to competing interpretations. With that said, I will assume the counterinterp is the converse of the interpretation even if no counterinterp is explicitly read. I think this avoids the regressive theory trick about needing a counterinterp to win under competing interps and also makes the round possible to resolve in a muddled theory debate.
5) I default to metatheory comes before other theory.
6) I default to T and theory being on the same layer.

Trust me, though; you should address paradigmatic questions if they're of even vague relevance. If I'm in a situation where I have to default, I'll be pretty frustrated.

A few more things you should be cognizant of:

1) I am not the best at flowing- I catch the majority of arguments made but usually not all of them. if you are reading a dense position filled with analytics and particularly theory, I recommend slowing down. Also, for very technical debates it is best to signpost clearly (it's maddening when I'm trying to flow a speech and I realize the debater suddenly started talking about another layer of the flow without telling me). If you don't do this, there is a decent chance I will miss a few of your arguments.
2) While I read mostly framework-heavy positions as a debater, this does not mean I will automatically understand your position- I expect you to make your framework clear enough to me in rebuttals that I feel comfortable explaining the ballot story after the round.
3) When reading Kritiks, it's best to have a well-explained ballot story. I think Kritiks that are well executed are often very compelling, but often Kritiks go poorly explained. Also keep in mind that I probably will not be up to date about the latest norms tied to critical debate and most definitely won't extrapolate implications from your Kritik that weren't explicitly stated in the round, and I've found this particularly applies in reference to pre-fiat implications of a K that are either not explained or barely explained (consistent with my general interpretation of arguments).
4) I rarely took the more than 3-off approach when negating as a debater, but that isn't to say I don't appreciate general LARPy tendencies. I think disads that are pretty specific to the topic with unique impacting that isn't strictly utilitarian are pretty strategic and of course T is a great strategy as well.
5) This is tied in with the don't be offensive part of my paradigm, but I won't vote on anything advocating the exclusion of a certain member of the community (this includes your opponent, your opponent's coach, Dave McGinnis, and anyone else in the community). It will make me particularly unlikely to vote for you as well.

Beyond this, feel free to ask me questions before the round.

I debated LD on the local and national circuit for Westlake High School in Texas, graduating in 2013. I coached Scarsdale High School, and currently coach for Walt Whitman High School.

I will vote on any argument so long as the conclusion follows from the premises–my primary aim is to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters, so I will avoid "defaulting" on any framing issue at all costs and will detest being forced to do so. I will evaluate arguments as they are presented on the flow, so I will always prioritize explicit over implicit comparison made between arguments. If you'd like me to be on an email chain, send everything to mgorthey@gmail.com.

I debated for Newtown (CT) for 4 years and graduated in 2017. I currently attend the University of Chicago.

General

• The round is ultimately up to the debaters, and I’m open to listening to any strategies/positions as long as they aren’t blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. or threaten your opponent. Read whatever you would like or are comfortable with, just be nice to one another :)

• I will evaluate all arguments based on the flow, and thus would prefer not to evaluate embedded clash unless there isn’t any explicit clash on the flow.

Defaults

• I default truth testing, competing interps, drop the debater, and no RVI. However, please justify these in round, I would prefer to vote on arguments actually made by the debaters.

Speaker Points

• I always liked judges that gave good speaks, so I’ll try not to be too harsh. Generally I will try to reward you as much as possible.

• Slowing down for tags/interpretations/advocacy texts is a good idea.

• Don’t take too long to flash.

• Be efficient, and make the round clean and easy to resolve (overviews are super helpful).

Good luck and have fun!

Lay parent judge with some basic experience judging traditional LD. Prefer traditional arguments. Sign post and be clear about your argumentation. Do not spread.

I am the current director of speech and debate at the Milwaukee School of Languages.

From 1997-2004, I competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and most speech events in high school and college. Since then, I have coached all events at one time or another.

I will not vote for debaters who physically threaten or verbally abuse their partners or opponents; if you offend your opponent in some way, an authentic apology and reckoning is generally your best option to continue the round.

I would like to be on the email chain (hannanja@milwaukee.k12.wi.us), but only for reference after the round; I will not read along as a substitute for clarity. I will say clear twice if I can't understand you because of enunciation, but then you're probably on your own. If you spread theory blocks/underviews, I can't understand you and I won't be able to flow it.

I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense and explain how it is linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.

I will listen to and attempt to flow any speed, but I strongly believe that the faster you go, the less I or any judge will understand. I am reading every week to better understand all sorts of critical theory, but dense stuff delivered at speed is going to be tough for me; ditto for theory/underview/analytic blocks that are a series of two-sentence claims delivered in three second bursts.

I probably will not vote for theory without a clearly explained abuse/harm story and an indication of how the ballot will remedy or prevent that abuse/harm.

I don't think I have any other ideological preferences for argument types or structure; within the constraints listed above, do whatever you'd like and explain to me why it merits my ballot.

PF: if it's in the final focus, it needs to have been in the summary. A complete extension has a link and an impact, preferably with evidence for each. I prefer to make decisions based on clean flow-work; lacking a clean story on the flow, I will occasionally call for evidence to help resolve an issue; I often find myself assessing the 'risk of offense' at the end of rounds based on flow work, evidence quality, consistency of the story between summary and final focus, and the degree of opposition the argument received.

Congress: I care deeply about inclusion and equity, especially in moments where students can have direct influence on which voices are heard. Please work to include everyone in all aspects of procedure and debate.

Any other specifics, please ask.

Speaker Points: I find that a lot of paradigms have speaker point sections that sound like "30 - you're going to win the tournament", and I think that's not helpful (it doesn't really tell the student how to obtain better speaker points) and maybe also actively bad (if you can only get a 30 if the judge thinks you can win the tournament, it means debaters need rep to earn speaker points). So I will try to give you some specific criteria to keep in mind for speaker points in front of me; I'll also probably adjust these criteria and speaker point values over time, and for tournaments that have different speaker point norms.

A top-level speaker (29.5-30) will: demonstrate a strong commitment to explanation, argument comparison, and persuasion; enunciate clearly and consistently; treat their opponent with respect and empathy.

A second-tier speaker (29-29.5) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain arguments well, but generally not do a superior job of comparing/weighing arguments or persuading me of their position's value or truth.

A third-tier speaker (28.5-29) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain their arguments, but may not compare arguments or make an attempt to persuade me.

A fourth-tier speaker (28-28.5) will treat their opponent with respect but may have some clarity issues; they will explain their arguments but could do a better job with the explanation.

A fifth-tier speaker (27.5-28) will not treat their opponent with respect (they may be condescending, or mean, or dismissive, etc) and/or may have clarity issues; they typically do not explain their arguments.

Below a 27.5 would require a confluence of the issues described above.

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect. This guideline does not generally apply to UIL tournaments or novice debate rounds unless you are adopting national circuit norms/speaking style

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

UIL: Pretty much anything is fine if it gets us through the round with minimal physical or emotional damage. Try to stay on the line by line. Read real evidence. Weigh, please. For CX, maybe don't read nontopical affirmatives against small schools or novices. For LD, make sure your offense links to your framing and that you have warranted justifications for your framework. Read on for further details

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Here are the things that matter:

I did not debate as a student.

I have judged and coached PF and LD for 8 years.

I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.

My favorite philosophy is Utilitarianism... just sayin’

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

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

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

General stuff:

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

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

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

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

On Non-T affs:

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

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

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

LD Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Paradigm:

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

Obviously I have some caveats for that:

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

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

I default to reasonability on T and theory issues.

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

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

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

Samuel Hoska’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself: I have been involved with forensics for 15 years as a student, judge and coach. I am currently a coach at Edina High School, teaching Lincoln Douglas Debate. My background was originally in debate and speech where I competed and coached. I have been judging debate for the last 4 years, in all categories. I am currently a student at Minneapolis Community College for a Business Bachelors. I have a half a year remaining and then I will be working on a Bachelors in Communication and a Teaching certificate. I typically judge LD but I am capable of judging any category.

General: I enjoy a coherent arguments made with properly argued evidence. I am a “big picture” judge. I do appreciate the attention to detail, however, I don't like when it devolves into a debate that’s myopically focused on one thing. Make sure you take the time, especially in rebuttals to do a “birds eye view” of the debate. Remember, the rebuttal is the last time I hear from you before I make a decision, make it count. I appreciate good crossfire, and cross ex, specifically using information obtained in these for an argument. I try to bring the spirit of Tabula Rasa to every round I Judge.

Topicality: I like topicality, especially in varsity level debate. I think it makes a for a boring debate to have a non-topical aff. So it’s a pretty garden variety argument for the neg to make.

Critical Arguments: I was a LD and PF debater in high-school. I appreciate all critical arguments when they are understandable and explained properly. I catch on to arguments quickly, however I loathe having to have to fill in the gaps of an argument because its poorly argued. Make it logical, make it understandable.

Theory: I don’t have the background in this, so this won’t be very successful with me as a judge. I overall prefer substantive arguments over theoretical or procedural arguments. My flow can’t be muddy, and the explanation must be very logical and understandable. I pay attention when a debater uses Voters, I always want to know what each side thinks was the most important points in a round.

Speed: I have no problem with speed. I do ask two things. 1. Slow down enough on the tags so that I can understand them 2. Make your tags count. I dislike deciphering poor tags that do not tell me anything about the evidence.

Post Round Discussion: Please be respectful, I don’t appreciate a “shake down” when I’m explaining my decision. I don’t do speaker points till after the round is over and all the debaters have left the room and I take decorum into account. I am a bit of a non-traditional judge and I do make a concerted effort to bring up constructive criticism and positive comments. Please take these comments as an opportunity to learn!

Last Updated: 11/30/2018

I debated Lincoln Douglas in high school at Woodlands Academy and I judge LD exclusively.

Please be civil throughout the round. Present your arguments and address and refute your opponent's to the best of your ability without belittling your opponent or introducing personal or otherwise inappropriate arguments. You may speak as quickly as you'd like, as long as you enunciate and speak clearly.

I hope you all have fun and learn more though your experience with debate.

Updated for Yale (LD) of 2018

I debated for Pine Crest for 6 years, and am attending Northwestern University. I've had a lot of experience as a debater, so honestly, do whatever it is you do best. I did policy debate and qualified to the TOC reading primarily affs with extinction impacts and cp/da or topicality on the negative. That being said, I've had exposure to many arguments.

TLDR: Do what you want, but be wary of framework and tricks without a well-warranted explanation of why you have won the debate.

General outlook:

Tech over truth, but truth does matter. I prefer arguments that have some grain of truth in them, but in close debates, I will always default to technical concessions. You should make sure you thoroughly explain the argument to me and how it impacts the way I should view the round.

Evidence comparison is essential - comparing warrants, author qualifications, and dates can decide which way I'm leaning on certain parts of the debate. Teams that have the better evidence but do less work doing evidence comparison will find themselves in a worse spot than the team that is doing evidence comparison. Evidence quality is important, but debating that evidence and comparing it to the other team's evidence is just as important.

However, a well-thought out analytic will beat a bad piece of evidence every time. Some of my favorite debates are the ones that occur over analytics because it shows that the debaters have thought about the entirety of the debate before the round.

Please, please, please do not steal prep. This was one of my biggest pet peeves my senior year of debate because so many teams did it. If I catch you stealing prep, I will deduct .1 speaker points instantly. Please don't cheat; if I catch you clipping I will give you zero speaks and an automatic loss.

Most important: I will do my best as an objective judge to listen to anything you read and evaluate it in as fair of a manner as I possibly can. I won't vote on any offensive arguments. We're all in the same room for 1 hour so please respect me, respect your opponents, and respect yourselves. We've all made a commitment to being here, and I will do my best to respect you.

Important note: I hate when people are rude and condescending in cross-examination. Is it really that hard to be cordial?

I will gladly accept any questions after I give my decision and will be happy to go more in depth on how I decided the debate.

Specific arguments:

Policy Arguments: I was a policy debater in high school, so I'm very familiar and comfortable with these types of arguments. My favorite rounds to judge are the ones where each debater clearly explains how their arguments interact with each other with end-of-round vision. I love a "larp" aff with logical internal link chains and well-warranted solvency. On the negative, there's few things I love more than a strategic counterplan with (ideally) a net-benefit that has a good link to the affirmative.

Topicality (not like T-FW or T-Implementation, but stuff like T with regards to specific words in the resolution): This was my favorite argument senior year. I love a good topicality debate in which competing visions of the topic are examined rigorously and compared. If both sides read definitions, you should probably be doing evidence comparison.

Critiques: Do it if you're good at it. I love a good critique debate, but hopefully your link is not a generic state bad link (not saying I won't vote on this, but it is easy to beat and makes the round boring for me). Ideally, you have a specific link to the affirmative and your view of the world is well-warranted and explained well in the 2NR. Although I wasn't particularly critical, I have encountered a wide range of critical arguments and am most familiar with Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis, Security, etc.

K Affs: Do it if you're good at it. I have no weird preferences here, but I would prefer it if you aren't super shifty in the debate and/or are sketchy in 1AC cross-x.

Side note to K debaters: please do line-by-line and explain all of your arguments and how they interact with your opponent's arguments.

T vs non-T affs: This was my favorite strategy against affirmatives that were not topical (and my favorite argument too in general). That being said, I am very willing to vote up the non-T aff. Advice to both sides:

- Neg going for T against a non-T aff: impact out topicality and explain why it comes before the aff, solves the aff, or ideally both. Fairness is an impact if it's explained. Make sure to answer their impact turns to topicality very well. You should probably have case defense on the relevant parts of the aff that they are leveraging against topicality.

- Non-T aff beating T: You almost definitely should not meet them in the middle; instead, have offense. Explain why your aff takes out T/is a pre-requisite to T/impact turns T/whatever.

Theory: While theory was not a big deal in policy debate, I love topicality so I presume that I'll also enjoy a high-level theory debate. I'm willing to vote on whatever shell you read, but the more frivolous the shell, the more I'll be persuaded by reasonability or drop the argument.

Framework/philosophy: Yeah, this wasn't a thing in policy. I don't have any biases, and I will be as objective as possible. If you want to go for this, write my RFD for me in your final speech. By that, I mean seriously explain why you have won the debate.

Tricks: I am willing to vote on them. I will be seriously annoyed if I have to vote on the fact that spike #20 of your 4-minute underview was dropped, but if I have to vote on this, so be it. If you are reading tricks and plan on going for them, actually explain why you have won the debate. Every argument needs a claim and a warrant. Also, I have heard that some kids will be annoying during cross-examination and pretend like they don't know certain LD debate terms. Don't do this in front of me.

- Note about this: one of my favorite quotes is: "If you can't beat the argument that rocks are people and we should take their feelings into consideration, then you don't deserve to win the debate." I will apply this outlook to tricks; I might think your argument is stupid, but I will be objective as possible and hope your opponent is competent enough to point out the stupidity in your arguments.

Defaults:

- Truth-testing, although in all honestly, I probably view a debate in terms of comparative worlds and if you're actually having a truth-testing/comparative worlds ROB debate, you'll have to spend a little time explaining your view of debate

- No RVIs

- Competing interpretations

- Drop the argument

Random stuff that you should find relevant:

- Please never utter the words "Not my Baudrillard!"

- Please do not be incompetent with technology

- Please do not waste 5 minutes asking the other team multiple times what they did and did not read. Flowing is pretty cool.

- Please do not say "They have conceded..." 30 times in your final speech unless they surprisingly did concede all 30 of the things you are saying.

- Please don't try to be funny if you aren't funny

Speaker points: High speaker points will be awarded to debaters who demonstrate strategic vision and make persuasive arguments. Bonus points if you sound persuasive and establish ethos, but I won't penalize you if you aren't a good speaker. Extra bonus points if you make fun of my brother, Jason.

My email is joshjacobs951@gmail.com . Please feel free to email me with any questions!

Joshua F. Johnwell (he/him/they/them/queer/josh/whatever you want)

NYU Policy Alumni (2016-2020)
Houston, TX / Nat HS Circuit (4 Years) @ Dawson HS
GDI (Gonzaga) Alum - 4WK, 5WK Scholars, 2WK

Email questions to debatejosh@gmail.com
or just ask before round, preferably. oh & YAS, EMAIL CHAIN ME

Current Affiliations: NYU
Past Affiliations: BL Debate (2020-2021), Success Academy HS (2019-2020), Dawson HS (2012-2016)

Debated LD on the Local and National Circuit for Ridge High School. I now do policy in college.

Ridge '17
Northwestern '21

General
- Provided that the argument isn't offensive/discriminatory I'll vote on anything - debate is your activity do what you do best

Kritiks
- Reasonably familiar with most K args employed in debate; however, there's a huge amount of K lit so a clear explanation of how your kritik functions can only benefit you
- Links should be specific or atleast contextualized to the AFF
- Critical affirmatives with a topical plan were my favorite positions in high school

- Non-topical affirmatives are fine

Policy Esque Args
- These debates when done well are my favorite to watch
- Impact framing/comparison makes it more likely you get the decision you want
- Evidence comparison is crucial

Phil/Framework
- If this is your thing go for it
- I Know the basics of most philosophical positions but these were not my go to arguments in high school
- Clear explanations of claims and warrants for those claims are especially important in these debates
- I'd prefer that fw debates not become a bunch of preclusion arguments for me to sort through

T
- Defaults: Competing interps, Drop the debater, no RVI - Defaults can be changed

Theory
- Defaults: Competing interps, Drop the Arg, No RVI - Defaults can be changed
- Be Clear - theory analytics are hard to flow

Tricks
- Go for it
- Innovative and well thought out tricks are a plus

Speaks
- Im probably a speaks fairy - if I think you should clear your speaks will reflect that

I'd Like to be on the email chain: vkalghatgi@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

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

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and are their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

Experience: Nueva HS 2014-18 (circuit LD and parli), currently a 3rd year at UChicago

I don't care what you read. I did a bit of everything in HS and like to think I could be a fair judge for most styles of debate. I approached debate as a game although I don't necessarily expect you to do the same. I used to believe 100% in "tech over truth" but have probably shifted significantly (though the technical aspects are still more important in my mind). I generally believe in topicality but it's up to you to tell me what that needs.

1- Speed: Start a little slower than you would normally (around ~60% your max speed, no faster than 80%). Read interps/frameworks at conversational speed. Haven't heard spreading in a long time and I'm not the type to just copy taglines off the speech doc onto my flow.

2- Defaults: I no longer hold strong views on what debate should look like, but here are some default positions: competing interps over reasonability, drop the argument over drop the debater, epistemic confidence over epistemic humility, T/theory/metatheory/Ks can be weighed "on the same layer" (whatever that means). All of these opinions can be changed fairly easily.

3- Don't rely on my prior knowledge or understanding of anything (equally true for phil, Ks, and LARP). I won't vote for an argument I don't understand, no matter how much time you spend talking about it.

4- Don't be a dick and have fun

Things I love: good K debate, good theory debate (especially topicality), clever CPs, cap good

Things I hate: bad K debate, bad theory debate

School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas

Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.

Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.

Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.

Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.

Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.

Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.

Tricks: Please don't.

Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.

Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: kesslert@esdallas.org

Email for the chain (Required unless it's a lay/paper, set it up early please): lekollar@gmail.com

Paradigm:

-Debated for NT from 2012-2016 went to the TOC once, I went to Indiana now and coach NT every now and then. Assume that the number of rounds I've judged at the tournament is also the total number of rounds I've judged on the entire topic. I’ve graduated from college I now only judge with extreme rarity.

-Read whatever you're best at no matter what it is; good debates are better than bad ones no matter the content. I'll always vote for the winner.

-Tech>Truth

-The distinction between true/false arguments and good/bad arguments are two different things. If your argument is false (e.g. global warming not real), I don't care and I'll vote for it if you win it (excluding blatantly offensive arguments, obviously). If your argument is just bad (e.g. global warming is real b/c it is hot out today) it takes a lot more technical skill in order to win with it.

-Zero-risk is absolutely thing

-Strategy, prep, creativity>>>

-Debated LARP in HS so it's what I'm most familiar with and like best. Most of my paradigmatic defaults are the same as the general consensus in policy debate but feel free to ask.

-Don't care about running theory for purely the strategic reason, obviously bad interps are harder to win with (see zero risk/bad arguments)

-Tricks are fine just please actually be creative with them

-Ks are fine, I've read the basics of the common Ks but if you're reading Baudrillard or something you should overexplain it. If you do a bad job explaining your stuff and I don't understand it I'm perfectly willing to vote against you and start the RFD with "Yeah I don't get it".

-In terms of non-T affs I'm not a complete framework hack but if it's not in the 1nc you're doing yourself a serious disservice. Also if you read a plan text, I'm going to hold you to defending/solving that plan text. Again though, debate what you're best at.

-Your pre-round prep/strat development is probably the best way to get good speaks.

-Debate is supposed to be fun, make jokes, be sarcastic, don't be an asshole, don't take yourself too seriously etc.

-I'm very pro-disclosure but generally anti-disclosure theory. I get that sometimes you'll have to read it and I'll treat it like I treat any other theory argument, but if you have a decent case neg put together or only want to quibble over the way that someone discloses then your 1NC is better served by just reading something else. (If you read and go for disclosure theory against someone who is obviously not familiar with the circuit I will not vote for it and your speaks will suck). In case anyone cares I think the true interp is disclosure for debaters with a career bid and in all elim rounds; if you want to card me for your counter interp or run a blog and want an article hmu

-I have a very low threshold for extensions

-I will answer clarifying questions about my paradigm during prep as long as they're things like "what's your default on RVIs?" or "Do you default to Condo means judge kick?" or anything else that you could've asked before the debate but didn't because you can never know which of my potential defaults will be relevant. Stuff that you'd need the context of the debate to ask like "Do you think there's a winning 2NR on the disad or should I go for T?" I will not answer. The former gives you the information you'd need to make strategic decisions, the latter makes some of the decisions for you.

-I really appreciate creativity. Lately, I've been feeling like I've heard every interp/framework/impact scenario before so if you can produce one that's completely unique that'll make me enjoy the round more.

-If you say “non-unique” when you actually mean “uniqueness overwhelms the link” or vice versa I will be annoyed

-If you can tell a joke that makes me laugh about the 2015-2016 debate season or the New Trier debate team speaks go up (they go up further for the 2015-2016 season because with the age of current debates that's tougher)

-Why on earth do so many people take prep for the 1nc?

Please do not speed read. Talk slowly and clearly. A little fast is fine by me. State your contentions as clearly as possible.

Brian Kunz

Former coach @ University of Minnesota (Parli) & Lakeville H.S (Circuit LD)

TLDR:

Do whatever you think helps you best in this space or is what you think you are best at is what I want to see, do that and I'll do my best to give you my full attention and to check my disposition at the door. I’ve read a lot of critical literature and I am generally very comfortable adjudicating critical positions but I have still voted on a fair number of FW / T arguments and as a competitor I generally ran Policy Plan affs.

I will award +.4 speaker points to debaters that have their case full disclosed on the wiki -please let me know before the start of the round if this applies to you

prep ends once the flash leaves the computer

Framework: Please tell me how the framework contextualizes your offense / defense in relation to the ballot and/or the round. I require framework to also contextualize how your opponents arguments are implicated by your f/w arguments otherwise I default to f/w being non sequitur and just evaluate offense/defense of both cases (this is not a good place for you to be imo)

Argument Resolution: I reward debaters who clearly articulate and provide reasons why their warrants, impacts, sources are stronger in this round - give me reasons why you win! not why your opponent has lost. Debaters who provide well warranted arguments that are developed early and throughout the debate get both high speaks from me and my ballot.

Theory: I vote on well developed procedurals, I rarely vote on blipped shells that blow up later in the debate - this isn't to say don't run T in front of me but rather that you need to provide me a well developed justification for why to prefer your side - arguments of exclusions and similar arguments can be good reasons to prefer one interp. over another. Focus on impacts through a education/fairness filter will be the easiest way to my ballot on this issue.

Critical debate: I will not dismiss your argument because it is counter to the norm of debate, I have read and actively coach a lot of critical debate but you should not however assume I know the literature base you will be pulling from, feel free to ask prior to the start of the round about my familiarity. The more specific your argument is to the round or issue at hand then the easier route you will have to my ballot.

Disadvantages: I evaluate Disads first on the risk of intrinsic link to the aff before questions of uniqueness and the way this implicates the affirmative, this isn't to say questions of uniqueness don't implicate the link but questions of link comes first and then are determined to be strengthened / weakened by the uniqueness. - Work done on the impact level to have strong warrants as well as good weighing are an easy way to my ballot.

Email chains are a tangible improvement to debate. RLarsen at desidancenetwork dot org. You can read my entire paradigm for bolded passages, as you would a card. Pronouns are he/him/”Judge”. The affirmative should have speech doc ready to be emailed by round start time. Please keep a local copy of speech recordings. In the event of a 30-second tech blip, recordings will be reviewed; no speeches will be redone, barring tournament policy. Debaters have the right to reserve CX start until receipt of marked speech doc.

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

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

(Long Version is for procrastinating non-debate work)

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

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

(Pre-round Prep/Deadline Preffing): If you're a student doing your own prefs, you're best off reading the next two paragraphs and skimming my voting record. If you're a coach, you likely already know where to pref me.

Debate is a group of people engaging in performances. The nature of those debate performances (including my role as a judge) is settled by the competitors in the round with arguments. My default as a policy judge is to believe that those performances regard policymaking and that plans (/counterplans/alts/advocacies) create worlds with real impacts I should calculate via fiat as the plan is executed. As an LD judge, I think the round is about pursuing philosophical reasons to affirm or negate the resolution, and impacting through the lens of the criterial structure. Any successful movement away from the default paradigm typically entails explaining why I, the judge, should interpret your speech time differently. Most people succeed in shifting my defaults, and would consider me a “tabula rasa” judge. Nearly all of my LD rounds look like solo Policy these days. I’m expressive while judging, and you should take advantage of that, and look for cues. It is my belief that students are owed an explanation of the decision and that the judge is accountable to their evaluation of the round.

Clash happens through the lens of the ballot. The nature of how the ballot is to be considered is the framework flow, and that means that arguments like Kritiks might engage with T/Theory in some rounds and not others. This means I will vote for your take on burning down civil society in one round and vote you down on T in the next. I listen to about 20 rounds/week, so my strong preference is for good argumentation, not specific strategies. More at the top of the long version below.

Negatives are currently going for too much in the 2NR, while dropping case. Affirmatives are currently spending too much time extending case while dropping world of the perm articulations.

Perms: I give the benefit of the doubt to the intuitive status of the permutation. I’m happy to vote against my intuition, but you need to lead me there (more below).

Tricks: If you go for this, impact the tricks out, as you would a dropped card. Slow down for the key line(s) in rebuttal speeches. Eye contact makes this strategy sustainable. Yes, Tricks rounds have '19-'20 ballots from me. No, they should not be your first move.

Disclosure the Argument is great! Drop the debater on disclosure is unimpressive. Read it as an implication to round offense, or you're better off spending time on basically any other sheet.

Topical Version of the Aff (TVA): Gotta read them, gotta answer them. Most of the rounds I vote for T are from a dropped interp or dropped TVA

RVIs =/= Impact Turns: My patience for abusive theory underviews is fading. Quickly

Independent Voters: explain to me why the voter stands apart from the flow and comes first. Debaters are not consistently executing this successfully in front of me, so consider my threshold higher than average

No Risk: I do vote on no risk of the aff/plan doesn't solve. Terminal defense is still a thing

If you expect me to evaluate charts/graphics in your speech doc, give me time during the speech to read any graphics. It will otherwise only be a tie-breaker in evidence analysis

Uplayering: layers of debate often interact with each other; that they exist in separate worlds is not very compelling. Sequencing why I should analyze argument implications before others is the best way to win the layers debate.

While I recognize there's no obligation to share your analytics, the practice serves a good pedagogical benefit for those who process information in different ways. This is even more relevant for online debate. I will begin awarding +.3 speaker points for those speeches including all/nearly all analytics in the speech doc AND that are organized in a coherent manner.

2019-2020 Aff Speaks: 28.801 Neg Speaks: 28.809; Aff Ballots 114 Neg Ballots: 108

222 rounds judged for the '19-'20 season, mixed LD and Policy

Coached students to qualification for 2020 TOC in LD and Policy

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

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

(good luck, get snacks)

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

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

I recognize that this is no longer a viable read between rounds. Because I continue to receive positive feedback for its detail, it will be kept up, but I do not have any expectation that you will memorize this for my rounds. Bold text is likely worth its time, though.

Long Version (Procrastinating Other Work/Season Preffing):

Role of the Ballot:

Framework debaters: if you think the debate space should be predictable and fair, you should articulate what education/fairness/pick-your-voter means to the activity and why the ballot of this particular round matters.

K debaters: if you think rhetoric and its shaping matters more than the policy impacts of the 1AC, you should articulate your world of the alt/advocacy/pick-your-impact in a way that allows me to sign the ballot for you.

Performance debaters: if you think the debate space is for social movements/resistance/pick-your-story, you should explain why your performance relates to the ballot and is something I should vote for. Ideal performance cases explain topic links or provide reasons they actively choose not to be topical.

Everybody else: you get the idea. Clash happens through the lens of the ballot. The nature of how the ballot is to be considered is the framework flow, and that means that arguments like Kritiks might engage with T/Theory in some rounds and not others. This means I will vote for your take on burning down civil society in one round and vote you down on T in the next.

The world is unfair. Fairness is still probably a good thing. We get education from winning, and from losing. Some topics are poorly written and ground issues might not be the fault of your opponent. For debaters pursuing excellence, traditional voters aren’t the end of the conversation. Argument context can be everything. Tech speak, fairness is an internal link more than it is an impact.

“Two ships passing in the night” is something we hear in approximately 143% of RFDs, and it’s almost always the most efficient way to sad faces, frustration, and post rounding. RESOLVE this by finding points of clash, demonstrating that your claims engage with the claims of your opponent in a way that is beneficial for you. Clash shows that you are aware that your opponent has ground, and your following that with an explanation of why that ground couldn’t possibly earn my ballot is very persuasive. A round without clash is a round left to the judge, and you don’t want to leave any argument, big or small, up to the discretion of the judge.

The preventable argument issue that most often shows up on my ballot is how the permutation functions. I give the benefit of the doubt to the intuitive status of the permutation. For example, I think it’s very easy to imagine a world where two separate policy actions are taken. I think it’s very hard to imagine a world in which Civil Society is ended and the 1AC still solves its harms through implementation. The former gets preference for the permutation making sense. The latter gets preference for exclusivity making sense. I’m happy to vote against my intuition, but you need to lead me there.

I flow on paper, because as a wise teacher (Paul Johnson) once (/often) told me: “Paper doesn’t crash.” This means I will NOT:

Flow your overview verbatim

Flow your underview verbatim

Flow your tags verbatim

But I WILL:

Follow the speech doc for author name spelling

Have no issues jumping around sheets as long as you signpost as you go
Still always appreciate another run through the order (if you don’t have the order, or you change it up, that’s O.K. Again, just sign post clearly)

Write in multiple colors (for individual speakers and notes)

Typically respond to body language/speech patterns and give you cues to what should be happening more or what should be happening less (furrowed brow + no writing usually means bad news bears. No writing, in general, means bad news bears)

I will keep the speech doc open on my computer, because it seems like a good idea to live the round as closely to the competitors’ experience as possible. However, it is YOUR job as a debater to COMMUNICATE to me the most important parts of your speech. 9 times out of 10 this means:

SLOW DOWN to emphasize big picture ideas that you use to contextualize multiple parts of the round. Let me know that you know it’s important. That level of awareness is persuasive.

TELL A STORY of the debate round. Are you winning? (the answer is almost always “yes”) Why are you winning? What are your winning arguments? Why do they demolish your opponent’s arguments into a thousand pieces of rubble that couldn’t win a ballot if you were unable to deliver any additional arguments?

WEIGH IMPACTS. Time frame/magnitude/probability. These are all great words that win debate rounds. There are other great words that also win rounds.
PRIORITIZE (TRIAGE) arguments. You don’t need to win all the arguments to win the debate. If you go for all the arguments, you will often lose a debate you could have won.

New Affs Bad may be persuasive, but not to me. Breaking new affs is the divine right of the affirmative.

I’m still hearing this debated occasionally, but cross ex is binding. I flow it/take notes.

Flex Prep is alive and well in my rounds. You have an opportunity to ask further questions, but not a clear obligation to answer them. I also think it’s pretty fair that prep time can be used to just… prep.

If you ask me to call for evidence, you probably didn’t do a sufficient job presenting your cards during the round.

Rhetorical questions seem very clever as they’re conceived, but are rarely persuasive. Your opponent will not provide a damning answer, and your time would have been better spent working to make positive claims.

I tend to like policy arguments and performance more than philosophy-heavy kritiks because Ks often lose their grounding to the real world (and, it follows, the ballot). Policy arguments are claiming the real world is happening in the speeches of the round, and performance debate has had to justify its own existence for as long as it has existed, which makes it more practiced at role of the ballot. If you love your K and you think it’s the winning move, go for it! Just make sure to still find clash. Related: “reject” alts almost always feel like they’re missing something. Almost like a team without a quarterback, a musical without leads, a stage without performers.

Good links >>> more links

Good evidence >>>>> more evidence

Many definition interpretations are bad. Good definitions win [T] rounds.

Many framework card interpretations are bad. Every debater is better off reading the cards in the entirety at some point during their infinite prep, in order to better understand author intent.

My threshold for accepting politics disads as persuasive feels higher than the community average. I think it’s because probability is underrated in most politics disads.

Anything I believe is open to negotiation within the context of debate, but general truths have a much lower standard of proof (i.e. Debater 1 says “we are currently in Mexico.” Debater 2 counters “Pero estamos en Estados Unidos.” I consider the truth contest over at this point). The more specialized the knowledge, the higher the standard of proof.

Technical parts of the flow (T & Theory come to mind) can be really fast. I mentioned above that I’m writing by hand. You are always better off with -50% the number of arguments with +50% presentation and explanation to the remaining claims. Yes, I have your speech doc. No, I’m not doing your job for you. Communicate the arguments to me.

Debaters are made better by knowing how arguments evolve. There’s a reason a permutation is a “test of competition” (see: plan plus). Knowing the roots and growth of arguments will make you better at clash will make you better at debate will make you better at winning real, actual ballots.

My default is always to give an RFD, and to start that RFD with my decision. This will typically be followed by the winning argument(s). Ideally, the RFD should look suspiciously like the final rebuttal speech of the winning team.

I apologize for this paradigm becoming unreasonable in length.

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

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

Ships passing in the night/Clash wins rounds (see above)

Thanksgiving standard: if you can't explain why this argument is important to your Grandma during Thanksgiving dinner conversation, you probably need to keep reading the literature until you can contextualize to the real world. There's also a really good chance it won't win you the round.

At least try to live the advocacy you endorse. If you think coalition-building is the move, you shouldn’t be exclusionary without clear justification, and possibly not even then. The debate space is better for inclusion efforts.

It’s always to your advantage to use cross ex/prep to understand opposing arguments. Don’t realize after a rebuttal speech that your strategy was based on an incomplete understanding of your opponent(s) and their case.

It’s almost always worth your time to take a small amount of prep to sit back, breathe, and consider how you’re going to explain this round to your coach, debate-knowledgeable legal guardian, or friend-who-doesn’t-like-debate-but-supports-you-in-your-endeavors-because-they’re-a-good-friend. It’s an exercise that will tell you what’s important and help clear the clutter of speed, terminology, and tech.

This is also a good test for seeing if you can explain all the arguments using small words. I think the fanciest words I use in this paradigm are “verbatim” and “temporal proximity”. If you can’t explain your arguments in a simple, efficient manner, you need to keep reading.

It’s also almost always worth your time to take a moment, a sip of water, and a breath to collect yourself before a speech. Do this without excess and every judge you compete in front of will appreciate the generated composure and confidence in your ensuing speech.

Don’t start that speech with a million words a minute. Build to it. Double plus ungood habit if you forgot to check that everyone was ready for you to begin speaking.

I have never, not even once, in a decade+ of debate, heard a judge complain that author names were spoken too slowly.

Don’t take 5 minutes to flash a speech or to sort together a speech doc after you’re “done” prepping.

Your speech and prep time is yours to do with as you wish. Play music, talk loudly, play spades.

Opponent prep time is theirs to do with as they wish. That means you don’t get to play music intrusively (read: use headphones), talk intrusively, play spades intrusively, you get where this is going. This is one of the areas I think speaker points is very much at judge discretion.

If it’s not a speech and it’s not cross ex and neither team is running prep, you should not be prepping. Stealing prep is another area that I think leaves speaker points very much to judge discretion.

Don’t set sound alarms to the time you keep for your opponent’s speeches. Nobody ever, ever wants to hear the timer of the opponent go off before the speaker’s. I will keep time in 99% of debates, and if you’re wrong and cutting into their speech time, you’re losing speaker points.

I’m friendly.

I’m almost always down to give notes between rounds/after tournaments/via email on your performance in debate. Temporal proximity works in your favor (read: my memory has never been A1).

There are few things I love in this good life more than hearing a constructive speech that takes a new interpretation of an old idea and expands how I see the world. Writing your own arguments makes the time you invest in debate more worthwhile.

Spend some time teaching debate to others. Most things worth learning are worth teaching, and the act of teaching will give you an excellent perspective to arguments that have staying power in the community.

Lincoln-Douglas Debaters: A priori arguments can win rounds, but I’d rather see a debate where you win on substance than on a single line that your opponent dropped/misunderstood. If you’re going for a dropped analytic, impact it out in the 2R, as you would any other dropped card.

I feel like the rounds that end up being primarily the criterial debate typically indicate that the debaters could have done more to apply their arguments to the lens of their opponent’s criterion.

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

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

This space is for you. We don’t hold debate tournaments so that judges can sign ballots. You don’t spend hours/years preparing arguments and developing this skill because you just really want Tab Staffers to have something to do on the weekends. Mountains of money aren’t shifted so that we can enjoy the sweet, sweet pizza at the lunch hour. We’re here so that you can debate. Performance is about communicated intent, and debate is no exception. You can take anything out of that experience, but articulating your purpose walking into the round, even if only to yourself, will make you more persuasive.

Closing note: I typically think dialogue is the best way to educate, and that my role (at a bare minimum) is to educate the competitors following the round, through the lens of my decision and its reasoning. I will typically write a short Tabroom ballot and give as extensive a verbal RFD as scheduling permits/the students have asked all the questions they desire. The short version of this paradigm caused me physical pain, so that should indicate my willingness to engage in decision-making/pedagogical practices.

4 years high school LD/Extemp/PF

3 years college policy/parli/public

Coaching/teaching debate since 2009-ish

Writing Arguments by Allegory since 2013

2013-2017: Competed at Peninsula HS (CA)

I earned 21 bids to the TOC and was a finalist at the NDCA.

Yes I want to be on the email chain, add me: jlebarillec@gmail.com

I am willing to judge, listen to, and vote for anything. Just explain it well. I am not a fan of strategies which are heavily reliant on blippy arguments and frequently find myself holding the bar for answers to poor uneveloped arguments extremely low.

Speed should not be an issue, but be clear.

Clash debates:

Aff — Strategies that impact turn the Negative’s offense in combination with solid defense and/or a counter-interp (good)

Neg — Fairness, debate is a game (good)

skills (less good)

Topicality + Theory: More debating should be done over what debates look like under your model of the topic, less blippy debating at the standards level. Caselists are good and underutilized. I think some Condo is good. I think the Aff should be less scared to extend theory arguments against counterplans that are the most cheaty.

Kritiks: I find the link debate to be the most important here. Most times I vote aff it’s because I don’t know why the plan/Aff is inconsistent with your criticism. Strategies that are dependent on multiple non sequitur link arguments are unlikely to work in front of me.

I think that evidence comparison is extremely important and tends to heavily reward teams who do it more/earlier in the debate.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Debate experience:

• 2014 - 2018: national circuit PF at Strath Haven
• 2018 summer: teaching at ISD, VBI
• 2018 - 2019: private coaching
• 2023: some judging and private coaching
• I will evaluate K's, theory, etc. but with limited familiarity

Currently working in economics research

Please ask questions and enjoy

Alec Loftus alecloftus63@gmail.com - I for sure wanna be in the email chain

LSHS '18

Loyola University Chicago '22

While in high school, I primarily ran traditional arguments. Being from Minnesota, that was the norm there. However, having competed on the circuit at many tournaments, I'm not oblivious to the value of T, Kritiks, Theory, CPs, and the like.

My one request is that when running these offs that you speak a bit more clearer than you would otherwise (or think you need to otherwise). It's been a couple of months since I've been on the scene and I definitely know my affinity for understanding where the off is impacting has deteriorated a bit.

The most important thing to me in round is respect. Next is quality of impacts. If I cannot tell where an impact is specifically coming from and how it matters in the round then I am automatically going to weigh it less heavily in the round.

On a lighter note, this tournament can be kinda serious so any attempt at keeping it light, fun, friendly, or positive will get you some brownie speaker points.

Tl;dr- be friendly and have fun. I ran and heard mostly traditional, but am in tune to progressive debate. So, as the kiddos say, "go off I guess" if you want to and find it will add to the round.

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.

I've been pretty removed from debate for two years now. Go slow.

Theory: I ran a lot of theory as a debater. I default competing interps, drop the debater, and no RVI's.

K's: I ran a lot of K's as a debater.

Framework: I never did framework debate. I understand what most frameworks say, I conceptually understand how to debate a framework and how framework arguments work, but I'm definitely not going to be great at adjudicating a dense framework debate.

High Theory: I never ran these types of positions nor did I debate them much. I think these have gotten more common in debate, and just know that I'm new to these positions.

How to get better speaks: Slow down on author names. Sign post with author names when responding to arguments.

Side note: Use your best judgement on what to read against lay kids if you're a nat circuit debater. There's a comfortable middle ground between reading fifteen off and a lay case which is difficult to find. I'll be generous with speaks if you're accommodating to your opponent's familiarity with debate.

About me: I did debate for 3 years at Strake Jesuit in Houston Texas. I qualled to TOC as a junior and as a senior. My senior year I won a few tournaments, got eleven bids, and I got to Octas of TOC.

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

I debated policy and then switched to LD on the national circuit as part of GBN's team and have since coached policy at various high schools across the country. I can handle any speed, as long as its clear and you slow down tags. I have a philosophy degree focusing on language, ethics, and political philosophy. This means that I have likely read most of your authors and that if you want to run moralistic based arguments or K's in front of me, make sure to do them well. In my opinion the most important thing in an argument is its warrants. Thus, if you fail to mention the "why" when extending, I'm going to have a hard time evaluating your argument. As long as you do this, I don't care whether you run personal narratives, bring a painting into the room for your K, etc.

If there is a place where it's easy to vote off of, that's where I'll look to. So if one part of the flow has been cleanly extended the entire time while another part has ink from both sides, I will more than likely vote off of the first part.

In general, I'm open to whatever positions you run as long as you articulate a method of weighing arguments and how your arguments function within that scheme. I give speaker points primarily for strategic competence, but also leave room for quality of delivery and clarity. I prefer to be on the email chain for speech docs. Any other questions, feel free to ask.

Me
I have been teaching and coaching speech and debate for 13 years, and I currently help coach the AHS/SILSA Speech & Debate team. I am a lover of the written and spoken word who fell hard for forensics. I received my BA in English from Florida Atlantic University, and have judged local and national debate tournaments including out-rounds at Harvard, The Glenbrooks, Emory, The Tradition, Bronx, Sunvite and The Cal Invitational (Mostly LD, but also scores of speech and other debate event rounds).

General Paradigm
I am open to whatever kind of position you would like to run, but clarity and weighing is essential in fleshing-out arguments and my decision-making process. That being said, I do appreciate when debaters explain complex theory arguments. I grasp and enjoy K debate. I also do not retain details of all the obscure literature I've heard about. Just because it is a commonly used concept in competitive debate, don't assume that I understand how it interacts with your position. Explain stuff!!!

Speed/Delivery
I can follow most speeds.
I flow. Please slow down on authors and tags.

Speaker Points
I think that speaker points are unnecessarily arbitrary; I also know that giving every debater in a round 30s skews results. As such, I use speaker points as a rank. If you are the best debater in the round, you will get 29 points(30 will be reserved for a truly stunning performance), second best, 28.5 points, etc. I will only give you below a 26 in a round if I am offended about an argument or action in the round.

Policy Debate: I have only judged a handful of national policy tournaments. I understand the structure and basic principles, but much of the jargon is foreign to me, and explanation may be necessary to obtain my ballot.

I debated for Oakwood (CA), doing Lincoln Douglas debate on the national circuit level for 4 years. I don't care which arguments you read. I award speaker points based on how easy you make it for me to vote for you. That said, go easy on the a prioris.

Defaults (The following are merely defaults in the absence of any arguments for or against)

1. Drop the debater and no RVIs

2. Presume neg

3. Competing interps

If you have any other questions, I encourage you to ask me before the round or email me at arimostow2021@u.northwestern.edu

I am a parent judge. Please talk slowly and clearly. Read definitions, your value, your value criterion, and then your contentions. When you explain arguments and analysis to me, please do so in layman's terms and make the round as clear as you can.

Nicholas Newton-Cheh

Lexington High School '18 UChicago '22

Email: nnewtoncheh@gmail.com

Please include me in an email chain

General:

- Most common args I ran were Affro-pessimism, K affs, policy affs with TJFs, spec, T. Favorite arg was Affropess, but that doesn't mean I'm more likely to vote for it.

- Speed is fine. I'll yell clear but too many times and I'll dock speaks.

- Tech>Truth

- Manage your own prep, compiling speech docs is prep, emailing/flashing isn’t.

- Comfort level: (most comfortable) Kritikal debates (K vs Policy aff, K vs. K aff, K vs. Phil) > LARP and theory/T debates >phil/tricks (least comfortable).

- Debaters who want to read dense phil or nail bomb, spike-laden affs should pref me lower.

K:

- Love good K debates, hate bad ones. I have a high threshold - know your literature, execute effective strategy

- Reasonably familiar with most K's

- K debate should be technical

- The more dense the K lit, the more explanation required

- Prefer specific links over generics

- Clear articulation of the alt is key - Alt's tend to be the weakest part of the K and w/o them most K's are non-unique disads

LARP/Policy

- Pay more than lip service to framing

- Pls do evidence and impact comparison

- Give me a good overview and collapse effectively - Make it easy for me to evaluate the round

Theory/T

- Default to competing interps, no rvi, drop the arg, text>spirit, meta-theory>theory, fairness and education are voters.

- Defaults are stupid

- Read that interp nice and slow. Also be extra clear with standards + warrants as I can only flow so fast. The blippier the arg, the clearer and slower it should be read.

-Give good overviews in last speech.

- Do good weighing - same idea as my larp section, make it easy for me to vote eval the round/vote for you.

Tricks

- I dislike tricks. As a result, I have a low threshold to answering blippy tricks args. You can read tricky args and still engage in a somewhat substantive debate (e.g. I'll vote off a floating PIK) but if your case is 20+ hidden spikes in a 90% analytic phil FW, I'll be annoyed.

-I will vote on tricks but I am less likely to give you a lot of leeway.

Phil

- I wasn't really a phil debater in HS - only really read Kant NC's in phil debates.

- Do a good job explaining and ideally don't just read a bunch of preclusion args the I have to wade through.

- Plagiarizing a friend's paradigm, assume that "my understanding [of your FW] will solely depend on your ability to explain it."

MISC:

- Speaks average a 28 (I'm pretty generous with speaks) - I don't disclose speaks

- Clipping means intentionally or blatantly claiming to have read something you didn't (be it an analytic in a speech doc or the second half of a card that you didn't mark). It doesn't mean stumbling over a few words. The penalty for misrepresenting evidence or clipping is a loss with 0 speaks. If you initiate an evidence ethics challenge and are wrong the penalty shall be applied to you instead.

- Default to ethical confidence (you can argue ethical modesty tho), presume neg, risk of offense, CX is binding. Defaults will be overridden by in round args.

- Low threshold for extensions. A nice overview at the top of a rebuttal is sufficient. But if you expect to win off an impact and don't mention it at all in your speech, it probably won't be evaluated.

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

Update December 2020: I am removing from a mild head injury, I would probably advise against spreading especially with the online format.

Update January 2021: 60-75% speed is OK.

I am a special education teacher and coach debate for New Trier Township High School (IL). I debated Lincoln Douglas and some PF at Valley High School 2008-2013.

Online Debate: Please start the email chain before the round starts. YES, I would like to be included. megan.nubel@gmail.com. PLEASE slow down. If tournaments have guidelines/protocols for what to do if someone drops off the call, I will follow those. If not, please:

-Record your speeches on your own end in case someone drops off the call. If you do NOT do this, I'm sorry but I have to consider that your problem. If you are unable to for some reason please let me know before the round. You may want to record the speeches individually because some platforms/iPhone have length limits for recordings. Audio recording only is fine.

-If YOU drop off the call in the middle of the speech: finish the speech via recording and then send immediately via the email chain. We will time-check to verify your speech was within the time limit, etc. Your opponent will be provided with the time necessary to flow the recording.

-If YOUR OPPONENT drops off the call in the middle of the speech: finish your speech (again, you should be recording) and then immediately send via the email chain. I will provide up to the length of the missed speech for your opponent to flow before they must take prep/begin their speech.

-If YOUR JUDGE (me) drops off the call, finish your speech and send the recording at the end. I may rejoin prior to the end of the speech, but still send the recording so I can fill in the gaps. I will attempt to do so during prep time but may need additional time.

Overall: Debate the way you know how in the best way you can. Clearly explain your arguments, impacts, and interactions in the round. Articulate what my reason for the decision should be. Here's how I evaluate the round once it ends: (1) Look at the 2ar, decide whether there's anything the aff can win on, (2) if yes, consider neg interaction with that/those argument(s) and consider comparable neg offense then decide what wins, (3) if no, look at the NR and decide if there's anything that the neg can win on, (4) if still no, ???

General/neither here nor there:

-Sit wherever makes sense. I don't care which side sits in which place in the room, and feel free to sit or stand at any point in the debate.

-Flash before your speech but you don't need to use prep time to do so. Please flash analytics.

-I think brackets are fine in evidence if they are used *properly.* Please line down cards honestly and include full citations.

-The value is not particularly important to me; the value-criterion is how I evaluate the framework if it’s relevant in the round.

-I judge on the national circuit a few times tournaments year, so please don't expect me to know the general happenings or stock arguments.

-I don't flow off of speech docs but I will look at cards after the round (sometimes prompted, sometimes unprompted)

-Please disclose. There are some exceptions to this that are more lenient (local debater and you're not sure what that means, wiki down, etc) but if your opponent asks what the aff is, don’t leave them on read. You probably don’t have to disclose >30 min before the round but I’m open to hearing otherwise.

Arguments:

-I don't default to anything on theory or T, I just sit there very confused when things aren't explicit and justified. If you justify the argument once and it's dropped, then it becomes my default.

-I'm familiar with most types of arguments (traditional, disads, advantages, plans, theory, topicality, critical, types of counter-plans, types of perms). I have heard of and judged most frameworks used in debate but I'm not deeply knowledgeable about any.

-Sometimes I’ll get questions like “are you ok with...” or “will you listen to...” and the answer is yes. There are no arguments I feel so strongly about that I’ll reject them outright. I don’t even really have arguments I prefer. It’s my job to judge the debate so I do. That being said, I will react negatively if your argument feels abhorrent.

-Complete extensions are a must. Claim, warrant, and impact. Please do your impact analysis for me and address all aspects of the debate in your crystallization. If I don't clearly understand your side and ballot story, you might not get my vote because of confusion or misinterpretation on my end. Pre-correct for my potential judging errors in your speeches.

Delivery:

-I have high-frequency hearing loss so my ears ring. If you anticipate your speech will include very loud noises or high-frequency pitches from music, etc, please let me know.

-I'm not going to flow what I don't hear or understand. Sometimes I say clear or slow or louder if necessary. I don't always look at my keyboard or computer when I'm typing, so if I'm looking at you it doesn't necessarily mean I'm not flowing. I can type very fast so sometimes I’ll just flow extensions verbatim to sort them out later.

-If I'm flowing on paper you probably need to go about 60% of your top speed. If I am flowing on a computer it’s all good, just work up to your top speed and slow down on tags, transitions between offs, etc. If I miss the author name I just write “CARD/“ on my flow.

Please feel free to ask me about anything not mentioned here that might be pertinent to your debate. I can't say I have many strong opinions in any direction way when it comes to debate styles, arguments, etc.

PREP TIME ENDS WHEN THE DOC IS SENT. THIS IS A REMINDER TO INCORPORATE DOC SENDING INTO YOUR PRACTICE AND DRILLS. IF I SEE YOU FUMBLING WITH YOUR COMPUTER 10 SECONDS AFTER YOU STOP PREP, I'M STARTING PREP RIGHT BACK UP. IF YOU'RE OUT OF PREP THEN I'M STARTING YOUR SPEECH TIME.

I EXPECT ROUNDS TO START EXACTLY AT (MAYBE EVEN EARLIER THAN) THE DESIGNATED START TIME. IF YOU START THE CHAIN AND SEND THE 1AC ~2 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE START TIME WE'LL BE GOOD.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR FLIGHT 2 DEBATES STARTING LATE BECAUSE OF DEBATERS. YOU HAD AN HOUR EXTRA TO PREPARE/START THE EMAIL CHAIN/PRE-FLOW.

IF A TIMER IS NOT RUNNING (speech, cx, prep time) YOU SHOULD NOT BE PREPPING (looking at docs, typing, writing) THAT IS STEALING PREP

Okay enough yelling. Sorry I'm getting old and grumpy.

Email: okunlolanelson@gmail.com [Add me to the chain]

About me: I debated in Texas mostly in LD and did a little Policy. Had a short stint for Northwestern debate (GO CATS). If you're reading quickly before a round, read the bold.

General/Short version:

- Tech > Truth

- Judge instruction is axiomatic. The best final speeches start and end with judge instruction.

- Assume I know very little about the topic, your author, the norms, the meta e.t.c. This means (for the most part) you do you, extend and explain your position and I'll do my best to objectively evaluate it

- If its a Policy throwdown, please slow down a bit in those final speeches. Remember I'm probably not familiar with the topic. This is mostly for LD since shorter speeches/rounds means less time to explain those [internal] links.

- I'm not flowing of the doc - I believe that judges flowing off the doc incentivizes HORRIBLE clarity and rhetorical practices. Won't even glance at the document unless absolutely needed (1/10 debates). It is YOUR job to extend and explain your evidence, not my job to read it and explain it for you. Clarity is axiomatic.

- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SLOW DOWN on analytics, tags, interpretations, plan/cp text, theory. You can go as fast as you want on the card body. Remember speed can be a gift or a curse.

- Debate whatever and however you want. Go all out and do your thing, just DO NOT be violent or make the space unsafe.

- Frame your impacts and weigh your impacts. No one wins their framework anymore. Its a shame. It would make debates atleast 37% easier to decide.

- Errr on the side of explanation and slow down a bit for dense [analytic] philosophical debates. I do not have a PhD in philosophy.

- Bad theory debates get more annoying as I get older. I promise you no one is thrilled to decide on a debate on "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" be forreal. You still have to respond to bad theory arguments though (shouldn't be terribly hard)

- You will auto-lose if you clip cards or falsely accuse. You will auto-lose for evidence ethics violations

- A good speech consists of judge instruction, overview, line by line, and crystallization (and obviously strategy). Good speeches = good speaks. Rhetoric and Persuasion is important.

- I don't care how far away or how close to the topic you are but you must justify your practice. This is your activity not mine. I'm simply here to give feedback, decide a winner, and enjoy the free food from the judges lounge. If you think fairness is an impact, defend it. If you think skills matter, defend it. If you think defending USFG action causes psychological violence, defend it.

- One thing to note for "non-T" affs vs T, I need you to account for/interact with your opponents impact. If I am simply left with a fairness/skills impact vs the impact turns and no interaction between the 2 and no Top Level framing issues, I will be forced to intervene. (This is bad for affirmatives because I think that fairness is *probably* a good thing)

- If there's an important CX concession, please flag it and/or get my attention in case I have zoned out.

- If i'm judging Policy debate, just don't assume I know some jargon, norm, or innovative strategy and err on the side of explanation.

- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to *AND justify* why I should.

- No you cannot "Insert re-highlighting." Are you serious? Why is this even a thing? If its not read, its not on my flow.

- Don't get too **graphic** on descriptions of antiblack violence (or any violence for that matter). Trigger warnings are welcomed and encouraged.

- Referencing college teams or other teams doesn't really get you anywhere, "our models allows for Michigan vs Berkeley debates" I simply do not know or care about these teams

- If you need to know something specifically ask before the round.

• Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!

Look up "Kedar Pandya's" Paradigm on tab. Its the same.

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Jonathan Peele
Director of Speech & Debate
Charlotte Latin School

Updated: January, 26, 2020

Public Forum Debate Paradigm
Emory 2020 update: I will drop you with haste if you run theory in front of me.

TL;DR - Explicitly weigh and you can go kinda fast.

If you don't do it I'll try to vote on the arguments allocated the most time in the round, but I reserve the right to decide what's most important all on my own in the absence of arguments about which ones truly are. I'm a moderate on speed; doesn't have to be conversational, but my flowing definitely gets weak at top speed. If you won't think me an idiot for admitting what is true of every judge, my processing of a few, well developed arguments will be better than many underdeveloped ones.

Random thoughts on the state of the art:
- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but I definitely think that's best practice.
- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.
- I won't charge either team prep when cards are called for, but your prep time does begin once you're handed the evidence. Hand your opponent your device with the exact content they asked for displayed.
- Paraphrasing isn't the devil, but be ethical. It's essential you have the underlying text readily available (per the rules, ya know).
- I think case disclosure is ok. I distrust that this is really about enhancing education and suspect it's more often about enabling a school's war room to prep everyone out. Please don't read me disclosure theory in PF.
- I'd rather not shake your hand. It's just too much.

Public Forum lives in limbo between its Policy and Lincoln-Douglas counterparts. Frankly, one of the great things about being involved in the event right now is the lack of choking orthodoxy (which paradoxically really only tries to be as unorthodox as possible) to which our cousins in CX and LD have subjected themselves. (What a fun sentence!) Directly charged with neither the task of advocating a plan to execute a policy nor with advocating a particular value structure, as an emerging community we are only just now figuring out how to articulate what exactly debaters are supposed to be doing in Public Forum rounds. I certainly do not have the definitive answer to that question, but my best description of the event is that it is meant to be a policy-rationale debate. Public Forum debate at its best calls for a momentary suspension of the considerations of exactly how (i.e., a plan) to execute a policy and instead debating the rationale for changing/not changing the status quo. Allow me to qualify: I am not suggesting that Public Forum should systematically exclude all consideration of how policy would be executed (occasional assumptions about how the policy would unfold in the context of today’s America have a place in-round), but rather I am attempting to define appropriate parameters for Public Forum. If you've made it this far, you might also find some thoughts in my LD paradigm useful.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm
I have remarkably low-self esteem as a Lincoln-Douglas Debate critic. I think I’m a good coach and possess somewhat above-average intelligence, but the gobbledygook that passes for “debate” in most circuit LD rounds I’ve seen is either A) so complicated and over my head that I should rethink those assumptions about myself or B) such a poor excuse for an intellectually honest discussion of the resolution that I’m glad to be an outsider in your realm. If I’m in the pool at a meaningful LD tournament it means that I’m doing a coaching friend a favor, failed to successfully hire out my commitment, or a terrible mistake of some kind has been made. I will almost certainly look miserable at the back of the room. Because I am.

As terribly negative as that sounds, I do on occasion find Lincoln-Douglas debates to be fulfilling and invigorating. What is it that can make me happy? Well, I suppose that’s what you’d like for me to attempt to articulate here. So here I go.

Speed – This is usually the only thing you ask about before you start debating. I do not believe that rate of delivery must be conversational and I will try to keep up with you. My pen can reasonably keep up, but since I don’t coach LD at a circuit-level full-time, and since I haven’t read the theory/critical literature that you want to throw at me at 500 words per minute, I’m probably not going to be very successful in evaluating it at the end of the round if you do go circuit-fast. You’ll see the frustration on my face if you ever look up. I can only vote on what I was able to process.

Framework – I do need you to articulate some weighing mechanism or decision-making calculus before you hit me with your case. I don’t care what you call it or what form it takes, but it does need to be clear, and the less variables you put into it the more comprehensible my decision will be at the end of the round. I tend to prefer specificity in criteria. If you never address this then what choice do I have but to arbitrarily decide? By that I mean don’t just put some nebulous, overly broad value at the top of your case and then never reference it. That’s just some vestigial relic from the way things were in LD 20 years ago. Then you’ll need to win why it’s preferable to use your weighing mechanism. Then just evaluate the arguments in the round (that’s “link back” I think in your vernacular) by that standard. If you do these things well and in a manner I can understand, you’re going to win.

Theory – I have opinions about what debate ought to be. You have opinions about what debate ought to be. Everyone has opinions about what debate ought to be. They differ wildly. I suppose then that I’m obligated to evaluating your arguments about how this activity should take place and to being open-minded about what best practices really are. But like everyone else, I have my personal biases and preferences and it’s going to be difficult to dislodge me from them. I prefer straightforward debate with comparison of the impacts in a world for which the resolution is or is not true. Now, you’re going to read that and think that I’m some sort of horrible “Truth seeker” judge. No. I just want to hear a debate of the resolution itself, not an advocacy primarily about what the educational value of debate is, some tenuous application of fringe academic theories, or some significant variation on the resolution that you wish to debate instead. That means I’m highly likely to accept some very simple topicality analysis as an answer when your opponent does any of these things. I like the way Joe Vaughan put it many years ago in an old version of his paradigm (I liked it so much I saved it), “I am open to a variety of different types of argumentation (kritiks, counterplans, et cetera), but only if such positions are linked specifically to a reasonable interpretation of the topic and are not an attempt to fundamentally change the focus of the issues intended by the framing of the resolution. Arguments that are only tangential to the conflict embedded in the resolution and shift the focus of the round to the validity of alternative philosophies are difficult for me to accept if challenged sufficiently.”

Disclaimer – While I deeply value winning as a worthwhile goal of debate, I am still also responsible for being a (albeit flawed) role model and an educator. If you are so profoundly rude or callous towards your opponent, or anyone in the community at any time for that matter, I reserve the right to drop you for that. I don’t have to accept all possible behaviors just because this is a game where we play with ideas.

Policy Debate Paradigm
I know the names of all the stock issues. I am a native speaker of English. I promise to try my best to be attentive and fair. Those are the only possible qualifications I have to be sitting in the back of your room (at least at any tournament important enough for you to be checking here for a paradigm). Go complain to the tab room immediately. I already tried and they didn't listen to me.

Past School Affiliations
Director of Forensics, Charlotte Latin School 2013-present
Director of Congressional Debate & Individual Events, The Harker School, San Jose, CA, 2009-2013
Director of Forensics, Manchester Essex Regional HS, Manchester, MA, 2007-2009
Director of Forensics, East Chapel Hill HS, Chapel Hill, NC, 2002-2007
Assistant Speech & Debate Coach, East Chapel Hill HS, Chapel Hill, NC, 2000-2002
Student (Primary Event: Congressional Debate), South View HS, Hope Mills, NC, 1996-2000

Camp Affiliations
Co-Founder & Co-Director, The Institute for Speech and Debate, Boulder, CO, Charlotte, NC & Fort Lauderdale, FL 2013-present
Director, Congressional Debate & Individual Events, University of California National Forensics Institute, Berkeley, CA 2012-2013
Director, Public Forum Debate, Capitol Debate Institute, Baltimore, MD 2011-2012
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, Harvard Debate Institute, Boston MA 2010
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, National Debate Forum, Boston, MA, 2008-2009
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, National Debate Forum, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2009
Director, Public Forum Debate, University of Kentucky National Debate Institute, Lexington, KY, 2008
Director, Public Forum Debate, Florida Forensic Institute, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2007
Instructor, Congressional Debate, Florida Forensic Institute, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2006
Director, Congressional Debate, Research Triangle Forensics Institute, Cary, NC, 2003-2005

My background is in progressive politics and nonprofit work. #tugatmyheartstrings

Former debate coach, current history teacher. Familiar in policy, congressional, and parli. Have also judged PF and LD.

As a judge, I’m looking forward to hearing your arguments, not watching theatrics. Debate decorum is important to me; meaning: stand up when you speak, speak loud and clear, spread if you must but enunciate, and most importantly be respectful to all persons in the room. I am fine with open cross-x so long as all debaters agree to it.

I enjoy CP's and DisAds for a Neg.

T: I don't usually make my decision on this unless there is very little else to decide upon. But pull it out if you want, I DEF have decided rounds solely on T before. But if you are using T AND a CP AND DisAds, that's nonsense bc you have lost no ground. Always debate strategically AND wisely.

Kritiks: Make sure it links or I won't vote for it. Know your lit. Bc if it is evident that you don't know it, I can't vote for you.

Watch me. If I am not flowing, it is probably because:

1) I have decided that particular issue is a non-voter

2) I can't follow you

3) I have already made up my mind because of an egregious error

Good luck, debaters!

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

1. You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
2. You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
3. You listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
4. You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
5. You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
6. You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
7. You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

I debated LD for Hunter College High School for four years and recently graduated from Pomona. I went to TOC a few times and reached finals my senior year. I graduated in 2017. My email is ninapotischman@gmail.com—put me on the email chain! If you have questions, feel free to email me or ask before round.

TLDR; please weigh (a lot), one good argument > four blippy arguments, be nice to your opponent!

*FOR PF*

Hi PF! I have coached LD in various places. I now coach PF for Oakwood. I will try to adapt to PF norms for judging, though my LD background will inform how I perceive rounds. I prefer to do as little work for debaters as possible. The best debaters will write my ballot for me.

TLDR; I have a high threshold for warrants and extensions. I'll vote on policy style extinction scenarios if done well, but they're often executed poorly—be sure you can tell a clear story with warrants in later speeches.

General:

• Send speech docs before your speeches; if you paraphrase, include all the cards at the bottom of the doc.
• The best final speeches have a clear narrative arc/story of your impact scenario with many kinds of weighing—i.e., don't just say that nuclear war is worse than poverty—you should also have a number of arguments comparing your/your opponent's internal links. Extend warrants into final focus.
• People in PF have started to read LD/policy type arguments with long link chains. Often, these arguments don't have proper uniqueness/link/impact. If you can't tell a clear story establishing a brink for impacts that would require a brink, it will be hard to get me to vote on these arguments against something with a clearer narrative. I also tend to find these arguments unpersuasive since the strength of link to your terminal impact is always pretty low, and often some of the links are barely warranted. You can execute this well, but be cautious that the links are well-articulated.
• I have a lot of trouble with signposting in PF. Be extra clear about where you are on the flow at all times. I tend to miss card names, so don't use those to signpost. If you're spreading, slow down more.
• Be as explicit as possible with things like weighing.
• I won't vote for arguments that I don't understand or arguments that are clearly unwarranted. I believe I have a somewhat high threshold for what counts as a warrant—one sentence cards usually aren't enough.
• I'm relatively technical, but I am less inclined to vote for you're not persuasive
• I do not understand how the economy works..... if you're using technical economic terms please explain what they mean! And be extra-extra explicit about how you reach your impacts. Examples help.

Evidence exchange takes much too long. If the round takes over an 1 hr 10 min due to evidence exchange, speaks are capped at a 27.5. If one team sends their evidence before every speech, this only applies to the other team. If one team seems to excessively ask for evidence, this rule will only affect the speaks of the other team.

Theory/ks:

• I can flow spreading, but I'd rather not and I'll probably miss things—especially if you don't send speech docs/make 1-2 line arguments. Use spreading as an opportunity to make more in-depth arguments, rather than spewing blips
• I will not intervene unless I believe you are engaging in a practice that excludes your opponent—for example, reading theory against novices/a team that clearly doesn't know what theory is, particularly if the arguments are frivolous. Use your judgment & debate with the best intentions.
• I will vote on kritiks that are executed correctly, but please make an effort to ensure your opponent understands your positions and err towards over-explanation. Kritiks should be disclosed
• If both teams seem to want to have a theory/k/etc. debate, then I will evaluate this argument as if it is an LD round. If you miss necessary argument components, that's on you—e.g., I won't pretend you read a theory voter if you did not
• Good, true arguments > highly technical bad arguments
• If you read disclosure theory and don't disclose your disclosure theory shell, you should lose, though your opponent must point this out.

Evidence ethics:

• I have a low threshold for ev ethics violations. If you think your opponent did something bad, they probably did. Feel free to stop the round, or make a brief argument explaining the violation, and I'll vote on it if I think the violation is clear. You can read a full theory shell if you want to, but it's not necessary
• Things that are bad: clipping, miscutting, misattributing evidence, broken links, changing the meaning of the cards with brackets, lying, not reading things that change the meaning of the evidence, etc.

*FOR LD*

General

I’ll vote on anything as long as it is warranted. Although I debated a certain way, I would much rather see you do what you do best than to try to adapt to what you think I want. I’ll try to evaluate the round in the way I think the debaters see it, so I’ll do my best to avoid defaulting either way on any particular issue. My biggest preference is just for intelligent well-thought out arguments, whether that's a kritik, a plan aff or a framework. That said, here are my preferences:

• Please please please do not be late :(
• Full disclosure: if you send me your Aff, I'm probably just gonna back flow it later and zone out during the AC . So if you're extemping things in the aff (idrk why people do this...if ur opponent will have a hard time flowing, I will too) give me a heads up
• The biggest reason people lose in front of me is because they do not explicitly weigh. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, PLEASE, OR ELSE I WILL HAVE TO INTERVENE. And then we will all be sad. If you do not weigh in your speech, and then you lose, that is on you.
• Prep time ends when your flash drive leaves your computer or when you email your opponent
• I have a high threshold for extensions if your arguments are contested or if you're doing any interaction between the arguments you're extending and your opponents. It’s not enough to say “extend the aff” or “extend advantage one” — you need to articulate some warrant so I know what specifically you’re extending. If you don’t explicitly extend offense in the last speech, I won’t vote for you.
• I reserve the right to not vote for arguments that I don’t understand/that are not warranted. Your opponent shouldn’t lose for dropping an incoherent sentence with no justification
• I won’t vote for any responses to arguments that are new in later speeches, even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
• I’ll vote you down if you say anything actively racist/sexist/homophobic etc.
• I’ll time your speech — if you go over time (besides if you finish a sentence), I’ll discount your arguments even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
• I think embedded clash is good — you can make arguments that say otherwise and I’ll evaluate them, but that’s my default
• It's really hard to flow spreading on Zoom. I'll yell clear, but if I have to say it more than a couple of times I am missing arguments you've made and I won't fill in the blanks

Theory

• If paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them
• I strongly dislike offensive spikes, but I’ll vote on them if there’s a warrant and the argument is conceded. Just know your speaks will suffer.
• Slow down for interps/counterinterps
• If someone reads theory in the 1a/1nc without an implication it’s enough to say “don’t vote on it — there’s no implication” and I won't — you can't then read voters in the next speech. However, if there's no voter and no one points that out and acts like theory is drop the debater, I'll vote on it

Framework

• I prefer well justified syllogisms to super blippy fw preclusion arguments
• Please weigh

Ks

• I think people think I don't like Ks?? This is not true. Kritiks, run well, are one of my favorite kinds of arguments. I'm pretty familiar with most K lit, with the exception of POMO stuff, so please go slower if you’re reading something super dense. If I have no idea what you’re talking about, I won’t vote for you. Concrete examples are always good.
• My defaults for kritiks are the same as other positions, which is: please weigh, and please be explicit with interactions. Don't expect me to know what arguments your position takes out without an explicit implication. (I.e. you have to say, this takes out theory, and why).

Speaks

Things that will get you high speaks

• Innovative and interesting arguments that you’re clearly knowledgeable about
• Good strategies
• Using CX effectively
• High argument quality
• Good overviews/crystallization
• Good case debate. Please don't drop the aff!!!!

Things that will get you low speaks:

• not disclosing
• tricks
• being shifty
• lots of spikes/blippy arguments
• super generic dumps (especially on K v theory debates)
• clearly not understanding your own positions
• being mean to a novice/someone clearly worse than you. You don’t have to debate down, just don’t be rude and go slower so that the round is educational for everyone
• academic dishonesty

My name is Alaina Rafferty. I have judged at this tournament for the past few years. I am constantly impressed by your ability to communicate, perform, and education. I expect to learn how great you adapt in each of my debates. Speed: I believe that debate is a communication event. You should not spread in front of me. I understand that you have a lot to cover, but you can focus on being effective instead of being fast. If I am not taking notes, it is because I don't understand you. Look at me as a traditional judge. I look at the criterion as a thesis. Your offense/contentions should link back into your criterion. Explain why your arguments matter. Explain WHY your opponents don't. Don't be rude. In essence, I want you to have fun. Be clear, be conversational, and warrant your arguments. I look forward to seeing your rounds.

I debated for Barrington High School for four years primarily on the national circuit. Currently I debate NFA-LD for the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.

Pref Shortcut:
K debaters: 1
LARPers: 1
Theory/ T debaters: 2-3
Tricks: 4-strike
Framework debaters: 2-3 (you should be fine as long as it's not too complicated)
Generic circuit: 2-3

Speaker Point Distribution:

30: You can break at TOC

30 to 29.5: You can win the tournament

29.5 to 28.5: You can break at the tournament

28.5 to 28: No major flaws, maybe some minor issues

28 to 27: Some major mistakes or you made the round horribly unclear

27 and under: Lots of major mistakes or you did something that offended me.

Short: I consider myself to be pretty tab. I'm fine with any arguments as long as they're properly warranted. If you get me as a judge I have two pieces of advice for you. 1) Be entertaining. I love creative arguments and generally good speaking skills. keep me engaged in the debate. 2) Make me do as little work as possible. If you force me to do weighing for you or you make no attempt at clashing with your opponent's case you can expect lower speaks at a minimum.

As long as you're clear, speed is fine (I will say "clear" 3 times before I just stop flowing). Please please slow down for tags, author names, and any plan/ cp texts.

Kritiks: I primarily debated Ks in high school. I prefer Ks with actual policy alternatives but I'm cool with anything. I expect to see a ROTB or at least some kind of framework to evaluate the round. Err on the side of over explaining arguments. If you have some sorta wacky kritikal position, I personally love those. I dislike so called "high theory kritiks".

Policy Arguments: These types of debates have become my favorite to evaluate. Impact calculus is extremely important to me. I didn't LARP much in highschool but in college I've done it a ton.

Theory: I really love creative interps, even if they're wacky. If I've never heard your interp before, then that's probably a good sign. I like unconventional voters other than fairness or education. That being said, I probably wont like you very much if you read your generic theory backfile that was written four years ago.

I default to competing interps. Offensive counter interps require an RVI. You need to explicitly justify why your voter is a reason to drop the debater or I'll default to drop the arg. Also for the love of god don't be a dick and combine completely unrelated planks into a single interp. That's just annoying and makes things difficult to evaluate.

Topicality: I love a good T debate, and generally think that T debates are of higher quality than most theory debates. I have a slightly higher threshold for RVIs on T. When justifying RVI's, please make arguments that are specific to T. I will find these arguments much more persuasive than generic RVI arguments.

Framework: I was a framework debater in the earlier parts of my career. I'm mostly familiar with Kantian philosophers, but I should be able to evaluate most philosophies as long as it's not super complicated. I think that the risk of your framework being true should factored into the impact calc debate.

Tricks/ Spikes: I strongly dislike this debate style. If you really really must read these types of cases in front of me, you have to go slow and explicitly number each argument.

General Notes:

• Theory vs K: I think these arguments are hard to evaluate. I'm slightly biased in favor of the K in this debate.
• Disclosure: I think disclosure is a good practice and I'm willing to vote on disclosure theory.
• Cross Examination: If you get a dope concession in CX, please indicate that by saying something like "Yo Ethan, that last part was important please remember that during the next speech". That would be greatly helpful.
• Malthus isn't a real economist.

If you have any questions, the best way to contact me is through facebook. If that doesn't work for you, try emailing me at madpolis@gmail.com. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

Short Version

-I debated at The Meadows for 4 years (both LD and Policy)

-I am probably best for you if you enjoy substance debate

-I like race, cap/neolib, and fem ks the best, other ks are meh

-I am good with theory but if it is straight wacky then don't do it (see below for details)

-Topicality is a-okay

-Don’t read Kant (I just don’t vibe with it)

-Read any DA/CPs you like (including PICs)

-I love Impact Turns (LOVE)

-Go as fast as you want (I will yell clear 3 times if I can’t understand you)

-If flashing takes too long I will take prep

-Yes I want to be added to the email chain, edwardrastgoo@gmail.com

Longer Version

About me

Hi my name is Eddy Rastgoo and I am a Sophomore at GW studying Middle East Studies and Security Policy. Please just call me Eddy and not "judge" and don't be scared to ask me any questions. I read many arguments when I debated, from race ks to impact turns, so I am familiar with pretty much everything and I am open to whatever you want to read, unless explicitly mentioned below (like bad theory). Good luck!

DA/CP

You can read any and every DA and CP that you like, I really like the substance debate, I will vote on every DA/CP doesn't matter how outrageous they sound (I read a Radiation Good DA my senior year) just make sure u link

I actually think that PICs are very strategic so run them if you want, but also believe that they can lose to theory if you don't cover their arguments well enough

Kritiks

I know the most and am most read on Race (from Lat Crit to Afro pessimism) and Cap/Neolib and am somewhat knowledgeable on Fem ks, however I will admit I am probably not the best judge for you if you are reading Kritiks other than those listed above, simply because I don’t know much about the literature.

I have read a lot about neolib/cap and race arguments and have actively researched these topics for a few years now and I feel very comfortable voting for these kind of arguments.

If you cannot explain your Alternative, don't read the Kritik (this is my rule of thumb)

Theory

I am ok with you reading theory (although I am not the biggest fan of shifting through the theory debate) but I will never vote on frivolous theory (if you are wondering what I consider “Frivolous” please refer to Tim Alderete’s “Bad Theory” list on his paradigm)

Topicality – You can read any topicality argument u feel like

RVI’s – If you respond to an RVI with “RVI’s are stupid, don’t vote for it” I will not vote for the RVI, but if you do not respond to the RVI at all and they extend it, I have no choice but to vote for it, please don’t make me do that

I default to competing interps

Impact Turns

Run these - I love impact turns

I will even reward you with extra speaker points

Speaker Points

If you are a bad speaker I will give you less than 28.5, if you are meh probably something around 28.5, if you are a good speaker I will give you above a 28.5 and if you're a great speaker I will give you above a 29

I am ok with any sort of speed, go as fast as you want

I will say clear 3 times if I cannot understand you

These following things will get you extra speaker points:

-Clarity of tags

-Bring me some sort of food (Most popular and effective method)

-Bring me lemonade (Second most popular and effective method)

-Wear Lakers gear (or somehow prove that you are a Lakers fan)

-Give me your flow at the end of the round (If its good I will give you extra points)

-Don't be a dick

Did I miss something? LMK! Email me any questions at

edwardrastgoo@gmail.com

Cherish Recera

I was a Lincoln-Douglas Debater for all 4 years at Carl Sandburg High School (Class of 2017). I occasionally did Public Forum and Congress as well.

I am coaching Parliamentary debaters at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Class of 2021). From time to time, I'll compete in Lincoln-Douglas, but, at the moment, I am mostly judging, mentoring, and handling public relations.

Please put me on the email chain: cherishrecera@gmail.com

November/December 2019 NSDA LD Resolution: The United States ought to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels.

1. Explain Evidence Thoroughly

Cards are just cards if a debater does not provide insight as to how these pieces of evidence mean anything for their case or even for the resolution at large. Explain why the evidence brought up matters. For me, content is what counts. I am more likely to weigh evidence if the content is thoroughly covered and does have a fair impact in the round.

2. Topicality

Do not expect me to vote on T if it is done wrong. T is a question of "is the Affirmation topical." Read cards on it. Do not use T as a time skew. If you choose to run T, make sure that you have a version of the Affirmation that is topical.

3. CP/DA

I will vote on these if they are convincing and if compelling evidence is explained to back up the argument. Simply make sure that they are actually competitive against the Affirmation, and tell me why I should vote on it. As for the Affirmative side, please explain why I should vote accordingly with your own evidence and reasoning.

4. K

Generally speaking, I am not a fan of the Kritik. If you use K, explain it as clearly as possible since K should never be used to (A) make yourself, as a debater, sound more like a genius or (B) to force your opponent to respond to it, even if it isn't topical (that's just abusive argumentation).

5. Theory

If run well, I will weigh it in the round. "Reject the argument, not the team" is generally sufficient, but I am familiar with most theory if others are used. That being said, still explain the reason why the theory argument applies; do not leave it underdeveloped.

6. The Standard Framework (Value and Value Criterion)

Your framework exists for a reason, so I expect you to clearly connect your contentions back to your value criterion and then to your value (think of it as a linking chain). Contentions contain smaller arguments for why your V/VC is the most ideal/most pertinent/most important etc. Make your lines of reasoning explicit. I may have an idea as to where you're going with your thoughts, but I can't write down these said ideas if you don't fully elaborate on them yourself.

Other Notes:

I'm generally okay with speed. If you're going too fast, I will put down my pen so you know that you have to slow down in order for me to follow your points.

Anything you say after the time is up will not be written down on the flow.

Speak up, but don't yell.

Follow your roadmaps. If you have to divert, be clear about where you are going on the flow. However, I do appreciate when debaters "write the flow for me," especially towards the end of the round.

I'm open to any argument as long as it is not obtuse or offensive. Trigger warnings should be given for sensitive content. If you do not explicitly say "Trigger warning" before such content, expect to lose speaker points.

As always, be respectful towards your opponent. If you have any questions about your case, debate in general, or want to talk about college life, feel free to find me at the tournament or email me.

Name Sara Sanchez
Affiliation: NAUDL
School Strikes: Glenbrook South, Lexington
Last Edited: 1/21/2024, Edited for Emory 2024

General Overview: I default to the least interventionist way to evaluate the round possible. I’ve pretty much voted on anything that you can think of, and likely some things that you can’t. I have not been historically inclined to accept/reject any arguments on-face. That said, the following is true:

Impact calculus and comparison is your friend. I cannot stress this enough. I'm routinely surprised by the number of quality rounds I judge where each team is weighing their impacts but no one is weighing their impacts vis a vis the other team. It is not enough to explain your scenario for solving/avoiding war, explain to me why that matters in the context of the other team's genocide impact.

I would like you to be driving questions of impact calculus and framing. I prefer to be reading your evidence through the lens you have set up in round. You should be telling me what your evidence says and why it matters. This means I probably give a little more weight to spin than some judges, you should be calling out bad evidence that is being mischaracterized if you want me to read it. Obviously, I have (and will) read evidence on questions that have not adequately been fleshed out in round when it’s necessary, but now you are held accountable for my understanding of the card, which may, or may not, have been on the flow. So please, weigh those issues for me, and we’ll all be happy.

Clarity & Organization: This section used to be a note about speed. It was a gentle request that you keep in mind that reading 3 word theory arguments at the same rate as the cards you are reading was obviously silly and difficult to flow. I am now substantially more concerned with clarity in general. I can understand a pretty rapid rate of delivery. I want to hear the words you say. All of them. That includes the words in your cards and the sub-points of your theory block. I think we as a community have let clarity get away from us. I was recently pleasantly surprised by a few debaters who were both incredibly fast and crystal clear at all points in their speeches. I was also saddened that they stood out as anomalous in contrast to many of the debate rounds that I judge. In addition to the clarity with which you deliver your speeches I believe this also is a component of organization in the round. It is functionally impossible to follow your arguments and apply them correctly when all of the debaters in the room abandon the structure of the flow/line-by-line. Embedded clash is fine. Flat out ignoring the order/structure of arguments and answers is not. While my speaker points have always reflected things like clarity & organization I am going to use them more heavily in this regard in an effort to encourage good practices among the debaters in my rounds. If you are not clear, I will ask you to be clear once, if you are not clear after that, your partner should probably keep an eye on me to make sure I look like I’m following you, because if it’s not on my flow, it’s not in the round. If I cannot understand large swaths of your speeches and/or you are jumping all over the flow with no attempt to answer arguments in the order they were made, your points will be low (think less than 27.5 range). If, on the other hand, I can understand almost every word of your speech, and you consistently following the line-by-line structure of the round, your points will be high (think 29-29.5 range) to ensure you have a better chance at clearing if points become an issue. If you have questions about this, please ask before the round.

Clipping: I am disturbed that the number of clipping incidents seems to be on the rise and that there appears to be some confusion as to what constitutes clipping. Card clipping, is failing to read sections of the card without marking audibly during the speech and on the speech doc (or on paper, if you are not paperless). It can be definitively determined by recording the speech and playing it back with the speech doc. It is an ethical violation and if proven will result in zero speaker points for the debater(s) who have clipped cards and the loss. If an accusation occurs I will stop the round, ask for proof, and make a determination about the accusation at that point in the round. That decision will determine who wins the round. I will also make a point to talk to your coach after the round to explain what I believe happened and why. I reserve the right to adjust the policy according to circumstances (i.e. accidental clipping in a novice round is different than clipping in a senior varsity debate).

Please be nice to each other and have fun. I’ve yet to have someone upset me to the point where it has lost them the round, but I will not hesitate to punish people for being rude via speaker points. Debate is a wonderful activity, that I care about a lot, and we don’t all give up our weekends, nights, and a decent portion of our social lives to be verbally abused or to witness said abuse. That said, competitive spirit is fine, flat out rudeness is not. If you need clarification on where the line is, feel free to ask.

Speaker points Apparently I needed to bump these to align with point inflation, so I have. Points probably start at a 27.5-28. Anything over 29.5 is rare, it's been years since I gave a 30. If you get below a 25 it's probably because you did something offensive/unethical in the round, and I'll likely tell you about it before I turn in my ballot.

27.5-28 Average
28.1-28.7 Good, but probably will miss on points or go 3-3
28.8-29.2 Good, chance to go 4-2 and clear low
29.2-29.5 I believe you should get a top 20 speaker award at this tournament
29.5-29.8 You were one of the most exceptional speakers I've heard in years, and should be in the top 5 speakers of this tournament.

What’s above is more important than what is below, as I will default to the round that is given me, however I’ll include a couple of notes on specific positions. The below list is not exhaustive, if you have specific questions, ask.

Topicality/Theory: I’m more than open to these debates, I have no problem pulling the trigger on them. I tend to evaluate these debates in a framework of competing interpretations. You should have an interpretation in these debates, and you should be able to articulate reasons (with examples, evidence, and comparative impacts) that your interpretation is preferable to the other team's. You should be explaining why your arguments matter and what the world of your interpretation looks like (case lists, argument ground). You should not assume that the 3-word blippy jargon we all use now is an argument, because I don't tend to think it is one. If you've done the above things, and you want to go for theory or T, you're probably fine. That said...

Counterplans: I personally tend to error negative on a lot of theoretical CP objections when these aren't adequately debated in round (dispo, PICs, condo, etc.) I'm probably more sympathetic to objections to consult counterplans, or procedural counterplans like delay, sunsets, etc. I love specific counterplans and adore specific PICs, so you have a bit more of an uphill battle on the PICs bad debate. That doesn't mean I won't evaluate PICs/Dispo/Condo bad args, feel free to make/go for them, see the interpretations note above. I am more likely to vote on nuanced theory arguments than generic ones. For example, conditional, consult, counterplans bad is more persuassive than just conditionality bad.

Condo - couple of extra notes: I think that having more than one K and one CP in the round is pushing the limit on conditionality. You would still need to do work here to earn my ballot, but it's definitely viable. I also tend to think that uniform 50 state fiat counterplans that counterplan out of all solvency deficits are not good for debate. The reason for this is that I tend to like solvency advocates for counterplans and there isn't one for those types of CPs. These are both cases where, if sufficient analysis was done, I'd be okay rejecting the team. For the record, I have not voted on either of these yet, because no one has made these args in a compelling enough way, but the potential exits.

The K: I don’t have a problem with it generally. I’ll entertain various frameworks and interpretations of debate, but this isn't where I spend most of my research time. I’m also reticent to vote on “framework” in terms of "there should be no Ks in debate ever." I don't think this line of argumentation is necessary or desirable—it seems to me people should just be able to answer the arguments that are leveled against their case. I tend to believe both sides should get to weigh their impacts. I find framework debates generally lack a decent amount of clash, which is incredibly frustrating for me to adjudicate. Framework debates that center on the question of accurate methodology, bias and substantive education are by far more persuasive.

If you’re running a K in front of me on the negative, specific links and a solid articulation of what the alternative does will help you. Let me know what the world looks like post-plan and why that is different post-alt. Similarly if you're running a K aff, you should explain to me how your action truly shifts mindsets, what the role of the ballot is, etc.

The above noted, I find myself focusing more on policy literature than critical literature these days. My undergrad and graduate work is in political science and international relations, not political theory/philosophy. I tend to be much more familiar with some K authors than others. I've read a decent amount of Foucault, I've read almost nothing Lacanian. In addition to Foucault I am substantially more familiar with Ks centered around IR theory, non-psychoanalytic capitalism and questions of gender and identity. I am less to not at all familiar with psychoanalysis, Nietzsche and Heidegger. I personally lean towards believing realism inevitable type arguments and that floating PIKs are bad (reason to reject the alt). While I do everything possible to objectively evaluate the round that happened, this is probably why I’ve noticed a very slight tilt towards the policy side of things in these rounds.

Affs that don't have topical advocacies: I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I feel as though I've been asked to objectively and neutrally evaluate a set of arguments where the people proffering those arguments in no way practice the same neutrality has always created a lot of tension for how I evaluate these arguments. To that end I offer my full disclosure of my connections to, and beliefs about, this activity. If you would like to attempt to change those biases, you are welcome to try, but the bar for such debates will be high, because I am not neutral on this.

I came back to debate 15 years ago after a brief hiatus working in politics and public policy because I firmly believe there is no stronger or more effective pedagogical tool. I have routinely been impressed by the skills and information this co-curricular activity provides for the participants that practice it. I chose a career in debate at the time because I think that teaching young people how to debate a topic while switching sides and researching policy and philosophy is one of the best things our educational system has to offer. I worked hard for my debaters, in class, after school, on weekends, and during summers because I believe this game, even with its imperfections, is good. It will be difficult for you to get my ballot if your goal for the round is to convince me that 15 years of my life and countless hours of work has been a mistake. I also see problems in this activity in terms of equity and access. There are good reasons my work after directing large debate programs focused on education policy, equity, and now urban debate. If your arguments are criticisms of debate you should take all of that into consideration when trying to win my ballot.

Topic Specific Addendum: I currently work for NAUDL, I run our national tournament, write curriculum for our coaches, attend the topic meeting every August and work on our file set each year. I judge substantially fewer rounds than I used to and have fewer conversations with friends about the direction of the topic. You should assume I'm familiar with debate arguments but you should not assume I'm super up to date on the latest topic specific acronyms or fanciness. This means a little explanation on what the NSDOQPC* is will probably be necessary if you'd like me to understand your aff/da/etc.

*(The NSDOQPC, to the best of my knowledge, is not a real thing. It's merely an example of the type of insane acronyms/topic specific jargon that gets routinely bantered about on most topics)

Additionally, while I haven't had a chance to test this yet, I'm reasonably certain my tolerance for the truly inane has lowered substantially. I now spend my days working on debate in a more education focused environment that is centered on building many strong programs rather than the TOC arms race. I also spend a bunch of my spare time working in politics and on policy and advocacy campaigns that have real world implications. I'm not entirely sure what the implication of this are for you, but if it's the pre-round and you have two strategies to choose from, one of which is asinine and one of which is more substantive, I'd bet that the more substantive one is going to work out a lot better for you.

Finally, it's been a few months since I've flowed a top speed round. I'm pretty sure I'm still fine there, but if you could keep that in mind, and ease into your top speed in speeches, it would be appreciated.

If you have a question I haven't answered here, feel free to ask.

Good luck. :)

LD Specific Business

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of how I evaluate substance, impacts, etc. However, since I have judged more LD rounds recently it was time for me to clear some of this stuff up.

I spent most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I did teach two LD classes a year for seven years and I judged a large number of practice debates in class during that time. I tried to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: The way theory is debated in LD makes my head hurt. A LOT. It is rarely impacted, 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 (teeny area of the topic, frameworks and definitions that cross the border from strategic to definitionally impossible to debate, etc) it is NOT every single round. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: I am fine with speed. I am not fine with paragraph after paragraph of a prioris/theory/continental philosophy read at a top speed with zero regard for clarity whatsoever. I will say clear if you are engaging in the practice above, and I will stop flowing if you don't alter your delivery to a rate I can understand after that. I will only vote on what is on my flow. I may call for evidence after the round, however, I will not call for your theory blocks because I didn't understand them. Slow down, be clear, and enunciate on that stuff for the love of all that is holy, or you will have very little chance of winning my ballot. Also see the clarity note at the top of this post. It will apply to LD as well.

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.

Prep Time: 2 Notes. First, I like Cross-Examination. I pay attention to it and think it is strategically valuable. You should use your CX time. If you would like to ask more questions beyond CX in prep, that's cool. But please make use of CX. Second, prep time is the time you use to prep, that includes actions like giving your opponent your case or whatnot if you haven't done this in a timely manner. There are no alternate time outs or whatever. If you are reading a case off a laptop, you need to make that case available to your opponent before you start speaking OR immediately thereafter. There will not be a non-prep-time time outs while you all figure this out. That time will come from one of your prep times. In other words, if the culprit is the aff, who has not made a computerized case available to their opponent in a timely manner, then the AFF loses prep time while they get it ready for the neg, and vice versa.


Good luck, and have fun.

I am a parent judge with limited experience on the national circuit. I did CX in high school and college in the 90s. I have experience with policy style argumentation, so that is probably your best route. I will evaluate all arguments but will have a hard time understanding you if you use an excessive amount of buzzwords without explaining your arguments. For a broader explanation of the abuse of buzzwords, read this article. I usually have trouble hearing people at their top speeds. If you go a bit slower, it will help a lot. You should be clear.

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.

you can call me Krithika in round! she/her

I’m cool with all arguments including theory, Ks, whatever else you want to read! I’m generally tech> truth. Please don’t be mean to each other!

I competed Lincoln Douglas all through high school at Fremd and have judged Congress and Lincoln Douglas on the regional and national level for the past 7 years. Paradigm is pretty straight forward for LD -- win Value and value criterion debate based on framework, take down contention level debate, and flow through your voters based on impacts. Be clear in sign posting, extending arguments, pointing out drops, and giving voters, and I will flow the round pretty transparently. That is the basis of how to win a round.

Secondly, I am open to counter plans and other out of traditional scope options of debating for National level tournaments. For counter-plans I will weigh impacts and which side is winning value and value criterion debate based on framework.

Lastly, if a debater is using observations or anything else in the round that ends up getting decided as the basis of how to debate/go forward, I am open to weighing those measures, given it is mutual between the two debaters and I have a clear basis on how the round/voters will be weighed. --- In a nut shell, if you ask clear and direct questions on any given theory you may be unsure debating about, I am pretty flexible to judge accordingly to the situation at hand. Otherwise default to the first half of this paradigm where I explain line by line how to win a round. I don't care about speed (spreading), long as I can still flow. Stand during your cross examinations, speeches, rebuttals etc (if possible). Professionalism is important.

Thanks -- Ask questions for anything you are unsure of.

-- Bushra Shams

Hi everyone,

I am a history teacher from Bronx Science, and I have limited experience judging Novice/JV LD and PF.

I am a lay judge, which means NO SPREADING!

I am not familiar with progressive arguments, such as Ks, complex frameworks and philosophies, CP’s, DA’s, theory/T, or anything else of the sort. If you still want run it, please explain the concept as clear as possible.

This is my first tournament on this topic, so please explain your arguments clearly. If I do not understand your arguments, that will impact how i evaluate the round.

Give a clear overview, sign post well, make clear extensions with tags and author names, and do not use jargon!

Please keep CX respectful and I will not tolerate any form of bigotry or -isms.

Hello! I am Jharick Shields. I am a speech and debate coach at St. Andrew's Episcopal School. I have been coaching for about 20 years and have coached debaters into late elimination rounds in a number of national circuit and NSDA/NCFL tournaments. I have also been fortunate to watch them win a few. Debate allows us the ability to critique the world and to substantively engage with those criticisms. It is a forum in which we communicate those ideas. How you communicate in front of me will directly correlate to the ballot I write. I am truth with tech. I think that you should be able to create a cohesive ballot story while also understanding the fundamentals of LD argumentation. You need to show me that you are reading the sources you are citing. You need to prove that you understand the context behind the arguments you run. You should engage with the arguments of your opponent. Is T engagement with an aff that is nontopical? I would say yes. However, the debater that will earn higher speaks from me will also critically think and engage the affirmative.

Speed is an part of the game of debate. Judge adaptation is also part of the game. I have no problem saying that I missed something on my flow. If the argument is super important, signpost and weigh it. Don't assume that an extension through ink is enough for me to pull the trigger. A lot of times in great debates, amazing weighing tends to win out on cold concessions. Great debaters explain why the argument was conceded. I think that the best debaters figure that out, and close the door on them. I prefer few, well developed arguments to many. However, its your world. I tend to get excited when I am asked to bring out a lot of paper. Just don't assume I got everything you said if you aren't utilizing good communication skills.

I am an old fashioned policy kid, who was fortunate enough to do LD as well. Policy arguments are my heart. I like great plan texts, plan flaws are a thing, CPs with net benefits, strong case debates, Ks(bonus for Ks with policy alts). If thats what you do, I am a really good judge in those rounds. You still have obligations to communicate...

If you are a traditional debater, I still have plenty of love to share. Some of the best rounds I have seen on the national circuit are kids reading a traditional aff. I watch as their opponent gets ready to run 5 off and case. The 1ar gets up, extends their conceded criterion/case evidence, no links the DAs/Ks, perms the CP/Alt and sits down. And maybe the debater doesn't use those terms, but if you make the argument clearly and labeled, I will bridge the educational gap in debate jargon. I am also a very good judge for you.

If you caught me during high school, maybe I could have gotten into tricks/skep stuff. Basically, I can evaluate it, and if both debaters are going down that road together, I won't be as upset going there. I think HEAVY weighing is the only way that I won't gut check for anything else in that debate. Maybe not the best for you, but maybe you just need a somewhat tech judge in a small pool then I am good.

Honestly, I just am really excited to see debates. Run what you want, be respectful, have fun! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to the round.

For MS Local Touraments:

Everything above applies. There are some things that students do in front of me that don't really help them win the ballot. Here are a few:

1.) Rules Lawyering: I get it, you want to show the judge that you know more about LD or at the very least have a lot of ethos. I must say, through my experience, these cases only end up with that debater losing some ethos. Telling me that something is an NSDA rule when we abide by MSHAA rules is sort of a bad argument. Telling me that a student must have a value, can't run a plan/CP, can't have a criterion, etc is just wrong. In theory, a student can run a case with just 1 contention and nothing else and it is fine. They don't lose the debate, they aren't disqualified, they live to debate another round. Win on the flow.

2.) New arguments: I don't flow these. If the new argument transcends the debate: a student has done something harmful in round, then its fine(but I will most likely intervene, since that is my duty). New evidence that supports arguments already made are fair game. A lot of debaters think that new evidence is the same as a new argument. It isn't.

3.) Mismanaging Drops: Debaters will tell me that an argument was dropped, but it wasn't. They will tell me that they have responded to an argument. They have not. Make sure that you are flowing. After the round, if you show me a quality flow of the debate(and if I have them on me). I will give you a candy/treat or something.

Okay, thanks!!

I debated LD for 4 years at Brookfield East High School (WI), and judge a couple of times a year these days.

My Ballot

• Set a rule for me to use and weigh through it. You can set a V/VC, standard, or some other kind of weighing mechanism. Define it well so I know how to use it. I'm not voting on who sets the criterion. I'm voting on whose impacts are the most relevant through that criterion.
• I default to using my ballot to evaluate who best accessed the criterion. I'm willing to use my ballot as a tool if and only if I get a clear ballot story from you. Don't expect me to be convinced by a shallow critical argument about how affirming or negating have out-of-round impacts, especially when .

Your Arguments

• Show me something interesting, or an argument you're proud of! That doesn't mean the weirdest case -- a well-warranted stock case is an achievement too. Run whatever case you want, but remember to give some sort of standard and be ready to justify your approach. I'm open to arguments that your US-spec case doesn't normatively affirm or negate. If you run an atypical case (e.g. a PIC) without telling me how to adapt I'll have a hard time squaring your advocacy with my baseline conception of affirming and negating.
• I'll flow speed, but I can't flow spread. It's been some time since I was active. I'm also not a fan of speed used to obfuscate your arguments or spike your way to victory. If you get too fast, I'll drop my pen and stare at you. I won't shout 'clear' or 'slow'. It's on you to notice and adjust.
• I'll vote on theory, but only reluctantly. My experience with theory is that it represents a barrier for debaters who want to enter the circuit, and is often used to sidestep substantive debate. If you want to run theory in front of me (especially if I’m supposed to vote on it), there had better be an egregious violation that you’re criticizing. Articulate theory clearly. I'm only loosely familiar with the formal structure of a T-Shell, so it's not in your advantage to shout "Interpretation!" and blaze onward. Tell me (1) what sort of debating norm I should be endorsing, (2) why, (3) where the violation happened, and (4) what that implies for the round or my ballot. I am extremely unlikely to vote on the risk of offense coming from a T-Shell. Strong defense on a T-Shell can be enough for me to disregard it; I'm also very open to dropping arguments instead of debaters; you'll need to convince me that your opponent is doing something so wrong that I need to reject not just that practice, but them as a debater.

Unfortunately, I have heard that the link below does not work, that's unfortunate, I will try my best to summarize my judge philosophy.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Slade%2C+Bo

First, it's been a while since I judged so please be slow and clear. Try to avoid heavy jargon in regards to discussion of the topic.

As a background of me: I debated three years for Loyola in LD, qual'ed to TOC. Then debated one year of college policy at Indiana University.

I will vote on anything so long as two conditions are met: 1) I understand the argument. If the argument being made is too confusing for even me to understand, it is likely that you are not explaining the argument well enough or you are trying to intentionally confuse your opponent, I am a fan of neither. 2) The argument has a warrant. Saying "our world is a simulation, vote neg to reject" isn't a warrant, it's a tagline. Saying "our world is a simulation because xyz, and voting neg implies a rejection of the abc embedded in the AC" is much better.

I have no problem with any form or style of argument so long as it meets those conditions above. So all your theory args, K's, CP's, 'wacky' AC's and DA's are fair game. (Yes, I will vote on disclosure theory)

Things that I like/will get you high speaks:

-You run a K and you do it well (seriously, I mean like really well)

-If you run a race K without a Wilderson/antiblackness alt

-You engage in a good LARP debate

-A lot of 1AR efficiency and prep

Things I don't like/will get you low speaks:

-Entirely frivolous theory (for example, the neg must specify the status of the CP/alt in their NC)

-Personal insults & racist/sexist/generally offensive comments

-NC's that do nothing to engage with the 1AC

Updated 4/11/23 -I haven't judged circuit debates in a hot minute, don’t go your top speed and develop your arguments more thoroughly than you normally would.

Email for speech docs: smitnich91@gmail.com. Make sure there’s parity in document access during the round.

My background: I did LD for 3 years. I was the director of debate at Hopkins for 4 years, coached at St. Thomas Academy & Visitation for 2 years, and have been the head coach at Apple Valley since 2017. I’ve worked at VBI since 2012 and I’m currently the director of instructional design and curriculum.

· Good debate involves well developed arguments and genuine interaction/clash with the other debater’s arguments.
I’m not going to be able to flow twenty back-to-back 1-sentence arguments at 400 WPM. If I didn’t initially catch the argument, then I’m not going to evaluate it.

· Quality >>>>>> quantity of arguments.

· I’m going to be skeptical of arguments that start out as 7 seconds of content but suddenly become multiple minutes of a final rebuttal. If the argument isn’t adequately developed in the speech that you initially make it then I’m likely not going to give you credit.

· Generally open to most arguments, but don’t forget that this competitive activity is also an educational activity. I understand progressive argument mechanics, but don’t assume I’m up to date on recent developments in the meta.

· Strategies designed to avoid meaningful engagement probably isn’t given me evidence you are doing the better debating.

Speed

Nope |---------------------X--------------| Heck ya

Stock/Traditional

Nope |----------------------------------X-| Heck ya

Policy

Nope |-----------------------X------------| Heck ya

· I think Nebel T is correct but am totally game for y’all to have a throwdown on this.

· There’s this odd trend to stray far from the core of the topic literature for some far-fetched x-risk scenario. Not a huge fan of this trend.

· You have to establish a baseline of credibility for me to care about your scenario. @ folks reading extinction impacts on the standardized tests topic.

Philosophy

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· Cases should be built around the topic literature, not just the author/theory you want to read. If your contention is just analytics and/or cards written in a wildly different context than what the topic is about then it probably isn’t a very strong case.

· I think phil has mainly become a vehicle for tricks, which makes me sad.

Kritiks

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· I used to be a giant K hack because I love critical theory. Unfortunately, K debates have become increasingly convoluted and clashphobic.

· I think the aff should probably defend the topic. That doesn’t mean there’s only one way to interpret a topic. I’ll listen to non-t affs, but framework debates will be an uphill battle for you. Just reading a contestable 1NC link card isn't a very persuasive argument for you not having to defend the topic.

Theory/T

Nope |------------X-----------------------| Heck ya

· Theory/T obviously has a place in debate since debaters are true artisans at inventing & discovering arguments & strategies that skew the playing field or rob the round of any educational value.

· That being said, theory/T debates happen way more frequently than they should.

· Theory/T needs to be sufficiently developed in the first speech that the argument is made.

· If the violation is absurd or silly it isn’t going to pass my sniff test. But once the sniff test has been passed, I’ll evaluate the theory/T debate as tab as I can. Default competing interps. Neutral on RVIs.

· You need to actually show that the crime fits the proposed punishment. I think offering an alternative punishment to solve the violation is a criminally neglected response to theory/T.

Tricks

Nope |---X--------------------------------| Heck ya

· Winning through tricks is rarely evidence that a debater is doing the better debating. When a hyper-focus on strategy comes at the expense of having an enriching experience in the round then I get sad.

· I almost never vote on presumption/permissibility/skepticism since there’s usually a risk of offense.

· I default to comparative worlds and need some convincing to adopt truth testing.

MISC

An important note for progressive debaters: if you’re debating someone that is a traditional debater or significantly less experienced than you then you should adjust what you do so that there can be an actual debate. Don’t read a non-topical Baudrillard AC at 450 wpm against a new novice. Don’t have your 1NC be skep and a PIC against a traditional debater who hasn't had the opportunity to learn about the mechanics of such arguments. Slow down and/or read arguments that your opponent can actually understand. Use your best judgement. If I think that you knowingly made choices that functionally preclude your opponent from engaging then I may murder your speaker points and/or drop you.

I care deeply about inclusion and accessibility within debate. I’m more than happy to vote against debaters who engage in practices that promote exclusion or inaccessibility, even if they’re winning on the flow. I’ll be a tab judge until you give me a good reason not to be.

I will yell clear or slow once or twice; after that it is up to you to pick up on non-verbal cues. I expect you to make serious alterations to your delivery if I’m forced to yell. I won’t vote on an argument, even if it is in the speech doc, if I didn’t flow it or understand when it was initially read in the round. I’m a trashcan judge to have in the back of the room when the rebuttals are filled with hundreds of 1 sentence arguments (especially for T/Theory debates) without real clash, impact analysis, and framing.

Speaker Points: The factors I focus on for determining speaker points are: strategic choices, execution, and how persuasive I found your argumentation. My normal range is 25-30, with 20-24.9 being reserved for super rough or problematic debating. My speaker points are relative to the strength of the pool: 30 for champion level performance, ~28.5 for a performance worth making it to elims, and I aim for ~27.5 as an average performance.

she/her(s) | snyder.3562@gmail.com | (920) 891-5190 | last updated 1/19/2024

conflict/ish: neenah

tl;dr

-happy with virtually everything but usually prefer more progressive material, happy with speed, like to be on email chains (snyder.3562@gmail.com)

-i default to offense/defense/util; your impact calc should be adjusted to suit the standard (you can tell me to evaluate otherwise!)

-i eval by 1) looking at independent voters that you articulate to me, 2) identifying the winning fwk (or ROB, ROJ, standard, etc.), which you should be telling me about 3) look at relevant offense for either side under winning fwk, obvi considering rebuttals and esp. turns 4) weigh that offense based on your impact calc

ld paradigm

-TECH/TRUTH :)

-speaks: 26-27: ill-prepared or very new; 28: average, probably a winning record; 29: i think you should advance; 30: i think you should get to semis or further.

-happiest to saddest: kritiks, k affs, plans & LARP, phil affs, theory stuff, traditional stuff

-as a debater I went for phil args locally (kant/deont, progressivism, baudrillard, etc.) and more kritikal stuff on the circuit (fem, cap, neo-col)., plans intermittently, and theory absolutely never lol

-always be doing impact calculus.... rank your voting issues.

experience/background

-debating experience: semi-competitive LD debater in high school, cleared at a handful of lowkey nat tournaments but nothing past quarters, won some local tournaments, didn't go to camp, graduated in 2016

-coaching experience: coached at neenah, wisconsin 2016-2022, mostly LD

-judging experience: judged mainly LD a lot 2016-2022 - on the circuit 5 times a year before covid and 12 after. currently judge 1-2 times a year

-real life: in undergrad i studied secondary ed, english, and french. currently i work in local government and study public administration, expecting to graduate with an MPA this spring

email me w qs: snyder.3562@gmail.com

Hi! I’m Elizabeth. I did LD at Evanston Township for 3 years and have coached there for five years.

- FOR STAGG ON 1/27 -

I have experience judging PF and I've found that it's fairly similar to a traditional LD round, which I've been judging for five years. I will flow everything in your speeches, I pay attention during CX, and I will judge based on the flow. Ultimately you need to do your best to weigh your arguments against theirs or I will be forced to weigh for you.

I assume I won't see much "progressive" debate but I'm certainly open to it as long as you provide justifications for your method.

To summarize:

· Performance and Ks>CPs/DAs/policy stuff AND traditional LD>>theory that isn’t tricks*>>>"phil" I guess? The kind of phil that is actually tricks.

· If you run tricks, you're better off striking me.

· I think part of being a good debater is making me care about what you're saying in addition to making me understand it.

· I did traditional LD as well as nat circuit (or "progressive") so I’d happily judge a traditional LD round if that’s what you’re here for!

Additional things you may find helpful:

I spent my junior year running various race/queer/colonialism K’s. I spent over half of my senior year running a performance aff so I’m 100% open (and excited!) to hearing anything performative. I think debates about the debate space are really cool and educational. I also think debates about the hypothetical implementation of a plan are really cool and educational. So whichever one of these wins me over is entirely dependent on the round in front of me.

I very much agree with my high school debate coach, Jeff Hannan, on this:

“I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.”

This probably means that if you want to run a bunch of blippy offs to spread your opponent out, I am not the judge for you. We will probably end up in a situation where you feel like I've missed something, and then everyone is sad. I would much prefer a deep analysis on one or two offs. But either way, the more you try to write my ballot for me the better things will go for you. Like please just give me a weighing mechanism and explain how you win under it at least pls pls pls or I will not know what to do with your impacts.

Framework things that are important to me:

To expand on my last point...please weigh your impacts back to your framework or at least back to something!!! I've noticed debaters doing this thing where they say a bunch of impacts but don't compare them (weigh them) and then I have to do all the work myself which can leave debaters disgruntled with my decision. Truly all I would like you to do is weigh the impacts in the round to your framework and it will take you a long way.

If your frameworks are basically the same I'll ultimately collapse them to make my decision. If you have impacts that only link under your framework then by all means argue the heck out of the framework debate! BUT PLEASE NOTE: "they don't link to their FW because I actually link better as shown in my contentions..." is NOT a reason to prefer your framework, it's just a solvency argument.

Stuff on Ks specifically:

I love a good K debate! Familiar with settler colonialism, afropess, and queer stuff.

If you can explain/impact the rhizome or hyperreal stuff to me and actually make it interesting then you can go ahead and try but you will have to explain VERY well and slowly.

I really enjoy any K stuff that relates specifically to education and discourse.

If you kick a K about an identity group you're not a part of (especially for frivolous theory omg) I'm going to definitelyyyy knock your speaks at least.

Stuff on theory specifically:

Generally convinced by reasonability because it often feels like theory is in fact frivolous or a waste of my time.

I don't have a negative predisposition toward RVIs but if the debate is coming down to that it’s probably already making me sad.

If there’s legit abuse then by all means call it out. On disclosure specifically: if they read something predictable or obviously within your resources to respond to just fine, I will be nonplussed. However, if they're reading something super specific or non-T that a reasonable person couldn't predict, I'm totally fine with disclosure theory.

*The more genuine and not-blippy your theory shell is the more I will like it. My favorite kind of debate that I ever did was debate about the debate space so I actually think theory is very cool ~in theory~ but in practice people use it to waste their opponent’s time and that seems antithetical to education to me.

Additional additional stuff:

Not to be a stickler but I'm not a huge fan of LDers saying "we" unless it's meaningfully symbolic for some reason. I won't knock down your speaks but I will internally sigh and wonder why you want to be in policy.

Please put me on the email chain (elizabethasperti@gmail.com). Even in my debating days, I didn’t have a great ear for speed. But I can understand spreading, please just be clear. I’ll say “clear” if I’m not understanding you. So don’t stress too much about being too fast just...try to be clear? Also if you're ever wondering if you should send your analytics, send the analytics.

If your opponent can’t understand you, I see that as a failure on your part, not theirs. If you can’t understand your opponent, please feel free to say “clear.” I have no idea why that’s not seen as “acceptable” in the debate space. That kind of just seems like a basic right a debater should have in the round.

For everyone:

Please be respectful to each other, and please try to have an illuminating debate.

Debate judging paradigm: I have the most experience with LD and competed in this event during my years in high school. I love and have judged all forms of debate, including PF/LD, Congress, Big Questions and World Schools. I value dignity, civility, and respect, in addition to being a flow judge. If you drop arguments or introduce new evidence in a round, I will notice and weigh that in my decision, though it is the debater's job to point this out in their rebuttals.

For LD/PF/BQ: I appreciate good, strong clash, as well as a clear understanding of one's case and evidence, so that debaters not only READ a constructive/card at me but can actually paraphrase and link impacts. I DO pay attention during CX, and weigh the nature of questions and responses as a deciding factor in close rounds, as well as the level of graciousness, assertiveness, and respect demonstrated in CX and throughout. Many can debate well; doing so while honoring the dignity and worth of one's opponent and their argumentation is what sets true orators and diplomats apart.

For CONGRESS: I appreciate speakers that draw intelligently and usefully on prior speakers' points and arguments. Crystallization towards the end of the round should be insightful and weigh impacts. AVOID merely summarizing evidence or points that have been made already. Repetitiveness simply for the sake of getting a speech in will not go over well.

Speech judging paradigm: be bold, original, and thought provoking. Cursing and singing and foreign language are fine with me. Be respectful of other competitors while observing or having your team/family observe you.

THE OG PARADIGM

Former Competitor: 2008 - 2011

Coach - 2011 - 2019

Speed - Go for it, I am not the best with speed but if you go for it, it isn't going to lose you points. I won't say clear or give you any indication that I am missing things though so you are taking a slight risk.

Weighing - Do it. Seriously, If I am given any clear weighing analysis in the round I will go for it. My resume and background reads like a moderate Republican's fantasy. You probably don't want me making personal decisions about how I think we should craft policy or evaluate vague concepts.

Signposting - Clearly tell me where you are going in the round. If I get confused I get disinterested and if I get disinterested I get onto Netflix and watch West Wing with the subtitles on.

Off-time Roadmaps - Do them. If you say you are going to read an overview or a framework, tell me where to put it or I will put in in my computer's trash file and empty it after your speech.

Crossfire - I might look like I am not paying attention to your crossfires. That's because I am not. Thats for you to clarify the round and for me to add detailed comments to the ballot. If something interesting happens, let me know in a speech. If you are going to start hitting someone, let me know and I will get out a camera.

Extending Defense - Meh. You don't really have to do this in my opinion but obviously if your opponents go through ink you might want to remind me of that fact, especially if it is on something you really want me to care about.

Weighing Pt.2 - Please do this. I am begging you.

SPECIAL LD EDITION

If I had a PF team that had the capacity to come this wouldn't be necessary but, for now, here we are. Doomed to dance this dance until my obligation of a minimum of three ballots are up and I have left your hopes and dreams broken at my feet.

Let's start this off on the right note. I know enough about LD and all of its components to be dangerous. In clearer terms, when you tell me what you are going to try to do I will conceptually understand what you are going for but I will lack the experience or wherewithal to implement your vision on my flow. See? Dangerous.

Don't take this to mean I don't care about the event or that I don't look forward to these rounds. Do take it to mean that if you are planning on taking any risks or doing anything tricky, that your opponent stands to benefit from my ignorance as much as you.

Speed (Preface): Good luck. Seriously, good luck. Speed is an excellent tool to put more arguments out there on the flow but maybe we want to make sure I understand the basic ones you are dropping first? Just a suggestion. And no, I won't do that "Clear" business. Adapt or die. This is forensic darwinism.

Technical Debate: Solid meh. You can. I won't drop you for it and I get that the adaptations I am asking for will mean that you need to adjust in ways that will force you to use it.

Defaults: Let's return to that dangerous thing. I don't really have any default preferences that I have developed over my lackluster experience judging. You can read my paradigm below for PF to see if you glean any information from that but otherwise, I am tabula rasa to a fault and will stick to what I am given in the round despite any personal beliefs or pre-existing knowledge.

Disclosure: Unless you are disclosing who wins the round before I need to judge it, it's not something I really care about. I buy why disclosure is a good thing and I also get how it can be abused given enough resources. If it becomes an issue I will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round and not the ones in my head.

I hope this helps although it undoubtedly will leave you in a state of fear akin to the people of Pompeii as the ash cloud descended on their once-idyllic town.

For email chains my email is jstagey@gmail.com.

I coached LD, PF and Congress for 8 years at Chanhassen High School in Minnesota.

Reaffirmed 1-21-23

Lincoln Douglas

My entire career has been coaching at a school that does traditional-ish LD. If you want a judge with more experience in/sympathy for national-circuit-style debate, I would put me as a low pref--for no better reason than you might be disappointed with how I evaluate the round. If you are reading this, chances are rounds have already been paired and you are stuck with me. Sorry. I'll do the best I can.

If you only have a few minutes before the round and don't want to spend that time listening to my rambling I'd sum it up as follows:

Research, evidence, truth.

What I value about the activity of debate is the research and argument-creating process. I am aware of the variety of resources from which debaters can draw arguments and evidence, and I am not insensitive to the reasons why many choose to do so. However, I really disfavor debates that center around arguments and cases that I am well-aware you did not write. Stock K's, generic constructives, and canned CPs disappoint me as a coach and as an educator.

What disappoints me even more than running things that you did not research and write is when you run things that you do not understand. It doesn't take talent or care to write a punchy frontline and cut a card from Baudrillard's gibberish. I want to leave the round feeling like we have all come closer to understanding the truth, not running a race to the most obscure and convoluted.

I want to see good evidence. Please cite the author and the publication. Not all sources are equal. I expect your warrant to literally support the conclusion you state as your frontline. Sources aren't important just because somebody said them; credibility and persuasiveness rests upon credentials and, more importantly the author's logic. If you can't explain why author reaches conclusion X, you haven't created a complete warrant. If you are moving from an evidence warrant to an analytic warrant, you need to make that distinction; don't tell me the card supports your conclusion when it only does half the work. This goes for framework too. Your card doesn't say "the role of the ballot is rejecting oppression." The card says oppression is bad. You are saying that, therefore, the role of the ballot is to XYZ.

I will always be skeptical of cards about debate or written by debaters. I don't find forum or blog posts written by coaches, judges, or former debaters to be the kind of credible, disinterested evidence that we should be using in this activity.

Here is a more concrete list of the things that I do and do not want to see.

1. I don't read the wiki, I will not read your case as you run it, and making your case public ahead of the round does not give you license to run something abusive. Please don't run disclosure theory; I won't evaluate it.

2. I prefer quick and articulate over fast. I'm not adept at discerning spreading, and I will more likely let things fall through the cracks than remind you every 15 seconds to slow down or speak clearly. Your call though.

3. I like kritiks and think they are a good expression of what you can do in this activity, but not all kritiks link to the resolution, and I'm not going to go for bad links. This probably means that you'll need to do more work than just pulling up your camp backfiles and reading your stock will-to-power K.

4. I think formalized theory arguments dumb down debate.

5. I don't think plans are actually affirming, but I'd entertain somebody who wanted to change that perspective

6. Counterplans are cool.

7. Do not argue with me after the round. You're debating your opponent, you accept that I'm the expert. I assume that the losing team is going to say that I'm wrong.

8. I don't like performance or narrative. I'd prefer substance debate.

I'm not as grumpy as this paradigm makes me seem, and I am a qualified and experienced judge.

Public Forum
I coach IE as well as debate, and I specialize in Oratory and Extemp Speaking. My ideal PF round would have the content and argumentation of Extemp with the oratory skills of OO. That is my 30. Unfortunately, I know that a lot of teams sacrifice oratory skills to get in more information, and that is fine with me. Speak fast, but don’t get into LD/Policy territory.

I’m all about weighing. Rarely can a team eliminate all offense from their opponents, so this requires some sort of weighing metric. Magnitude = Probability x Scope. That how I teach my kids, but you can weigh however you’d like, just make sure you do it.

Things I hate in PF: 1) Supercharged impacts. I know that thermonuclear holocaust is a bigger impact than a loss in GDP, but that doesn’t mean that you can find a link from Public Subsidies to nuclear war. If it is a stretch, I will do my best to find a way to vote against it. 2) Complicated framework. Cost/Benefit is the default framework for PF. If you want to argue deontology, you are in the wrong event. That being said, I understand that different resolutions require certain limits on the debate. Be fair and don’t try to rule out arguments rather than debate them. 3) Assuming the judge will intervene. I’ve seen this run rampant in my local circuit—teams trying to refute their opponents by reading a card and then moving onto the next argument. I need you to tell me what to do with your arguments. I will do everything I can to stay completely out of the debate. If you need me to do your work for you, we’ll have a rough round.
Besides that, I am a straight-forward PF judge. Debate the issues in the resolution, don’t try any semantic hocus pocus.

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.

Glenbrooks Update: I’m not that familiar with this topic, so if you have an in-depth substance debate you’ll have to explain yourself more than you usually would.

I debated for Millburn High School in NJ for four years and got four TOC bids.

I’ll vote for any argument I understand that has a warrant that coherently justifies the claim/impact. Debate is your activity and I don’t care about what arguments you make, but I’m probably better at evaluating theory, tricks, and framework than a K or LARP debate. I’m not going to pretend that I’m equally capable of evaluating every argument out there, although I’ll certainly try my best. That said, if I'm judging you, read whatever is most strategic/what you’re comfortable with and certainly don’t change what you normally read – I actually don't care at all what you read, I'm just letting you know this for your prefs.

Misc Comments:

- Repeating the claim of an argument is enough for an extension. For important arguments, spend more time explaining their impacts.

⁃ Like I mentioned above, I’m not the best judge for a K/LARP debate. I’m reasonably familiar with the gist of most Ks and read a decent number of critical positions when I debated, so just slow down and explain more than usual.

⁃ I’d prefer if you’re honest in the round and answer straightforwardly in CX – e.g. if someone asks you if there are presumption triggers are in the AC, just tell them.

⁃ Compiling the speech doc counts as prep, flashing doesn’t

Defaults: if no arguments are made on these issues, I’ll use these defaults:

⁃ Truth testing

⁃ Fairness is a voter, theory is drop the argument, T is drop the debater

⁃ Competing interps, won’t gut check for reasonability

⁃ No RVIs, only counterinterps trigger RVIs

- I’ll evaluate embedded clash if explicit clash is irresolvable

Speaker Points: I’ll try to average a 28.5 and vary them based on strategy, efficiency, and to a much lesser degree, argument quality and how enjoyable you make the round to judge. I won't change them based on what debate style you prefer - when I debated, I didn't like reading what I was uncomfortable with because I thought a specific judge would otherwise give me lower speaks. I’ll say clear/slow/loud as many times as necessary. Don’t be mean or rude, e.g. don’t spread or read tricks/theory/Ks against novices.

Have fun! Debate is a great activity, and it’s better when everyone is relaxed and has a good time. Feel free to ask me questions before the round if I’m missing anything here.

Head coach, Rosemount, MN. Do both policy & LD, and I don’t approach them very differently.

I’m a chubby, gray-haired, middle-aged white dude, no ink, usually wearing a golf shirt or some kind of heavy metal shirt (Iron Maiden, or more often these days, Unleash the Archers). If that makes you think I’m kind of old-school and lean toward soft-left policy stuff rather than transgressive reimaginations of debate, you ain’t wrong. Also, I’m a (mostly retired now) lawyer, so I understand the background of legal topics and issues better than most debaters and judges. (And I can tell when you don’t, which is most of the time.)

I was a decent college debater in the last half of the 1980s (never a first-round, but cleared at NDT), and I’ve been coaching for over 30 years. So I’m not a lay judge, and I’m mostly down with a “circuit” style—speed doesn’t offend me, I focus on the flow and not on presentation, theory doesn’t automatically seem like cheating, etc. However, by paradigm, I'm an old-school policymaker. The round is a thought experiment about whether the plan is a good idea (or, in LD, whether the resolution is true).

I try to minimize intervention. I'm more likely to default to "theoretical" preferences (how arguments interact to produce a decision) than "substantive" or "ideological" preferences (the merits or “truth” of a position). I don't usually reject arguments as repugnant, but if you run white supremacist positions or crap like that, I might. I'm a lot less politically "lefty" than most circuit types (my real job was defending corporations in court, after all). I distrust conspiracy theories, nonscientific medicine, etc.

I detest the K. I don't understand most philosophy and don't much care to, so most K literature is unintelligible junk to me. (I think Sokal did the world a great service.) I'll listen and process (nonintervention, you know), but I can't guarantee that my understanding of it at the end of the round is going to match yours. I'm especially vulnerable to “no voter” arguments. I’m also predisposed to think that I should vote for an option that actually DOES something to solve a problem. Links are also critical, and “you’re roleplaying as the state” doesn’t seem like a link to me. (It’s a thought experiment, remember.) I’m profoundly uncomfortable with performance debates. I tend not to see how they force a decision. I'll listen, and perhaps be entertained, but need to know why I must vote for it.

T is cool and is usually a limitations issue. I don't require specific in-round abuse--an excessively broad resolution is inherently abusive to negs. K or performance affs are not excused from the burden of being topical. Moreover, why the case is topical probably needs to be explained in traditional debate language--I have a hard time understanding how a dance move or interpretive reading proves T. Ks of T start out at a disadvantage. Some K arguments might justify particular interpretations of the topic, but I have a harder time seeing why they would make T go away. You aren’t topical simply because you’ve identified some great injustice in the world.

Counterplans are cool. Competition is the most important element of the CP debate, and is virtually always an issue of net benefits. Perms are a good test of competition. I don't have really strong theoretical biases on most CP issues. I do prefer that CPs be nontopical, but am easily persuaded it doesn't matter. Perms probably don't need to be topical, and are usually just a test of competitiveness. I think PICs are seldom competitive and might be abusive (although we've started doing a lot of them in my team's neg strats, so . . .). All of these things are highly debatable.

Some LD-specific stuff:

Framework is usually unimportant to me. If it needs to be important to you, it’s your burden to tell me how it affects my decision. The whole “philosophy is gibberish” thing still applies in LD. Dense, auto-voter frameworks usually lose me. If you argue some interpretation of the topic that says you automatically win, I’m very susceptible to the response that that makes it a stupid interp I should reject.

LD theory usually comes across as bastardized policy theory. It often doesn’t make sense to me in the context of LD. Disclosure theory seems to me like an elitist demand that the rest of the world conform to circuit norms.

I am more likely to be happy with a disad/counterplan type of LD debate than with an intensely philosophical or critical one. I’ll default to util if I can’t really comprehend how I’m supposed to operate in a different framework, and most other frameworks seems to me to ultimately devolve to util anyway.

Feel free to ask about specific issues. I'm happy to provide further explanation of these things or talk about any issues not in this statement.

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

I debated for four years at Hopkins high school in Minnesota (2008-2012) and coached/judged through college.

I am willing to listen to any argument and vote on any argument, but there are certain things that you could do that will make it much harder to win in front of me. If you run a position that is wrong (using a philosophy incorrectly, contrary to empirical fact, etc), I will vote for you if you win it, but your speaks will suffer. Similarly, offensive arguments (if not argued against) can win, but won't gain you many speaks. These arguments can and will lose with even the most basic rebuttal, but if they are dropped, I won't intervene to not vote for them.

That being said, I have a few preferences for other arguments:

I am willing to vote on theory, and will decide it based on how you tell me to in the round, but I have a very low threshold for arguments against what would generally be considered unnecessary theory. Try to limit your usage to when there's actual abuse happening in the round. You won't lose because you run unnecessary theory, but your opponent won't need to do a lot to refute it.

I'm not terribly convinced by out of round impacts, but if you can win it in round, you'll win my ballot. Again, I just have a somewhat lower threshold for responses because I don't think it's particularly compelling.

Don't assume I've heard whatever complicated moral theory/new debate fad/anything crazy you want to run. If you think you can explain it well enough in round for someone who has never heard it before to understand, go for it. If not, consider running something else or adding more explanation. It's not the case that I necessarily won't have heard of it, but a) I think it's extremely unfair to debaters who aren't more familiar with whatever random philosophy/fad you've chosen and b) there certainly is a chance that I won't know it.

Speed: I debated on the circuit, so I'm pretty competent at flowing high pace rounds. That being said, if you're one of the faster debaters, you may not be able to go your full speed since I haven't had a ton of practice lately. I'll say "clear" or "slow" two times, depending on what's necessary, but after that you will lose speaks if you don't change the speed or clarity of your speech. I will also stop flowing if I can't understand you. Likely, this won't be an issue.

Speaker points: If you make intelligent arguments, weigh early and often, and generally make the round easier to adjudicate, you should find yourself pleased with your speaks. On the other hand, making the round messier or making illogical arguments will result in lower points.

Feel free to ask other questions, but please make them specific rather than simply asking "is there anything you do or don't like?"

For Glenbrooks:

Background: I debated LD for 4 years; Senior and Junior year in the national circuit. I'm currently a freshman at the University of Chicago studying Computer Science and debating Parliamentary style debate. I mostly read K args towards the end of high school.

Let me know before round if you have any questions, or would like me to say "slower" "clear" or anything else that will make you more comfortable. Wear whatever you want in front of me, I literally wore a hoodie to all my rounds senior year.

You don't have to use prep to flash, but if you take more than a minute doing it or I see you compiling the file I will be annoyed and speaks will go down.

Email: angeltoro@uchicago.edu. This won't be super specific so email me with any specific questions if you have any. Oh and put me in the email chain because my hearing is less than ideal.

K debate: I love K debate that is specific to the topic. This does not mean that I will not evaluate other non-t K's. I just have a low-threshold for TVAs and other arguments towards why it's not fair. This is specifically true if you don't disclose...Please disclose if you're reading a non-T aff; It seems pretty clear that it is just a Strat to win a round (like most things in debate) otherwise and it will just make me sad. Also, if you're negating and your opponent does this I will be pretty lenient with case-proper responses.

Please have an alternative for K's that means something. It doesn't have to be concrete, It can be a mindset shift if that's the solution to the problem but please explain it right. And don't just simply rely on repeating tag lines from your author that mean nothing without hours of analysis and reading.

Larp: I honestly love clean larp debate. It can get so messy though so be ready to weigh. If by the end of the round I just have conceded DA's and conceded advantages I will have to weigh by myself. And that will lead to an arbitrary decision that one of you will be unhappy with.

Theory/T:

I lean to believing T gets an RVI as well. But I get both sides of this so just debate it.

I am open to listening to any theory debate. Just a PSA again, my hearing is not amazing and I might miss technical things if you're just flying through it while you extempt a shell and I'll be sorry but I simply can't vote for things I didn't hear, so I'll get over it.

Phil:

I was never big on Phil debate. Yet, I really like philosophy and love reading it, watching videos on it, talking about it. I feel my issue usually was that people are so sketchy when explaining Phil positions, I get that sometimes you need to use dense vocabulary to explain it, but I need to be able to comprehend all the pages that you read to decide on this case in a matter of 6 minutes; so your explanations must be very good.

Overall, read whatever you want. As long as it's not exclusionary to any group or person I'm here for it.

Speaks: First time judging so we'll see, I think my average will be around a 28.

I am down to talk after rounds about decisions. But if you are just trying to find a reason why I'm wrong, instead of actually learning I will just leave after a while. Not because I think it's not possible for me to have made a mistake, but because even if I did there's nothing that, that will do.

I'm probably missing a lot of stuff, so just email me or facebook message me, it's just my name. (Add me if you do message me, since I usually don't see the requested messages page.)

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

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

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

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

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

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

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

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

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

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

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

Framework

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

Tricks and Triggers

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

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

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

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

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

Non-Intervention

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

Speed

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

Extensions

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

Evidence

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

Speaker Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rude or Unethical Actions

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

Card Clipping

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

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

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

Questions

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

My email is beccatraber (at) gmail (dot) com. I want to be on the email chain. I don't disclose speaks.

I am a debate coach and former teacher at Lake Highland Prep school. I help run NSD Flagship on site. I'm currently a law student at Texas.

Added Nov 19, 2022: Several recent rounds made me think I needed to make something clear. I probably won't find your arguments that funny--I am old, I've certainly seen it before. Please don't waste my time with meme rounds stuffed full with things like shoes theory or other outrageous offs. Particularly don't run things where the joke basically depends on it being funny to care about something related to social justice. I have no aversion to tricky or clever arguments, but I do strongly care about argument quality and if it's something that's been floating around since 2004, I've definitely seen it too many times to actually find it clever. Your speaks will suffer if you don't take this seriously.

MJP Shorthand:

I predominately coach k, phil, and theory debaters. I'm comfortable judging any given round. I regularly vote for every type of case/debater. If you want to know what my preferences are, the following is pretty accurate:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below, in the circuit section)

(My debaters told me to add those numbers, but it bears repeating: I can and will judge whatever round you want me to have. This is just what makes me happiest to judge)

Traditional LD Paradigm:

(If you are reading this at a CFL, this is what you should focus on. You can read the circuit thing if you want, but this overrules it in a very non-circuit context.)

Overall, I want to judge the debate you want me to judge, so you do you. A few thoughts about what I think on things:

1. Please don't go new in the second speeches, especially the 2AR. I will not evaluate new evidence or new framing that your opponent doesn't have a chance to answer.
2. If an argument is dropped and unresponded to in the first chance it has to be responded to (eg, the NC doesn't respond to something in the AC), I consider it true. You can't respond to it directly, but you may frame the argument or weigh against it. You can contest the implications.
3. I flow the whole round on my computer. That's how I make my decision. That's why I am typing the whole time.
4. I would prefer if you time yourself--I am very out of the habit of time signals. Tell me if you want them.
5. In general, I think the value/criterion is crucial for LD. You must normatively justify a criterion that is capable of serving as a measuring stick for what impacts matter in the round. This means that ideally for me, your criterion should be warranted in terms of why it is the right way to think about morality, not just defining it. This has the effect of me generally preferring criteria that are specific actions ("not treating people as a means to an end") than broad references to the intellectual history of the idea ("Kant's categorical imperative.") To generalize: criteria should have a verb.
6. I am willing to exclude consequentialist impacts if the framework is won explaining why I should.
7. Comparative impacting is very important to me. I want to know why your argument is good/true, but I want to know that in terms of why your opponent's argument is bad/false.
8. Be extremely clear about what you think is aff ground and what is neg ground and why. I've judged a lot of CFL debates lately where there has been intense disagreement about what the aff could defend--be clear when that's happening and try to explain why your approach is more consistent with the literature. Part of that involves looking for definitions and sources in context: avoid using general dictionaries for technical terms.
9. If you raise issues like the author qualifications or any general problem with the way that your opponent warrants something, I need an argument from you as to why that matters. For instance, don't just say "this evidence is older than my evidence," point out the intervening event that would make me think the date matters.
10. I am fine with speed in theory, but it is very important to me that everyone is on the same page. If your opponent is not used to flowing full spreading, please don't. You may speak quickly, you may sit down, you may do whatever jargon you like--as long as you prioritize sharing the space and really think about explaining your arguments fully.
11. I don't mind you reading progressive arguments, but it is very important to me that everyone understand them. What that means is that you are welcome to read a k or topicality, but you have a very high burden of articulating its meaning and function in the round. I'll vote on T, for instance, but I'm going to consciously abandon my assumptions about T being a voting issue. If you want me to vote on it, you must explain it in round, in a way that your opponent understands. The difference between me and a more traditional judge will mostly be that I won't be surprised or off-put by the argument, but you still have to justify it to me.
12. I tend not to be allowed to disclose, but I will give oral feedback after the round. You don't have to stay for it, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have!

Circuit LD Paradigm:

Qualifications: I debated on the national circuit for the Kinkaid School, graduated 2008. It's a long time ago, but I finaled at the TOC and won several national tournaments. I've been coaching and teaching on the national circuit since. I am finishing my dissertation at Yale University in Political Theory. In Fall 2020, I started working as a full-time teacher at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I've taught at more camps than I care to think about at present, including top labs at NSD and TDC.

Shorthand:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below)

Some general explanations of those numbers & specific preferences, roughly put into the categories:

K

I am well-read in a wide variety of critical literature. I'm familiar with the array of authors commonly read in debate.

I like k-affs, both topical and non-topical. I generally buy method links, method perms, advocacy links, advocacy perms, and so on. I can and do buy impact turns. That being said: I also regularly vote against ks, and am willing to hear arguments about acceptable and unacceptable k/link/perm/alt practices.

I think it is important to be able to articulate what the alt/advocacy looks like as a material practice, but I think that's possible and persuasive for even the most high theory and esoteric ks.

The critical literatures I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): ableism, a variety of anti-capitalisms/marxisms including Jodi Dean, anthropocentrism, a variety of anti-Blackness literatures, Baudrillard, semiocapitalism, ecology critiques, securitization/threat construction, nationalism critiques, a variety of queer theories, Heidegger, Deleuze, Laruelle, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Bataille, and others. I'm old and I read a lot. I'm comfortable in this space.

Ontological Pessimism: I am uncomfortable with debaters reading ontologically pessimistic positions about identity groups that they do not belong to. I won't auto-drop the debater reading it, but I am an easy get for an argument that they should lose by the opponent.

As a general thing, I would like to strongly remind you that these are positions about real people who are in the room with you, and you should be mindful of that when you deploy narratives of suffering as a way to win the round. And yes, this applies to "invisible" identities as well. If you're reading an ontologically pessimist position, especially if the thrust of the debate is about how things that are or are not consistent with that identity, and things that identity cannot or can do--I completely think it's fair game for your opponent to ask you if you identify in that way.

If you're not willing to answer the question, perhaps you shouldn't be running the case. I've sat through a lot of disability debates recently and I'm starting to get very frustrated with the way that people casually talk about disabled people, without any explicit accountability to disabled humans as people in the space and not just figures of Lacanian abjection. I will vote on it, but try not to be a jerk. This isn't just a debate argument.

If you read a slur or insult based on an identity that doesn't apply to you (race, gender, ability, class...anything), I am not voting for you. You lose. There's no debate argument that I'll listen to justifying it. Even if it is an example of a bad thing: I don't care. You lose. Cut around it. Changing letters around isn't redacting it if you still read it.

Policy FW/T-Must-Be-Topical: I regularly vote both that affs must be topical and that they don't have to be. I regularly coach in both directions. I think the question is very interesting and one of my favorite parts of debate--when done with specific interaction with the content of the aff. I particularly like non-standard T-FW and TVAs which aren't the classic "must defend the hypothetical implementation of a policy action."

Accessibility note for performances: If you don't flash the exact text of your speech, please do not play any additional sounds underneath your speaking. If there is sound underneath your speaking, please flash the exact text of what you are reading. I do not want to undermine the performance you want to engage in and whichever option you prefer is fine for me. It is fine to have part of your speech be on paper with music underneath and then turn the music off when you go off paper. I struggle to understand what is being said over noise and I'm uncomfortable being unable to know what is being said with precision.

Phil

I am well-read in a variety of philosophical literature, predominantly in the post-Kantian continental tradition and political theory. I also enjoy a well-constructed phil case. Some of my favorite debates are k v phil, also--I see them generally as dealing with the same questions and concerns.

For phil positions, I do think it is important that the debater be able to explain how the ethical conception and/or the conception of the subject manifests in lived human reality.

I am generally more persuaded by epistemic confidence than epistemic modesty, but I think the debate is usually malformed and strange--I would prefer if those debates deal with specific impact scenarios or specifics of the phil framework in question.

I prefer detailed and well-developed syllogisms as opposed to short and unrelated prefer-additionalys. A good "prefer-additionally" should more or less be a framework interaction/pre-empt.

In general, I've been in this activity a long time. The frameworks I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): Kant, Hegel, Marx, alienation, Levinas, Butler, Agonism, Spinoza, Agamben, Hobbes, contractualism/contractarianism, virtue ethics, testimony... I'm really solid on framework literatures.

Theory

I'm willing to listen to either reasonability or competing interpretations.

I don't assume either fairness or jurisdiction as axiomatic voting issues, so feel free to engage on that level of the theory debate.

I'm suspicious of precision/jurisdiction/semantics as the sole thing you extend out of a T-shell and am generally compelled by reasonability in the form of "if they don't have any pragmatics offense, as long as I demonstrate it is compliant with a legit way of interpreting the word, it doesn't have to be the best interpretation."

I do really enjoy a well-developed theory argument, just make sure you are holding to the same standards of warranting here that I demand anywhere. Internal links between the standards and the interpretation, and the standards and the voter, are both key.

I love a good counter interp that is more than defending the violation--those result in strategic and fun rounds.

I'm willing to buy semantic I-Meets.

I find AFC/ACC read in the 1AR annoying and unpersuasive, though I have voted for it.

I am willing to vote on RVIs. I don't generally think K-style impact turns are automatically answered by RVIs-bad type arguments, unless there is work done.

Disclosure: Is by now a pretty solid norm and I recognize that. I have voted many times on particular disclosure interps, but in my heart of hearts think the ways that most people handle disclosure competing interps tends to lead to regress.

Tricks

I enjoy when debaters are substantive about what it means to prove the resolution true/false and explain how that interacts with the burdens of the round. I am more inclined to vote for substantive and developed tricks/triggers, and even if you're going for a short or "blippy" argument, you'd be well-served to do extensive interactions and cross-applications.

I want a ballot story and impact scenario, even with a permissibility trigger. (Even if the impact is that the resolution is tautologically true, I want that expressed straightforwardly and consistently).

I have a fairly high gut-check for dumb arguments, so I'm not your best bet if you want to be winning on the resolved a priori and things that are purely reliant on opponents dropping half-sentences from your case. But if you can robustly explain the theory of truth under which your a prior affirms/negates, you're probably okay.

Also: you know what an apriori is. Or you know what they mean. If you want to hedge your bets, answer in good faith -- for instance, instead of saying "what does that mean?" say "many of my arguments could, depending on what you read, end up implying that it is impossible to prove the resolution false/true. what specifically are you looking for?"

"Don't Evaluate After The 1ar": Feel free to run these arguments if you want, but know that my threshold is extremely high for "evaluate debate after [speech that is not the 2ar]." It is very difficult to persuade me to meaningfully do this. A better way to make this argument would be to tell me what sort of responses I shouldn't permit and why. For instance, new paradigm issues bad, cross-apps bad, no embedded clash, no new reasons for [specific argument] -- all fine and plausible. I just don't know what it means to actually stop evaluating later speeches. Paradigmatically, speech times are speech times and it makes no sense to me why I should obviate some of your opponent's time for any in-round reason. If you have a specific version of this argument you want to check with me, feel free to do so before round.

Policy Debate

I have policy as a 3 only because I often find myself frustrated with how inane and unsubstantive a lot of long impact stories in LD are. If you have good, up to date evidence that compellingly tells a consequentialist result of a policy: I'm all in, I love that.

I really enjoy specific, well-researched and creative plans. I find a well-executed policy debate very impressive. Make sure you're able to articulate a specific and compelling causal story.

Make sure you know what all the words mean and that you can clearly explain the empirical and institutional structure of the DA/plan. As an example of the sort of thing that annoys me: a DA that depends on a Supreme Court case getting all the way through the appellate system in two weeks to trigger a politics impact before an election will make me roll my eyes.

There's also a disturbing trend of plans that are straight-up inherent--which I hate, that doesn't make any sense with a consequentialist/policymaking FW.

I am absolutely willing to buy zero risk claims, especially in regards to DAs/advantages with no apparent understanding of how the institutions they're talking about work.

I find the policy style affs where the advantages/inherency are all about why the actor doesn't want to do the action and will never do the action, and then the plan is the actor doing the thing they'd never do completely inane--that being said, they're common and I vote on them all the time.

I am generally compelled by the idea that a fiated plan needs an actor.

Assorted Other Preferences:

The following are other assorted preferences. Just know that everything I'm about to say is simply a preference and not a rule; given a warranted argument, I will shift off of just about any position that I already have or that your opponent gave me.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading -- all I ask is that you are still clear enough to follow. What this means is that you need to have vocal variation and emphasis on important parts of your case, like card names and key arguments.

Threshold for Extensions: If I am able to understand the argument and the function of it in the context of the individual speech, it is extended. I do appreciate explicit citation of card names, for flowing purposes.

CX: CX is really important to me, please use it. You have very little chance of fantastic speaker points without a really good cross-x. I would prefer if y'all don't use CX as prep, although I have no problems with questions being asked during prep time (Talk for at least three minutes: feel free to talk the rest of the time, too). If you are getting a concession you want to make absolutely sure that I write down, get eye-contact and repeat to me what you view the concession as.

Do not be unnecessarily mean. It is not very persuasive. It will drop your speaks. Be mindful of various power-dynamics at play in the room. Something I am particularly bothered by is the insistence that a marginalized debater does not understand their case, particularly when it is framed like: [male coach] wrote this for you, right [female debater]? Or isn't there a TVA, [Black debater], you could have used [white debater's] advocacy. Feel free to mention specific cases that are topical, best not to name drop. I can't think of an occasion when it is appropriate to explicitly challenge the authorship or understanding of a particular argument.

When debating someone significantly more traditional or less experienced: your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.

Presumption: I don't default any particular way. I am willing to listen to presumption arguments which would then make me default, given the particular way the round shakes down, but my normal response to a round where no one meets their burden is to lower my standards until one person does meet their burden. Now, I hate doing this and it makes me grumpy, so expect lower speaker points in a situation where nobody meets their burden and nobody makes an argument about why I should presume any which way. This just points to the need to clearly outline my role and the role of my ballot, and be precise as to how you are meeting it.

[Updates for Yale bolded: if you request a slow round I will grant it (shoutout Jackson Lallas)]

Baudrillard or DnG: (Very yes)

Phil (includes Skep): (Yeet)

K's: (YEET)

LARP: (Boo but okay)

Theory: (Sure but don't spread through it as if they're cards)

Tricks: (No)

I debated VLD at Loyola High School in Los Angeles and read mainly Cap K. I read continental philosophy and enjoy it. You can be confident but if you are condescending your speaks will be punished. I will put my personal opinions aside when judging debate rounds but am happy to offer feedback after round.

Feel free to email me with further questions and include me in the email chain at natraniel7@gmail.com.

Hello! I'm Jack—I debated LD at Oakwood School and graduated in 2017. I'm now an MA candidate in philosophy at the New School for Social Research.

For email chain: wareham.jack@gmail.com

Please slow down on tags, author names, and analytics. Go as fast as you want through your cards, as long as it's clear.

Please do not mark cards more than twice in a speech. If you are just blitzing through a ton of evidence and marking cards all over the place, I will delete the evidence from my flow.

As a debater, I did 'progressive,' national circuit LD, so I am comfortable with a broad array of arguments: policy, Ks, philosophy, theory. Read the kind of arguments you like and I'll be happy to hear it.

I do not vote on unwarranted blips or arguments I couldn't explain back to you.

DEFAULTS: Unless you make an argument to the contrary, I assume that the neg must prove the proactive desirability of an advocacy (in other words, not truth testing). I do not judge kick unless you tell me to.

Plus speaker points for:

• intelligent use and demonstrated understanding of phil and kritik literature
• creative arguments
• strategy. The 1AR presents an interesting problem in LD. To deal with the 7-4 time crunch, the aff must either (1) be as efficient and word-economical as possible to cover everything, or (2) strategically layer the debate, kicking and collapsing, making preclusive weighing arguments, and link or impact turning neg positions. I am finding that debaters are increasingly excellent at (1) but concern themselves less with (2). All this to say: debate is a strategic game, and I enjoy rounds where debaters make interesting and gutsy decisions about what to go for and what to ditch.

Minus speaker points for:

• excessive card marking (for me, marking more than two cards in one speech is excessive)

Hello!

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

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

TLDR

Condo is probably bad. I don't like tricks and rude stuff. I don't like people beating their opponents down in a disrespectful manner. True champions find a way to win with style, finesse, and some measure of grace. Basically, "say what you mean, and mean what you say" in front of me. Kick outs and shifts are not received well. If you shift your position and the other team catches you, calls you on it, labels it a voter, impacts it, and you do not give that response serious consideration, you will have missed the opportunity to respond to something likely important in the decision. I prefer that debaters determine the issues in the round. My job is to evaluate how well, how clearly, how expertly, and how meaningfully the debaters present, refute, and summarize versus each other.

I like and am comfortable with crystal clear debaters and crystal-clear rebuttals. I am open to a lot of different types of discussions, and I'm excited to listen to what you bring to the debate space.

NO MATTER WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT, In a nutshell:

Tell Me What Your Argument Is

Tell Me Why I Should Prefer It

Tell Me Why If I Do Prefer Your Argument Why You Should Then Win The Debate---Some form of Impact Calculus/Weighting Magnitude, Probability and Time Frame-ish args are goods.

If you think you are really winning something, "sit on it" and explain why you win.

Updated 1/05/2024

Overview: I firmly believe that policy debate is first and foremost a communication activity. Consequently, oral presentation plays a large factor in my adjudication process. I focus on the “story” of the debate, but line-byline refutation can be a component of that. Know your order before you announce it. Don't change the order after you announce it. Clearly articulated arguments at any speed can be evaluated. Inarticulate utterings that cannot be understood cannot be evaluated. Especially in online debates. Slow down and be really clear on why you are winning. Be quick, but don't hurry. I will not tolerate rudeness. Cross X is binding. I don’t like “camp games” that steal time. I see you. Keep it to a minimum. If there is a mistake or misunderstanding just apologize. Saying you are sorry is often overlooked. You might clean it up well and still be in the debate. At the very least, you will save yourself low speaks if you make an honest effort to play it smart and on the level.

My paradigm biggies are as follows:

1. I agree that conditionality is "probably" bad. So, its "probably" not a bad idea to speak to this and support reasons why I might or might not vote on this---if it becomes an issue. Don’t just wait to see what I’ll do. In a vacuum of no direction on a debate argument, I am left to ignore the argument or evaluate by my own standards. I prefer to not do this. Its your debate. Clean it up. As far as just throwing out a bunch of stuff and then dropping it as a strategy---it does not usually go very well. I do not automatically judge kick. If you run 10 off, then win 10 off that do not contradict each other. Most importantly, be sure that you are clear as crystal even attempting it. When you time skew and then kick out, I am predisposed to vote for the other team if they argue time shew is a reason to reject the side that initiates such practices in the debate space. Absent compelling reasons why I should not do this--that's my predisposition. Again, its your debate so remember to tell me as the judge why I should prefer you style or point of view. Say what you mean and mean what you say is always best---as long as you are not being rude to your opponents. Practice civility always in debate rounds.

2. Topical Counterplans are probably not OK. If at the end of the round I have been effectively persuaded that there are two Affirmative teams, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Give me reasons to not do so, if this is part of your normal strategy. Explain why in a manner that includes what the AFF is doing and WHY even a topical CPLAN is preferred.

3. I prefer not to judge topicality debates. If you're ahead on it, explain to me why it’s important to care about this, or I might not understand why to vote on it. Again, compare your position to your opponents and why your side should win.

4. I enjoy case debates. Solidly clear, irrefutably presented and reasonably current inherency evidence could really win a debate. Really. Postdating sources is good. Supported evidence indicts are good. If you introduce an ethics challenge into a debate round, be prepared to win it. The penalty for challenging someone in such a manner seems to be leading toward the initiator losing the round if they lose their challenge.

5. Kritikal arguments on both AFF and NEG are fine, but pay close attention to the way you communicate your positions (clear and concise!).

6. The topic should be debated, but how you approach the resolution, and how you approach debate generally (content, style, etc.), is left up to the debaters.

7. If you're Negative, show me how your approach is specific to this Affirmative. Be thoughtful in explaining what a vote for your side means and why I should endorse it. Ask me to vote for your side. Don't completely on-face grant the 1AC in favor of pre-set tangentially related points and expect me to get why that means the Negative wins the debate. Be particularly clear on fairness and why ground is or isn't lost and warrants a decision. These are usually not presented clearly and powerfully. And without why they should matter, I tend to be persuaded by other issues

8. I appreciate when the AFF and NEG teams sit on the correct sides of the room with respect to the judge. Otherwise, I might want to vote for someone but accidentally vote for the wrong team. If you're not on the proper side of the room, at least say in your speech which side of the debate you represent and why you think your side should win the debate. That is taken for granted a lot. :)

Best,

Marna Weston

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).

garth4325@gmail.com

LD, Congress, and General Speech coach for 6 years.

Impromptu Speaking 4th in the state of Ohio 2012

B.A. - Philosophy

J.D. - University of Akron School of Law

Speed doesn't matter as long as I can understand.

I put a lot of emphasis on logic. If you're running a K, make sure it is LOGICAL. I am not a huge fan of LX of omission but will vote on it if you convince me there is no reason that they should have left out the specific area you are covering with your K.

Philosophy is important, framework is important but neither is necessary.

Be classy, but be stern.

CX is the most important individual section. Win the CX and it certainly helps your chances to win the round

Ask me any question that you need, I have been around speech and debate for 10+ years.

Debated at Katy Taylor and TAMS. TOC qualled my senior year.
Email chain: mayaxia2018@gmail.com (Please add me to the email chain!!)

Tl;dr: I like LARP style debates. Your speech should write the ballot for me- I want to be able to pick out a sentence or two word for word that I can write on my ballot to justify why I’m voting for you.

I haven't judged since before Covid started, so please go at 75-80% speed of what you normally go at so I can follow along effectively. If I didn’t hear it because you’re too fast or unclear, then I won’t flow it.

My personal preference for arguments goes as follows:

1. LARP

2. Theory

3. K’s

4. Philosophy

5. Tricks

LARP:

I like good LARP debates with in-depth topic research and strong evidence comparison. Good debaters should be able to properly collapse and explain the scenario in both the big picture and the line-by-line fashion. Super specific plans probably need to be topical and have solvency advocates, so if you don’t meet both qualifications, I can be pretty persuaded by theory. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but I can be persuaded either way.

Kritiks:

I’m not as familiar with most K literature, so if you’re reading a kritik, please don’t just use buzzwords to explain your argument. You should be able to coherently explain the thesis of the kritik using the vocabulary of a kindergartner so that I can effectively understand and evaluate the round. Your 2NR should not be 100% prescripted because in those cases, debaters tend to lose anyways. I also need a clear articulation of the alternative does- if I don't know exactly what happens and what happens after the alt, then I can't vote on it.

Theory/Tricks:

I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, and drop the debater, but you need to justify them. Please don’t blaze through the shell. Slow down for the interp and pause between standards. Have interps/counter-interps pre-written and sent before the speech starts. Weighing standards is super important. I like smart theory debates where the interp solves for most abuse in the shell and has clear offense. 1AR theory is smart, and you should go for it if there’s clear abuse. Please do top level theory weighing (1ar theory first, topicality outweighs, fairness first, which shell comes first, etc.).

I’ve never read or debated tricks, so you’ll probably confuse me a lot if you go for tricks.

Philosophy:

I didn’t debate much philosophy/framework, so if you’re reading a phil AC/NC, please, again, explain it to me as you would explain it to a kindergartner. I default to comparative worlds, so if you’re truth-testing, please justify it, although I’m more convinced that comparative worlds is the better model of debate.

Non-T Affs:

I was essentially 100% topical my entire debate career, so I tend to lean against non-T affs and believe that T-Framework is true. If you can beat T or whatever arguments they read, I’m fine with non-T affs. If you’re reading T, don’t drop thesis level arguments in the aff that can take out T because I’m not going to grant you leeway for answering these args in the 2NR.

Other Stuff:

PLEASE EXTEND ARGUMENTS. I have a lower threshold for extensions in the 1AR, but they still need to be there. I won’t vote on any morally repugnant arguments. Flex prep is fine with me. I think disclosure is EXTREMELY important. I was the only debater from my school and I always disclosed, so I probably won’t be convinced if you go for disclosure bad.

Jason Yang

Debated for Kinkaid for 3 years with Eric Emerson and Akhil Gandra as coaches, Katy Taylor for 1 year with Gay Hollis, Eric Beane, and Neel Yerneni as coaches.

I haven't judged for a while, so please do emphasize clarity/slowing down both in speaking style and generally framing the round so that someone not as familiar with all the new lingo/debate trends are will be able to understand.

As a debater I always liked the more detailed philosophies, so I’ve done that. However, if you do not have enough time, the sparknotes should be plenty of information.

Sparknotes (in order of importance):

• Speed- please go 65% speed because I’m bad at flowing and am a few years out of the activity. Esp important for analytics
• Advocacy texts and interpretations of any kind must be conversational speed.
• tags should be read slowly (close to conversational speed)
• There is such a thing as zero risk
• if theory is your strategy please read the theory section
• Please explain phil
• I like policy arguments and K’s that I can understand
• I will vote on disclosure theory but will not hack for it.
• I probably will not vote on new 2AR theory, kritiks, etc. But I might.
• Extensions only need to be as detailed as needed. For example, if you’re explaining why the case outweighs a DA, probably need more detail. But if the neg only contests Aff framework, you probably don’t have to explain the contention much.
• Will not vote for morally reprehensible arguments regardless of circumstance.

Hard and Fast Rules

• You must transport evidence you read to your opponent by some means (flash, email, pass pages) if they request it. Giving them your case during prep time or only let them read over the shoulder it does NOT count.
• You get 30 seconds to transport the documents to your opponent. In total. Afterwards it comes out of either prep time or speech time. Ideally, the flashing time for the 1AC is zero. If you can’t press save as + drag to USB/email within this time, you need to practice it. If your flashing requires more than save as + drag, then you have not completed compiling the speech doc which means you need more prep time.
• I won’t vote on args I didn’t catch or don’t understand by the end of the debate.
• Speech times are set- 6-3-7-3-4-6-3
• jasonyang19923@gmail.com for those who wish to add me to the speech doc chain.
• I vote for one debater.

Terms and Definitions

I’ve lost some debates because I had a different definition of what a term meant than a judge. So I’ll put down what I think a certain term means. Of course, you can alter the definitions in the debate- just make sure I know what they are instead of throwing out the jargon. If you don’t define the term for me, I will default to this definition. This list is not exhaustive, but these are definitions that come to mind that have caused misunderstandings.

• RVI: Reverse Voting Issue, if the responder to theory has net offense that links to a competitive counter interpretation, the responder of theory should win the debate. This necessitates that theory is drop the debater (or effectually drop the debater).
• Permutation as Test of Competition: Negative advocacies test the opportunity cost of the aff, and permutations means the advocacy goes away and the negative now defends something else (either another advocacy or the status quo).
• Permutation as Advocacy: If the affirmative proves the negative advocacy is not competitive (through a permutation), then the permutation becomes the new affirmative advocacy. This means that any internal net benefits to the counterplan (offense that the counterplan resolves) are now aff offense that can be weighed against other neg offense.
• Conditional: The negative may “kick” (not advocate for) the advocacy under any circumstance.
• Dispositional: The negative may “kick” the advocacy under a given condition.
• Unconditional: The negative cannot “kick” the advocacy under any conditions. This will be their advocacy for the rest of the debate unless it is proven to be not competitive to the aff.
• Truth Testing Paradigm: The affirmative’s burden is to prove that the resolution (or plan text) a true statement, while the negative tries to prove that the resolution (or aff plan text) a false statement.
• Comparative Worlds Paradigm: The affirmative defends an advocacy, the negative defends an advocacy (advocacies). Whichever advocacy has more net offense wins. The affirmative advocacy should be an example of the resolution.
• Severance: When the affirmative no longer advocates the plan specified at the beginning of the round.
• Reasonability: Negative can win on theory with defense. I think Arjun Tambe’s conception of reasonability (that he got from Christian Tarsney) is pretty good: “presumably, if it would be bad to let someone get away with abuse, it would be about equally bad to punish them when they weren’t abusive, so if it’s less than 50 percent likely that they abused you, my default assumption is that theory is not a sufficient path to the ballot.” This definition is probably the most prone to change in the debate since there are so many different conceptions of reasonability.

General

• Debate is comparative- this means both debaters should weigh in addition to winning individual arguments. This is true for every kind of debate- phil, theory, substantive, etc.
• Debates are also won and lost on the top level framing- isolate the key issues and use the speech to explain why you’ve won them. Line by line is excellent at winning arguments in isolation, but that’s rarely sufficient to win the whole debate because you’re probably not winning every single arg.
• Cx as prep isn’t a thing for me.
• I will evaluate embedded clash when I recognize it, but you would be best served to make the connections explicit for those that are less obvious and/or crucial for winning the debate.

Policy Arguments

• PLANS: Great. That said, I am not afraid of voting on “plans bad” or “Nebel/Generics T”.
• Counterplans: Go for it. I have less experience with complicated process counterplans or whatever. Regardless, you should explain what it does and why it solves the case. A good 2nr overview is say “Here is the advantage, here is why the CP solves it”
• Disadvantages: Sure. The affirmative would benefit a lot from proving why the internal links are bad with analytics, because they usually are. I think Disad+Case debates are the most interesting type of policy debates.
• Lots of people are reading Da’s that are like 30s and none of the cards have warrants… Affirmatives should point this out
• Turns case arguments are really awesome esp when specific to the plan
• Solvency advocate theory doesn’t make much sense to me on its own, they just seem like solvency arguments. However, a solvency advocate can be a litmus test to determine whether or not a process counterplan or a PIC was predictable.

Kritiks

“K affs”

• Pretty predisposed to vote on framework if your affirmative has nothing to do with the topic. You don’t necessarily have to defend USFG, but please talk about the resolution. Otherwise I have no predisposition as to whether your aff is an instrumental/100% defense of the resolution or not.
• Creative approaches to the topic do count as talking about the resolution.
• Against debaters that are establishing violations for policy framework please do not be evasive.

Links:

• Contextualize the link to the aff- don’t just read the state link every single time and just reread the tag from your policy backfiles in the 2NR. I think the strongest links have good evidence and include quotes from the 1AC speech, CX, etc. that demonstrate the link.

Impacts:

• I feel people underutilize impact turns. Obvi do not say stuff like racism good, but cap good, heg/militarism good, is great.

Alternatives:

• Negatives should do comparison- how do the DA’s to the perm outweigh the net benefits?
• What does the alt look like, and how does it solve the links? That’ll make it a lot easier to vote for it. Even if your aff is just plain old rejection- questions like who rejects the aff, what distinguishes this from the status quo, etc. are all still relevant. If I have to ask myself what the alternative is or does at the end of the debate, you lost.

Framing:

• The presumption that kritiks are always “pre fiat” and therefore excludes the aff doesn’t make sense to me. This distinction should be explained not only generally, but also in the context of the affirmative.
• Theory vs K is kind of a wack debate. To make it less so, you should try to make your warrants as specific as possible.
• I am usually very confused when people kick the alt and claim that the K independently turns the aff. To my understanding, the alt generates uniqueness for the link/impact. If you do decide to pursue this strategy, explain to me why you don’t actually need an alt.

Ethical Framework

• I’m not going to pretend to be the best judge for these kinds of debates. You can fix my lack of understanding by explaining the phil like I’m a child. This includes even common frameworks like Ripstein equal outer freedom, Rawls Veil, etc.
• I will default to being “epistemically confident”, simply because that’s the norm at the time. This means that I will only use the winning framework to evaluate offense. I can be easily persuaded to use epistemic modesty.
• Lots of frameworks are impact justified- point that out and explain why that’s bad.
• I have no idea why RoB arguments should preclude a standard just because it has the words Role of the Ballot in front of it. This should be explained.
• Reasons to prefer a framework should be weighed against eachother: for example, the affirmative FW is better for actor specificity, while the negative FW is better bc it links to a superior meta ethic. Which moral theory is more likely to be true?

Tricks

I’ll vote on them (unhappily). Innovative spikes are a plus.

Theory

• Defaults:
  • Competing Interpretations
  • Drop the Argument on Theory
  • No RVI
• I don’t really care if your theory argument is shell format as a “new off” or just “x is a voting issue” tagged as an argument against the counterplan etc.
• If your theory is clearly trying to abuse competing interpretations, the threshold for responses goes way down. For those that read this kind of theory, remember your opponent can win on zero risk of the interp under competing interpretations.
• Theory debates need tons of weighing, and not just “ground outweighs predictability because we need ground before we can predict it”, but weighing that accounts for your strength of link to the standards. For example: perhaps lambos are worth more than a ford focus, but the same cannot be said for the driving wheel of a Lambo.
• Competing Interpretations means offense defense paradigm. Other shenanagins like the answerer has to write down the CI, has to have a CI, should be justified.
• If the answerer does not have a counter interpretation, I will assume that it means the opposite of the interpretation.
• Unsure what drop the argument means on theory arguments concerned with advocacy like spec- it can mean drop solvency, drop the whole 1AC flow (so the aff can still win on link turns to the NC), re-evaluate the plan under the new interpretation, etc.
• I think conditionality is good but that contradictions are bad.
• Unsure what drop the argument means on theory arguments concerned with advocacy- it can mean drop solvency, drop the whole 1AC flow (so the aff can still win on link turns to the NC), re-evaluate the plan under the new interpretation, etc.
• I am somewhat persuaded by the argument that goes something along the lines of “It would have been just as hard to give the 1AR if I replaced the CP with a DA or a few case turns. Condo bad devolves to multiple arguments bad.”

Topicality

• I think that topicality is more than just tech, it requires a vision of what the topic should look like through your interpretation.
• It would be cool if your interp/counter interp was very specific to the topic for example, providing caselists, evidence when appropriate from the topic literature to quantify limits or ground arguments, etc.
• Semantics vs pragmatics I do not really have a default here.
• But debaters should make clear the implications of what it means if you win semantics vs pragmatics: does semantics first mean the affirmative must have a counter definition? Does it mean the definitions debate always comes first?
• Drop the arg doesn’t make much sense here and should be specified- does this mean we drop the 1AC piece of paper? Does it mean we re-evaluate the interp? Can the aff read a new advocacy? Drop the debater?
• Just like for theory, reasonability should have a brightline that is clearly explained.
• Again, a caselist would be great.
• Random pet peeve - try not to call theory topicality and vice versa.

Speaks

• 28.0 is average
• Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, persuasiveness, good CX, etc). I do realize it’s kind of arbitrary, sorry about that.
• Lower limit is a 27.0, less than that means you did something severely unsettling.

Bonuses

• Not speaking incomprehensibly quickly
• Good CX
• Good overviews
• Using less prep time (if more prep = better speech, that will probably result in better points than the time you save)
• Using less speech time (same stipulation as above)
• Unique arguments
• Good disclosure practices (I will check wikis before or during the debate)
• Fast speech doc transfers

I'm a parent judge who's been judging for 3 years on the nat circuit

Please don't spread - add me to the email chain: yyan5221@yahoo.com

I try my best to make decisions off the flow, not based on rhetoric, although speaker points will obviously reflect a mix of both

That being said, please make my decision as easy as possible - I protect the 2NR from shifty 2AR's, and weighing + clear ballot stories are a beautiful thing

Feel free to run any relatively stock positions like CP + DA, etc. - substantive debate should be fine if adequately explained

I've voted on progressive arguments before, including one off K's, performance affs, etc - but these are always a tossup and I don't trust myself to evaluate them very well

I understand basic util/deont (Kant mostly) syllogisms but don't hit me with the a. action theory b. bindingness stuff - just explain it thoroughly and make interacts

Speaks average out to a 28.5 and I'll try to keep it reasonable

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School. I have debated or coached policy, LD, PF, WSD, BP, Congress, and Ethics Bowl.

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

TOC Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

For the TOC, follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in the tournament policies. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.

I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

Additionally, I expect that your evidence abides by NSDA rules as outlined in the NSDA Evidence Guide. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time. I'll also cap your speaks at 28.5.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
5. Give judge instruction—tell me how to evaluate the debate.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.