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.

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

About me:

I competed in NPDA and IPDA parliamentary debate for Tulane University (Class of 2021).

I work as an associate with Environment America's global warming campaign in Amherst, MA.

My judging philosophy:

Speed:

I have auditory processing issues that impact my ability to hear and flow speakers with a fast rate of delivery, and my competition experience is in tournaments where spreading was not the norm. You will probably have to go slower than you typically do. I will call "slow" twice as a warning, but after that, if I can't hear you, I'm going to flow the best I can but the chances of me missing your arguments are high.

Flowing:

I judge on what's on my flow based on what's said in the round. I do not want to be added to the email chain. On that note, good and clear roadmaps, signposting and organization will both give you speaker points and make it easier for me to flow.

Sportsmanship:

Be kind to each other- if you're a jerk, especially to novice debaters, it will impact your speaker points.

Kritiks:

I'm not the biggest fan of kritiks but if you can win the framework debate and prove to me why you're the best side for fairness, education, etc. I'll vote for you. You should have a solid alternative with solvency. Please avoid buzzwords and don't assume I've heard of your specific theory or school of thought before.

Decision making:

I'm willing to judge and vote on whatever you put in front of me as long as you can win framing and tell me why I should vote for you. My experience is with less technical debate, and I tend to prefer DA/plan/CP debate over theory, topicality, etc. However, I'm willing to evaluate whatever argument you want to give, all I ask is that you try to avoid excessive jargon if at all possible.

Hello! My email is mosieburkebdl@gmail.com - Please add me to the chain!

I debated for six years, high school and middle school, on the Boston Debate League's high school circuit for Boston Latin Academy, attending national circuit tournaments for four of those six years. I graduated from Haverford College in 2021 with a degree in Philosophy and a minor in Statistics, and wrote a thesis offering Deleuzian (and related) readings of data visualizations. I received a Master's in Accounting/MBA from Northeastern University in 2022 (despite loving the Cap K).

I began coaching the Boston Debate League's Travel Team, which is composed of teams from multiple schools in the Boston area, in Fall 2022. I coached for Boston Collegiate Charter School during the 2021-2022 season.

Short version:

-I lean K, and I will likely be somewhat familiar with your K's lit base.

-I was a 1N who took T in 95% of my 1NRs and I will understand and appreciate your tricks

-Evidence comparison will get you much farther than a barrage of blippy cards

-Solid development on the case pages gets great results

-Speed and tons of off-case positions are okay. Read the important warrants in your cards.

-This paradigm has not been adapted for virtual debate, but I will gladly answer any questions about how this applies to virtual debate

***********************************************

As of UDNC 2023, I have judged four local circuit tournaments on the NATO topic. I have not judged at national circuit tournaments on the NATO topic. I have coached teams on the NATO topic for the full 2022-23 season.

***********************************************

Full paradigm:

***Clipping cards is a form of intentional academic dishonesty which will result in a loss and 0 speaks.***

***If you don't know what that means, please ask! This rule is not meant to take wins away from less experienced teams, and I want to make sure you understand general debate etiquette along with how I evaluate debates.***

Style:

Speed is fine, but if you blast through 8 arguments in 15 seconds, I won't get them all and it won't be my fault. Don't bury your best arguments!

Strong, direct CX is great! (However:)

Don't be cruel, disrespectful, or belittling. This is especially true if you are more experienced/knowledgeable than the other team. If you're a senior with 4 years of national circuit experience and 3 summers of camps, don't be a jerk to sophomores at their first varsity tournament. This doesn't mean you should go easy, it means that you should take your opponents and their arguments seriously.

K (and K affs):

I am well-versed in a bunch of K literature (and you should ask if you'd like to know about my familiarity with your specific K author), but that doesn't mean you don't have to explain things. Pedagogically, it's important to communicate the theoretical nuances you're using to make your arguments.

I am sympathetic to arguments about ivory tower positions/armchair philosophy. I debated in a UDL, on a small team, and in a program that often lacked funding. Don't aim to win arguments by virtue of your opponents not having the resources to engage them. If you do this, you're causing direct harm to the activity and to fellow debaters, and that's an impact scenario I am happy to vote on.

Performance is 100% fine by me. If you incorporate a performance as part of your aff's methodology, I will evaluate is as I would any other methodology - so please incorporate it in later speeches and make sure I know why it's important to relevant perm/framework/T/etc debates.

T:

I was a 1N, and there wasn't a single neg block my senior year where I didn't take the T flow. I LOVE good T debates, and this is where all of your clever tricks will be appreciated. Make strategic concessions, go hard on "they don't meet the counter-interp", do fun things with internal links. T debates work like a very abstract, complex disadvantage, meaning that every level of a T debate is crucial and defense usually won't win by itself.

Compare interp evidence! This comparison can win you debates.

RVI arguments on these flows won't win you any rounds.

Theory:

If it's a time suck and it works, nice job.

I will not vote on theory without in-round impacts or examples.

With that being said, in-round impacts can be created with clever debating - if you pull a really clever trick with theory, and they fall for it, I am happy to vote on it.

The neg gets to run multiple conditional advocacies with the exception of abusive cross-application of offense between contradictory positions. Run condo if you want, but if you're going to go for it, there should be in-round abuse.

I default to reject the argument, unless you have very strong reasons I should reject the team.

FW vs K Affs:

As neg, you probably need at least one item from this list in the 2NR:

1. strong TVA

2. strong case hit

3. pre-requisite arguments in the 2NR.

As aff, you probably need at least one item from this list in the 2AR:

1. impact turns

2. aff outweighs

3. strong defense (reasonability, we meet, etc.) AND a counter-interp

Don't throw in arguments about "small schools" to get the moral high ground if you don't care about accessibility absent a ballot, please :)

DAs:

Links are almost always a sliding scale as opposed to Yes/No. How much of a link is there? How does that effect the impact debate?

"We win on magnitude so vote Aff" is not impact calc, nor is it an argument.

CPs:

Run them well! You probably shouldn't run your topical Aff as a counterplan, but... do you I guess.

The likelihood of a PIC winning is proportional to the scale of the link to the net benefit.

You can probably get me to reject specific arguments with theory (e.g. sequencing perms bad, international fiat bad...)

Case:

Good case debate is fantastic. In a Varsity division, there are almost no scenarios where it's justifiable to leave the case pages blank in the 1NC.

Neg: you should never have a 2NR composed entirely of case defense.

Aff: don't be hesitant to kick advantages if it's a good time tradeoff.

I competed in Lincoln Douglas debate for four years in high school. In college I competed in policy debate for four years at the University of Richmond where I was a three-time participant at the NDT. Since graduating from law school I have been practicing as an attorney in the New York state court system. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. To me, well-warranted arguments extended and explained in rebuttals combined with strategic control of the flow wins debates. Technical proficiency in terms of argument interaction is also appreciated. Well executed link and impact turns are also impressive. It won't change how I evaluate the debate, but in case you are curious, I was primarily a 2A/1N and ran everything from hard right, to soft left, to ironic affs as well as a full range on the neg. My email is jchicvak at gmail dot com.

Emails for email chain

Note when sending the email chain I would prefer for it to be in this format:

Aff (Aff Team Name) v. Neg (Neg Team Name) (Tournament Name) Round X

Ask me for my email in-round, please.

I currently do policy debate in college and did four years of policy debate in high school. I have gone for many types of arguments on the policy, kritik, and theory aspects of debate, so as long as you're explaining your arguments clearly you will win my ballot.

For LD @ NYC Invitational @ Bronx//Big Bronx

I only did Policy Debate but am aware of the various strategies LD debaters use to win their rounds. I'm down for any argument you bring up as long as it's explained well. If you start the email chain please still include the format above in your email subject.

Email: mcalister.clabaugh@urbandebate.org 

I was a pretty successful high school debater and a pretty unsuccessful college debater in the 1990s, then judged probably 10-12 tournaments on the national high school circuit. Stepped away from debate for about 20 years, then started judging again in 2016 as a volunteer for the Washington UDL, judging around 5 tournaments/year since then.

I'm a big fan of debate, as an activity through which students express themselves and acquire knowledge and skills, and as a competition, and coming back as a volunteer has been rewarding for me, and hopefully helpful for the students I've judged and worked with outside of rounds.

I flow on paper, and organization and structure in speeches are important for me. I really appreciate it when teams identify their arguments when giving them. For example, a 1NC that labels their off-case arguments as "Off" before reading them makes it harder for me to flow the round than a 1NC that announces "Capitalism kritik," or "Politics disad," etc. Same for case arguments - please let me know where on case - solvency, advantage one, advantage two, framing, etc.

I have minimal experience judging kritik affs, and while I've followed their evolution in debate over the last several years, I'm not particularly current or knowledgeable on some of the theory issues around them. I'd like to change that, but if you run kritik affs, there are probably some issues that will be new to me. I do think there is, and should be, room in debate for issues that affect the broader frameworks and circumstances within which policy is created, and ones that have an educational purpose, but I'm not absolute about it and will listen to arguments on both sides.

I have and will vote on neg kritiks, and am more likely to do so if the neg demonstrates in speeches and CX that they have a thorough understanding of their position and its grounding - more than repeating taglines in the neg block & 2NR. I want to hear your understanding of the argument, and a demonstration of why it matters. I've been impressed by the evolution of kritiks in terms of how they're organized and how teams execute them, both on the aff and neg. I'm also somewhat surprised by how frequently teams seem unprepared to debate kritiks that are run against them.

I'm more current on policy and current events than I am on theory, and the NATO topic touches on a lot of issues that I've either debated before or have personal interests and curiosity about.

On issues like solvency and advantages/disads, I'm a big fan of specificity and mechanisms through which A leads to B leads to C, and how/why that happens.

I think topicality is a useful tool for negatives.

2NR/2AR summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and identifying the key few issues and assessments I should be making and how they should be made.

Good luck.

Have the 1AC in my inbox by the round start time - thanks :)

Do what you do best!

Experience:

Debated policy throughout high school and college (Georgetown). The strategy was usually policy, but I have experience going for the K at both levels. I also have some experience judging PF and LD at the high school and middle school level.

General:

Email: Eric.clarke2019@gmail.com

If there are any unanswered questions definitely feel free to ask me before the round starts and I'm always happy to give follow-up comments after rounds if you shoot me an email

Stop saying random acronyms without telling me what they are or having it somewhere on the card. It makes keeping up with arguments unnecessarily complicated. *This doesn't apply to international topics.

Pretty good with speed, but make sure you’re clear and emphasizing tags/claims. I typically flow by ear and only reference the speech doc when I've missed something, so try and make sure I can pick up on all of your arguments as they're being made

I'll usually be paying attention during cross to help wrap my head around arguments. Cross usually helps me contextualize the arguments being made (especially true for kritiks)

If the RFD is taking forever I'm probably reading your cards. If comparative analysis of evidence isn't clear/present in speeches, I'll usually do it myself based on the quality of cards. I'd recommend you do the analysis in your speeches instead of leaving it to me. Also possible that I'm looking into evidence indicts made during the round. Love a good evidence indict - don't let teams get away with reading terrible evidence.

Kritiks:

I typically enjoy judging k debates. I can be on board with the concept and ideas of most kritiks, but you need to be able to explain it in a way where I understand all of the mechanisms and nuances tying it to the aff. At the end of the round, I want to be able to put the thesis of the kritik into my own words.

Framework:

Absolutely love hearing framework speeches. Easily my favorite position in debate to talk about and listen to speeches on.

While I enjoy framework, know that neg teams won't have a leg up on the affirmative. They still need to debate it well. My personal feelings are irrelevant during the round. What ultimately matters is what both teams do on the flow.

Misc:

Do not steal prep in front of me. I'm not particular about keeping time for debaters but I can be if I notice it becoming an issue during the round.

When thinking about your big-picture strategy in rounds, think about what would be the easiest thing for me to pull the trigger on. I love it when teams make my life easier by going for the most strategically sound combination of arguments at the end of the round.

No hot takes about theoretical issues. Tend to lean tech over truth, so don't drop condo or disclosure theory.

I prefer teams go for substance rather than spraying each flow with theory arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped.

Please be ready to put together and send a card doc that only includes the cards you think are relevant at the end of the round. I'll usually ask after the 2AR if I need one, but more often than not I'm fine.

Speaker points:

Hopefully nobody needs this reminder, but don't be rude. I will tank your speaks if you're blatantly disrespectful to the opponents and/or your partner. I get that ethos is big for some teams, but that doesn't excuse being a terrible person.

Let your partner speak for themselves. Jumping in on occasion is understandable and expected. However, don't jump in to the point that you make me think your partner doesn't know what they're doing or talking about. More of a pet peeve than anything else.

Clarke Dickens

Former Debater (Middle and High School) under the Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

Summary:

I’ve judged rounds for novice and JV and Varsity. I have also participated in national circuit tournaments. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship as presented to me in round.

My preferences (heavily influenced by David Trigaux):

Pre-Round

1. Speed: I prefer a mix of good speed and clear argument(s).

2. Policy v Kritik: No preference

3. Theory: I often find these debates shallow/lacking details and trading-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and show me why you don't have other options.

4. I usually do not vote on T.

5. Performance: Not something I favor, but still open to. Focus on why / what the net benefit is of the unique argument / argumentation style.

6. Shadow Extending: I don’t flow author’s names, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you.

7. Email Chains: I do look at email chains during the round. If I don’t hear it, I won’t flow it, but I do look to make sure both teams are sending the documents they said they would. I’ll look through the cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your citations.

• Creativity + Scholarship: I look for creative thinking, and original research. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat.

Don't / Pet Peeves

1. Don't attempt to try to get a reaction out of me in rounds by making jokes/being sarcastic.

2. Be disrespectful--I am very very willing to nuke your speaker points or stop the round if you are rude, demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.

3. Make Debate Less Accessible: This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own) when in person.

4. Overviews: Keep them short.

Counterplans: Do run a Topic/Aff specific CP, with a detailed, well written/explained CP Texts and/or Topic nuance for Generics (like Courts).

Don’t forget to perm. As well as default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses too.

Kritiks: I love K debates, but I am very picky about what I think a good K should look like. It should include aff specific links, the solvency needs to be thoroughly explained, and it should also be able to be explained in your own words.

Role of the Ballot: Surprise me.

Hello! My name is Tim (Sim Low's league partner), and you can call me by my name.

Everyone should understand that although debate is a competitive activity, it should still be one that is enjoyable. Winning is great, but please relax and enjoy your round.

Background:

I competed mainly in Public Forum as the second speaker and in Lincoln-Douglas as well as in some Forensic events (Impromptu and Original Oratory) during high school. My high school team competed mainly on the VHSL district level, where I won speaker and team awards. I now currently compete in College Parliamentary at Johns Hopkins University, where I major in neuroscience on the pre-med track.

General:

For the email chain, please use my gmail: littletimmy10004@gmail.com.

For other inquiries such as questions about your round, how to improve, etc., you can reach me at hdo11@jhu.edu.

The most important thing in any debate round is asking "why." Every debater should always ask why their argument is being said and why it is even important in the round. Please do not give me bare statements that are simple reiterations of what your research says. Remember to always warrant, mechanize, and impact/weigh your arguments.

I can, and will, follow speed; that does not mean, however, that you should speak at an incomprehensible pace. I will say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ up to three times - if you fail to adapt, I will flow what I can and whatever I cannot will be missed. I realized that there are some of you guys who speak at >500 wpm; this is absolutely insane for me, so please slow down or you risk me not catching and flowing what you say, which will be reflected in the RFD.

I am very strict on debate being inclusive and equitable. If you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted towards your opponents, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible. Trust me, I have done this in the past and will continue to do so as it makes my job easier. Likewise, please do not be rude to each other during the debate, particularly during the cross-examinations/rebuttals. I understand that aggressive debates exist; however, if I find that you are being excessively, and persistently, disrespectful, I will dock your speaks. Lastly, please disclose on time. I hate voting on disclosure because I want to hear what you guys have prepared. However, if your cases are not disclosed on time and there is a disclosure argument that has substantive warranting and weighing, I will end up voting for it at the very top.

I will happily answer questions after the round, but I will not tolerate being yelled at by you or your coaches. As much as I love feedback from you guys, please do not post-round me in bad faith. If you decide to post-round me, trust me that my decision will not change. My RFD will be comprehensive enough that when I explain it to tab or whoever I must explain it to, they will also agree with my RFD and stick with my decision.

Public Forum:

I believe that the two most important skills in Public Forum are 1) comparative analysis and 2) weighing. What this looks like is comparing the two worlds and showing me why your world is better or showing me why your arguments are the most important for x, y, z reasons. Please also look at the internal links! If you fail to do so, then I will adjudicate based on what argument I believe to be winning, and I can promise you that it will not work in your favor.

I likewise believe that having cards with proper citations is extremely important. If you assume that I will not catch you, I promise you that I will. When I enter a round, I expect all debaters to not cheat. If you do not have proper citations or if you even attempt to misrepresent research, I will drop you with the lowest speaks possible. With this in mind, please send me all your cases and any evidence you intend to read prior to starting your speeches. Yes, I mean all. If you opt out of this, I will assume that you have made up every single card that you are reading and drop you on the spot. In the extreme case that both teams do not send me their cases, have improper citations, or misrepresent research, I will ask Siri to assign the win. I take this very seriously, and I hope you all do too.

If you are inefficient in sending cases, cards, or any forms of evidence when requested, I will start your prep time; if it becomes excessive, I will deduct speaker points. I understand that internet issues exist, but this should not be taking you anything more than a couple minutes at most. I have had too many rounds where the round went past the tournament time by 15-20 minutes, and this not only takes away my time, but also delays the tournament. It really is not hard to have everything prepared before each round starts, so please spend a couple minutes after pairings drop to ensure that you have everything ready.

I have two new pet peeves in this format. The first is when you guys tell me that "you are going to collapse on x argument because it was dropped" and then subsequently do nothing. Just because there is an argument that is dropped and you say "you are going to collapse on it" does not mean I will auto-vote on it. You still need to show me why you are collapsing on that argument, why it is important, and why it outweighs any other arguments that your opponents bring up. The second is when you guys tell me that "this is frontline" or that you guys are going to "extend this." If you do not tell me why you are doing these things or why these things matter in the round, then I will not care.

Over time, some of you guys have been trying to include arguments from other formats into Public Forum. Look, if you want to engage in K debates, then go switch your format to Policy. I am unsure as to why you want to include such arguments in a format that traditionally does not include them; I promise you that you are not doing something unique by bringing in these arguments. Theory is permissible and has always been okay in this format, and that is theory when it pertains to violating basic rules, misrepresenting research, improperly cutting cards, and so on.

At the end of the day, please do not make me do extra work. If you are going to make a claim, warrant, mechanize, and impact it out. If you are going to go for any argument, delineate everything to me. What this looks like is going from step one of an argument and showing me all the steps in between to reach step five of the argument. You should never give me one step and then jump to the conclusion without delineating to me how you got there. If you fail to do so, I will not be upset, but sad... very sad.

Policy:

I will be very honest; Policy is a relatively new format for me. Although I believe that I have become a more experienced Policy judge, especially in the K debate, I am nowhere near as good as the top judges that you have seen on the circuit. I will change this once I know that I can be a proper judge for you all.

I know that many judges include in their paradigm specific preferences for how certain arguments should play out; for example, a judge may describe their preferences regarding CPs, DAs, theory, topicality, and so on. For me, I genuinely do not care about which arguments you run, as long as they are all properly explained. What this looks like is running Cap K and telling me your arguments, why you link, and why it matters in the round that you are in. Just treat me as a lay judge and explain everything to me.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Lincoln-Douglas has changed a great deal since I have participated in this event. I still know, to a great extent, the many philosophers that Lincoln-Douglas debaters cite and use in their arguments. However, I do not know much about truth-testing, tricks, combo shells, and paradoxes. If you have me as your judge, you need to either 1) include cards about the basics behind these arguments and why you are using them in your round or 2) avoid them. Take the time to explain them to me and I will be more than happy to go back and understand them so that you can still use such arguments. Otherwise, you can treat the round like any other Lincoln-Douglas round.

Speaks:

When I judge, speaks always start at 28.0. Depending on how the round goes, I move up or down. I do not see the need to explain what constitutes a high score versus a low score, but here is a short description on what your speaker scores should mean to you when I judge you. If you get a 29.5-30.0, I am clearing you and expect you to break. If you get a 29.0-29.4, you did well and I believe you can break if you are in a bubble. If you get a 27-28.9, you performed as expected. If you get anything below a 27, you did something terrible and I had no qualms docking you. Please do not be the first debater that I have given below a 27 to. Most importantly, I do not, and will not, entertain any speaks theory.

If you have made it to the end of my paradigm, congratulations are in order. You can make a joke during any of your speeches and I will bump up your speaks by 0.1 and possibly 0.2. Please enjoy your round and have fun!

she/her

School Without Walls, Washington Urban Debate League '22 Yale '26

Add me to the email chain plz: zara.escobar@yale.edu

I did policy debate from 7th grade through high school, double 2. Currently coach middle and high school UDL teams. I mostly read Ks as a debater—mainly set col, fem, racial cap—on both aff and neg, so it's what I am most adept at evaluating. That aside, read what you want, I’m cool with voting on most anything.

Do the work for me in deciding the debate. Particularly at the top of the 2ar/2nr, tell me how I should be filtering the round, what you are going for, and why that should win you the ballot. I'll go off the flow.

Love intensity, but there’s an important line that separates it from disrespect and hostility, particularly when we consider our different positionalities within debate. I won't tolerate in-round hostility or violence.

Do your best with whatever you argue and have fun! Let me know if you have specific qs before round.

Kritiks

My favorite. Be creative, do what you want, just justify why. I find Ks are strongest when they can couple their theory of power links with more specific links rooted in the 1AC (pull lines!) and historical/ social examples. Impact out the links and explain why they turn case. “State bad” alone won’t cut it and will make me sad.

I’m not picky on whether the alt is material or not, but I do want to hear some articulation of solvency beyond just making an “epistemological shift” or “insert x in debate”—that is to say that you should be taking it further and explaining the implications. Love examples here too—point me to instances that can help envision what the alt and alt solvency looks like.

If you’re doing your link debate properly the aff shouldn’t have a chance at winning the perm, although I do appreciate external, named DAs to the perm.

**see note below from k affs

When answering the k, no matter from what side or argument style, you NEED to engage their thesis or theory of the power. It becomes really hard to beat it when you concede their way of understanding the world and of the filtering debate.

K Affs v FW

Aff

Leverage your 1AC more. Yes, the blocks you prepped are probably great, but the purpose of crafting and refining kritical 1ACs is that they are meant to challenge dominant frames of the way we think/act; your theory should absolutely be your best offense against the neg.

Your model of debate should be very clear—what’s the role of the aff and negative, what does debate look like, etc. Do impact calc on the standards debate.

**Make sure that you understand and articulate the relationship btwn your k in round and out of round ie the relationship between some performance of resistance within debate and the implications for the structures of power you claim to challenge as they exist out of round.

Neg

Need to engage the aff’s unique critique of your model; specifically, how the aff scholarship & advocacy, as well as their theory of power, exists under the neg’s model of debate. Put effort and time into the TVA; how does it provide an inroad to the aff’s scholarship? Impact calculus on standards is great.

P.S. If you’re going to run cap in addition to FW, try to have some more specific links + alt examples to at least pretend there’s a chance you’re going to go for it.

DAs

Specific links are ideal. Take time to explain out your internal link chain—too often they get superficially extended and muddled. Impact calc and framing are key.

CPs

Make sure to have a net benefit. Not a huge fan of a million planks. They better be purposeful ie with specific evidence and clearly carried through the round.

T v policy affs

Not my favorite debate but will of course vote on it. Make sure analytics are clear/ slow down a bit. Tell me what debate looks like under your competing models and why I should prefer yours.

Theory

I didn’t have these debates much. Well-warranted theory arguments that you spend a bit more time on are more compelling than second-long blips that get blown up and ironically feel like they get in the way of the educational value of debate.

While I’d say I’m tech > truth, in the end, I find that teams do theory better when the violation is an actually impactful abuse that harms the education, fairness, etc of the debate, rather than just generic blocks read every round.

You’re probably not going to convince me to vote on disclosure against a UDL team.

Princeton '26 Bronx Science '22

Affiliations- Assistant Coach at Berkeley Prep ('23-), Private Coach for Bronx Science teams ('23-)

Email chain: oneoffthek@gmail.com, hidden.aspec@gmail.com, bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him

--I went positive at TOCs my senior year if that matters to you

--Tldr: Do what you do best- I am a technical judge and will vote for the team who did better debating. All of my opinions can easily be overturned by out-debating your opponent. I want to judge high-level debates and recognize that you are giving up your precious time to research and compete. I will be invested in your debate, try my best to catch every argument, read cards during prep, etc out of respect for your preparation, genuine interest in high-level argumentative innovation, and appreciation for technical proficiency. Although I'm not going to lie, I may look bored watching some not high level/not competitive debates

--My favorite judges were clash judges who were flow-centric and did not bring personal opinions into the decision (unless it was necessary to do so). This was because I debated fast, reading 13 off and going for undercovered positions. What David Sposito says here resonates with me "Recently I've found myself advising losing teams in the post round that they should have gone for extremely bad, dropped blips. An argument being 'bad' ALONE does not mean that I will have a 'high threshold' for voting on it (again, these are weasel words that allow judges to get away w/ voting as is convenient for them, or as they please). Teams still must answer an argument satisfactorily. It is true that practically, 'bad' arguments should be unstrategic b/c they can swiftly be beaten w/ the right arguments, but the other team only benefits if they know the right answers (which they often do, but sometimes do not, especially for arguments w/ a bad reputation). But that's not about thresholds, exactly.... Ineffective arguments do not suddenly become better because I want one argument to win or lose--logically, that is bizarre, and practically, it is a violation of giving each team their due."

--So what do I believe are "truer" arguments and "faultier" arguments? Despite mostly going for the K in my career, I found myself voting for Policy teams more often in close clash debates when judging last year. However, I am only coaching K teams right now which shows that I recognize the K's strategic potential. This means that if you are a competent K team that utilizes speed to overwhelm your opponent with arguments that are hard to answer, shotgun extendable arguments against the policy team's "true" answers to your offense, isolate offense that is mishandled, impact out arguments and explain how they interact with your opponent's arguments, then you should not be worried. These are the K teams that end up succeeding anyways- most K teams that make it to deep elims of TOCs and other big high school tournaments pref college debaters that solely read policy arguments and college coaches that will vote strictly off of their flow but will vote for the policy team if equally debated. I will think about clash debates similar to these judges. This means I will moot the aff if you win its good to do so, and I will not evaluate reps links if you win reps links are bad.

--To be transparent, I'm confident I can follow a counterplan competition debate but am not as well versed as college policy debaters nor do I know enough dense critical theory to process blocks that use buzzwords every other sentence. I can handle speed, but I can't process insanely fast mumbling or flow as good as the college debaters and coaches who devote much more time to this activity than I currently do. However, I want to judge high-level debates and am confident I can keep up with skilled debaters that make arguments clear and explain how arguments interact with each other.

--I mostly agree with other community norms seen at high levels of debate: if the "truest" arguments on each side are forwarded, affs get perms in kvk debates, unlimited condo is justified, fairness is the most strategic impact, predictability outweighs limits for the sake of limits, dont default to squo unless its mentioned by the negative, etc. I understand these are not homogeneous views held by the community and are contestable, these views mostly stem from Brian Klarman and Mikaela Malsin along with discussions with other top-performing debaters.

--Send docs out quicker, prep ends when doc is sent, asking what cards were read is prep (asking for a marked copy is not)

--Format emails reasonably. If you need help, "Tournament X Round Y- AFF Your Team Code Vs NEG Other Team Code - Judge Alex Eum"

--If everyone in the round sends analytics and you remind me after the debate, I'll raise speaks, just remind me.

Lexington '21, Sarah Lawrence '25, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain---amandacxdebate@gmail.com

title the email chain something along the lines of Tournament---round x---aff team (aff) vs neg team (neg)

general:

tech>truth

I debated for four years at Lexington and debated at Michigan on the antitrust topic (2021-2022) before transferring. I have always been a 2a.

*online debate: please try to keep your camera on if at all possible

Counterplans:

I think that these are great. I would prefer if there is some form of a solvency advocate but what that looks like is up for debate. Smart perms are preferable to theory debates on a process cp. Links should be a sliding scale and proving the cp links less than the aff should be sufficient. I probably default to judge kick but it doesn't take much to convince me not to.

Theory:

I think that conditionality is probably good but again this is open to debate. I think new 2nc cps are probably abusive unless in response to new 2ac offense. I think cp's should be functionally and textually intrinsic which means making perms to test either textual or functional competition (functionally competitive but textually intrinsic perms or vice-versa are great). Object fiat, private actor fiat or lopez cps are probably not theoretically legitimate. Otherwise, almost all other theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team, and winning them, especially if they aren't going for the cp, will be an uphill battle.

Disads:

I really love these, I think I give pretty much every 1nr on a da, mostly politics. I would prefer specific links against generic ones. Other than that specific da to the aff are great and I would love to hear them. Everything else here is pretty straightforward.

Topicality:

These debates are okay, I don't really know what the topic should look like so make sure to impact out all of your standards and what limits your interp places on the topic. I don't think plantext in a vacuum is a fantastic we meet but I have voted on it before because oftentimes teams don't have an alternative model. If you can't explain the alternative to plan text in a vacuum you aren't in a great place there. RVI's are not a thing. I also tend to default to competing interpretations.

Impact turns:

I love impact turns! I’m willing to listen to anything. I love space!

K:

In general, I would prefer if you have specific links to the aff otherwise winning case outweighs gets substantially easier. I also think you need to impact out the links and explain how they turn each case. Winning framework for either side makes the debate substantially easier but it hasn’t been game over if a team loses it either. I would prefer if there aren't super long overviews that require a new sheet of paper. If the k is a floating pik please make it clear in the block

Kaff:

The stuff I said about K's applies here, except the framework section, obviously if a team reading a kaff can’t beat framework they lose but that feels obvious. I probably won't understand your aff that well and I probably haven't read most of the literature, but the more time I spend in college the more I have read in an academic sense. However, if you are reading a kaff please explain how you solve and why the ballot is key. I am going to need a specific thing to vote on and if you are hedging all of your bets on one arg please make sure to impact it out. More often than not kaffs will have a blip in the 1ar and then blow it up in the 2ar, please develop your arguments fully, nothing annoys me more that half a sentence that I can’t really give as a full argument but the 2ar makes it seem like THE thing.

Aff:

I prefer extinction affs and am probably more familiar with these as I pretty much solely read hard right affs. That being said I do not think I am a terrible judge for soft left affs, but I need you actually to explain framing and apply it to the other flows.

Framework:

I am probably neg leaning here. Debate is probably a game, and while it can in some ways be more than that, I think at its heart debate is a game. Fairness is the most persuasive impact and I also personally think it's the best impact. Make sure to have a reason why the aff can't weigh its self and preferably get to case in the 2nr. A lot of the aff path to victory was covered above in the kaff section.

k v k:

I have never debated in one of these, but I have found myself in the back of a few. Here are just some basic thoughts I have developed. I think the aff should be able to get a perm. I would like both sides to explain their specific theory comparing it to either the alt or the aff.

Speaks scale:

I try to average around a 28.5 and move up or down depending on what happens during the round. If I go below a 27 something happened in the round that I probably talked to you.

If caught clipping lowest speaks possible (this does mean zeros) and auto L

things that are important but had nowhere else to go:

Speech times in HS are 8 min constructive, 3 min cx, 5 min rebuttals, and however much prep the tournament allows, this is non-negotiable. CX is binding. There is only one winner and one loser. I won't vote on things that happened outside of the round (disclosure, prefs, etc.). If you feel unsafe or something offensive happens I will assist you in going to tab, but do not think this should be a reason to win the ballot and instead a reason for the round to end immediately. Luckily, I have never been in a round where this happens, but I understand that it does which is why tournaments have policies for it.

You have to read rehighlightings you can't just insert them.

I'm becoming annoyed with CX of the 1NC/2AC that starts with "did you read X" or "what cards from the doc did you not read" and will minorly (.1, .2 if it's egregious) reduce your speaks if you do this. I am more annoyed if you try to make this happen outside of speech or prep time. 2As, have your 1A flow the 1NC to catch these things. 2Ns, same for your 1Ns. If the speaker is particularly unclear or the doc is particularly disorganized, this goes away. A marked copy does not mean the cards that weren't read are removed, please don’t do this it takes so long to remove the cards.

I am gay. I am not a good judge for queerness arguments. This isn't a "you read it you lose/i will deck speaks" situation, but you have been warned its a harder sell than anything else mentioned, except the first paragraph of this section where I outlined nonnegotiables.

LD:(stolen basically directly from Eleanora)

I have neither competed nor frequently judged in lincoln-douglass; I have knowledge of the content of the topic but not any of its conventions. I understand the burden for warranted arguments (especially theory) is lower in LD than in policy - I'm reluctant to make debaters entirely transform their style, so I won't necessarily apply my standard for argument depth, but if the one team argues another has insufficiently extended an argument, I will be very receptive to that.

jeremy.hammond@pinecrest.edu, pinecrestdebatedocs@gmail.com (please put both).

I have judged a lot of debates. I view myself as a reasonable judge. I have judged every type of debate and find myself capable in any instance. Preference towards policy aff v whatever on the neg, but have voted many times for planless aff v fw or a K.  

Noah Hinnant

Former Debater

Speed is fine but being intentional is better than WPM... I still need to be able to understand what you're saying so I can flow it and if I can't.. well.. shrug. With that being said, I am not keen on email chains. When I first started debating, everything was on paper and would prefer to be handed a card than e-mailed. I typically won't ask for cards because if I couldn't flow it then you didn't do enough to win the point. It also makes it harder for people who don't have computers to have access to debate. Which also means that I prefer the round flow smoothly and not be held up due to tech issues. Policy action NEEDS to be substantial. I will vote for any case if it is explained well enough and is flushed out. Kritiks are welcome but as long as the advocacy is robust - I love creative thinking and original research.

·Do:

o Read a K that fits the Aff. Reading the same K against every aff on a topic isn't often the most strategic thing to do.

o Read Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links.

o Have coherent Alt solvency with real world examples that a non-debater can understand without having read your solvency author.

o Make it clear what the role of the ballot is. Whether it is for a plan of action or "democracy". This is key.

Don’t:

o Read hybrid Ks whose authors wouldn't agree with one another.

o Read a K you can’t explain in your own words.

Sportsmanship is key and will have an impact on your speaker points.

Open/Closed Cross Ex is up to you. I don't have a preference. But if your partner constantly asks and answers for you, they're stealing your speaker points.

Check Matthew Berhe's paradigm for my judging philosophy

Add kunalmay25@gmail.com to the chain

If you take no prep and win I'll give you a 30

If both teams have a policy debate I will boost speaks and be thankful

Background:

Director of Debate at Georgetown Day School.

Please add me to the email chain - georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com.

For questions or other emails - gkoo@gds.org.

I do not share speech documents from rounds I have judged. Please reach out to the teams who debated.

Big Picture:

Read what you want. Have fun. I know you all put a lot time into this activity, so I am excited to hear what you all bring!

Policy Debate

Things I like:

• 2AR and 2NRs that tell me a story. I want to know why I am voting the way I am. I think debaters who take a step back, paint me the key points of clash, and explain why those points resolve for their win fare better than debaters who think every line by line argument is supposed to be stitched together to make the ballot.
• Warrants. A debater who can explain and impact a mediocre piece of evidence will fare much better than a fantastic card with no in-round explanation. What I want to avoid is reconstructing your argument based off my interpretation of a piece of evidence. I don't open speech docs to follow along, and I don't read evidence unless its contested in the round or pivotal to a point of clash.
• Simplicity. I am more impressed with a debater that can simplify a complex concept. Not overcomplicating your jargon (especially K's) is better for your speaker points.
• Topicality (against policy Aff's). This fiscal redistribution topic seems quite large so the better you represent your vision of the topic the better this will go for you. Please don't list out random Aff's without explaining them as a case list because I am not very knowledgeable on what they are.
• Case debates. I think a lot of cases have very incredulous internal links to their impacts. I think terminal defense can exist and then presumption stays with the Neg. I'm waiting for the day someone goes 8 minutes of case in the 1NC. That'd be fantastic, and if done well would be the first 30 I'd give. Just please do case debates.
• Advantage CP's and case turns. Process CP's are fine as well, but I much prefer a well researched debate on internal links than a debate about what the definition of "resolved" "the" and "should"" are. Don't get me wrong though, I am still impressed by well thought out CP competition.
• Debates, if both teams are ready to go, that start early. I also don't think speeches have to be full length, if you accomplished what you had to in your speech then you can end early. Novice debaters, this does not apply to you. Novices should try to fill up their speech time for the practice.
• Varsity debaters being nice to novices and not purposefully outspreading them or going for dropped arguments.

Things:

• K Affirmatives and Framework/T. I'm familiar and coached teams in a wide variety of strategies. Make your neg strategy whatever you're good at. Advice for the Aff: Answer all FW tricks so you have access to your case. Use your case as offense against the Neg's interpretation. You're probably not going to win that you do not link to the limits DA at least a little, so you should spend more time turning the Neg's version of limits in the context of your vision of debate and how the community has evolved. I believe well developed counter-interpretations and explanations how they resolve for the Neg's standards is the best defense you can play. Advice for the Neg: Read all the turns and solves case arguments. Soft left framework arguments never really work out in my opinion because it mitigates your own offense. Just go for limits and impact that out. Generally the winning 2NR is able to compartmentalize the case from the rest of the debate with some FW trick (TVA, SSD, presumption, etc.) and then outweigh on a standard. If you aren't using your standards to turn the case, or playing defense on the case flow, then you are probably not going to win.
• Role of the Ballot. I don't know why role of the ballot/judge arguments are distinct arguments from impact calculus or framework. It seems to me the reason the judge's role should change is always justified by the impacts in the round or the framework of the round. I'm pretty convinced by "who did the better debating." But that better debating may convince me that I should judge in a certain way. Hence why I think impact calculus or framework arguments are implicit ROB/ROJ arguments.
• Tech vs. truth. I'd probably say I am tech over truth. But truth makes it much easier for an argument to be technically won. For example, a dropped permutation is a dropped permutation. I will vote on that in an instant. But an illogical permutation can be answered very quickly and called out that there was no explanation for how the permutation works. Also the weaker the argument, the more likely it can be answered by cross applications and extrapolations from established arguments.
• Kritiks. I find that K turns case, specific case links, or generic case defense arguments are very important. Without them I feel it is easy for the Aff to win case outweighs and/or FW that debates become "you link, you lose." I think the best K debaters also have the best case negs or case links. In my opinion, I think K debaters get fixated on trying to get to extinction that they forget that real policies are rejected for moral objections that are much more grounded. For example, I don't need the security kritik to lead to endless war when you can provide evidence about how the security politics in Eastern Europe has eroded the rights and quality of life of people living there. This coupled with good case defense about the Aff's sensational plan is in my opinion more convincing.

Things I like less:

• Stealing prep. Prep time ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed. If you read extra cards during your speech, sending that over before cross-ex is also prep time. I'm a stickler for efficient rounds, dead time between speeches is my biggest pet peeve. When prep time is over, you should not be typing/writing or talking to your partner. If you want to talk to your partner about non-debate related topics, you should do so loud enough so that the other team can also tell you are not stealing prep. You cannot use remaining cross-ex time as prep.
• Debaters saying "skip that next card" or announcing to the other team that you did not read xyz cards. It is the other team's job to flow.
• Open cross. In my opinion it just hurts your prep time. There are obvious exceptions when partners beneficially tag team. But generally if you interrupt your partner in cross-ex or answer a question for them and especially ask a question for them, there better be a good reason for it because you should be prepping for your next speech
• 2NC K coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads paragraphs on the links, impacts, and alt that could have been extended on the line by line.
• 2NC T/FW coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads extensions on your standards when that could have been extended on the line by line.
• 10 off. That should be punished with conditionality or straight turning an argument. I think going for conditionality is not done enough by Affirmative teams.
• Card clipping is any misrepresentation of what was read in a speech including not marking properly, skipping lines, or not marking at all. Intent does not matter. A team may call a violation only with audio or video proof, and I will stop the round there to evaluate if an ethics violation has happened. If a team does not have audio or video proof they should not call an ethics violation. However, I listen to the text of the cards. If I suspect a debater is clipping cards, I will start following along in the document to confirm. If a tournament has specific rules or procedures regarding ethics violations, you may assume that their interpretations override mine.

PF Debate:

• Second rebuttal must frontline, you can't wait till the second summary.
• If it takes you more than 1 minute to send a card, I will automatically strike it from my flow. This includes when I call for a card. I will also disregard evidence if all there is a website link. Cards must be properly cut and cited with the relevant continuous paragraphs. Cards without full paragraph text, a link, a title, author name, and date are not cards.
• You are only obligated to send over evidence. Analytics do not need to be sent, the other team should be flowing.
• Asking questions about cards or arguments made on the flow is prep time or crossfire time.
• If it isn't in the summary, it's new in the final focus.
• Kritiks in PF, go for it! Beware though that I'm used to CX and may not be hip on how PF debaters may run Kritiks.

Lane Tech - 2012 - 2013

Iowa City High - 2013 - 2016

University of Northern Iowa - 2016 - 2017

Emporia State 2018 - 2021

Berkeley Prep - 2021 -

-----

2022 Update

TLDR:

-email chain -

BerkeleyPrepDocs@gmail.com

natodocs@googlegroups.com

-Recently retired k-leaning flex debater/resident performative stunt queen for Berkeley Prep Debate

-would much rather judge a really good policy v policy round than a poorly executed k round - BUT - would ultimately prefer to judge a k v k round where both sides have competing and creative strategies that they are both a) deeply invested in and b) have interesting interpretations of. Those are the rounds I always had the most fun in, but to be clear, I have also realized over the years that a policy v policy round has the potential for just as much, if not more and have no problem judging these debates.

-the team executing whatever argument they are most comfortable with at the highest level they can, will always in my eyes have an easier time getting my ballot/receiving higher speaks which means that the the speeches I want to see are those that you are enthused about giving and ultimately, I want you to be excited to be able to do whatever it is that you are best at.

-went for everything from big stick warming affs to f*** debate performance 1AC's, to Black/Native Studies like Warren, Wilderson, Moten, King, Gumbs and Hartman to Queer theory like Butler, Edelman and Trans-Rage to High theory like Nietzsche, Baudy and OOO as well as Procedurals like T/FW/A- and I-Spec, Disads/Case turns like to deterrence, politics and SPARK and of course, multiple different flavors of counterplans. so regardless of what it is you go for I'm down - just don't take this as an excuse to not use judge instruction/concise explanations that makes sense - even if I was a Nietzsche one - trick in high school that doesn't mean I'm going to do the nihilism work for you. All this is to say is that whoever you may be, you should feel comfortable that I have in some way or another had a certain level of experience with your literature base.

Important Note:

Due to recent events its been suggested to me that I add a layer to my philosophy I wasn't sure was necessary, but in an effort to help protect future debaters/debate rounds, as well as myself/fellow judges, here is what I will say -

While I do empathize with the competitive nature of this activity, it should go without saying that if there is violence of any kind, whether that be intentional or not, my role as an educator in this community is to intervene if that situation deems my involvement to be necessary and I want to make it very clear that I have no qualms in doing so. Its important to recognize when we have to put the game aside and understand as a community that we have a responsibility to learn from situations like those and to be better as we move forward. SO just for the sake of clarity, I do not have a desire to stop rounds, in fact - quite the opposite. However, my role as a judge (one that I would hope others embody when judging my own students) is one that adjudicates the round in the most equitable means possible AS WELL AS one that ensures the safety of, to the best of my capacity, each debate round and all of its participants/observers.

Also - Sometimes, and not always, but in the same fashion as countless other judges, I can, at times, be a very reactive/nonverbal judge. Understanding that those kinds of things are a) an inevitable part of this activity b) not always caused by something you did and c) can be incredibly critical in your in round-decision making is crucial and is a fundamental skill that I believe to be vastly important in succeeding within this activity. HOWEVER, that means that whether or not you choose to modify what you are doing based off how I am reacting is, at the end of the day, your decision and your decision alone - recognizing when to do so/when not to is a core facet of competing.

Strike me if you don't like it.

specific feels about certain things:

- have aff specific link explanations regardless of offcase position - that doesnt mean that every card has to be specific to the aff but your explanation of the link should be as specific to the 1AC as you can make possible - extra speaker points to those who can successfully pull lines

- hot take: after all this time in online debate, I will in fact "verbally interject if unable to hear" regardless of whether you make that clear to me before you begin your speech - so as a personal preference don't feel obligated to say that anymore. Id rather you just give me an order and start after getting some signal (verbal or visual) that we're all ready. as an incentive to help try and stop this practice, expect a lil boost in points.

- that being said, "as specific to the 1AC" means you could have a really good link to aff's mechanism. or you could have a great state link. or a link to their impacts. etc. it doesnt matter to me what the link is as long as it is well developed and made specific to what the 1AC is. I dont want to hear the same generic state link as much as the next person but if you make it creative and you use the aff than I dont see a problem.

- affirmatives could be about the topic, or they could not be, its up to you as long as whatever you choose to do you can defend and explain. If you're not about the topic and its a framework debate, I need to know what your model of debate is or why you shouldnt need to defend one etc. if youre reading a performance aff, the performance is just as important if not more than the evidence you are reading - so dont forget to extend the performance throughout the debate and use it to answer the other teams arguments.

- whether its one off or 8 please be aware of the contradictions you will be making in the 1NC and be prepared to defend them or have some sort of plan if called out.

- on that note theory debates are fine and could be fun. im not that opposed to voting on theory arguments of all varieties as long as you spend a sufficient amount of time in the rebuttals to warrant me voting on them. most of the time thats a substantial amount if not the entirety of one or more of your rebuttals.

- perm debates are weird and i dont feel great voting for "do both" without at least an explanation of how that works. "you dont get a perm in method debates" feels wrong mostly because like these are all made up debate things anyways and permutations are good ways to test the competitiveness of ks/cps/cas. that being said, if you have a good justification for why the aff shouldnt get one and they do an insufficient job of answering it, i will obviously vote on "no perms in method debates"

- dropped arguments are probably true arguments, but there are always ways to recover, however, not every argument made in a debate is an actual argument and being able to identify what is and isn't will boost your speaker points

speaks:

how these are determined is inherently arbitrary across the board and let's not pretend I have some kind of rubric for you that perfectly outlines the difference between a 28.5 and a 28.6, or a 29.3 and a 29.4, or that my 29.3 will be the same as some other judges.

I do however think about speaks in terms of a competitive ladder, with sections that require certain innate skills which ended up being fairly consistent with other judges, if not slightly on the higher side of things. Hopefully, this section will more so help give you an idea of how you can improve your speeches for the next time you have me in the back.

-26s: these are few and far between, but if are to get one of these, we've probably already talked about what happened after the round. The key here is probably don't do whatever is that you did, and is most likely related to the stuff I talked about at the top.

-27s: If you're getting something in this range from me, it means you should be focusing on speaking drills (with an emphasis on clarity, and efficiency), as well as developing a deeper/fuller analysis of your arguments that picks apart the detailed warrants within the evidence you are reading.

-28s: Still need to be doing drills, but this time with more of an emphasis on affective delivery, finding a comfortable speed, and endurance. At this point, what I probably need to see more from you is effective decision making as well as judge instruction - in order to move into the 29 range, you should be writing my ballot for me with your final rebuttals in so far as using those speeches to narrow the debate down and effectively execute whatever route that may be by painting a picture of what has happened leading up to this moment

-29s: at this point, you're probably fairly clear and can effectively distinguish between pitches and tones as you go in order to emphasize relevant points. The only drills you should be doing here should be concerned with efficiency and breathing control, and if you are in the low 29's this is most likely a clarity issue and you should probably slow down a bit in order to avoid stumbling and bump your speaks up to high 29's. Higher 29's are most likely those who are making the correct decisions at most if not all stages of the debate, and successfully execute the final speeches in ways that prioritize judge instruction, and clearly lay the ballot out for me throughout the speech.

-30s: I actually don't have a problem giving these out, because I think my bar for a "perfect" speech can be subjective in so far as 30's for me can definitely make mistakes, but in the end you had a spectacular debate where you gave it everything you could and then some. I try not to give these out often though because of the risk it could possibly mess with your seeding/breaking, so if you do get one of these, thanks - I had a wonderful experience judging you.

-0.0 - 0.9 - this section is similar for every category in that it is dependent on things like argument extension and packaging, handling flows/the line by line, cross ex, link debating, etc. however, a team that is in the 29 range will have a higher bar to meet for those sort of minutia parts of your speech than those in the 28 or 27. That's because as you improve in delivery you should also be improving in execution, which means that in my eyes, a debater who may be in the 27 range the first time I see them, but is now speaking in the 28 range will have a higher bar than they did before in order to get into the high 28s.

**There are hidden money-related puns in this paradigm. Find them and tell me how many there are before the round. IF you are correct, a plus +.2 speaker points will be added on.

Jake Lee (He/Him)

Present and Past Affiliations:

Current High School Affiliation - Head Coach and Math Teacher at the Mamaroneck High School ('21-Now)

Former College Affiliation - Assistant Coach at the University of Michigan ('20-'21)

Former Assistant Coach - Pine Crest ('18-'21), Strath Haven ('19)

Former Debater - University of Pittsburgh ('16-'20), Qualified to NDT ('19) D7!

Former Debater - Glenbrook South ('12-'16)

-

My Email for the Chain: jakemlee@umich.edu

HS Debaters ALSO add: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

In-Depth Judging Record: View this Speadsheet

-

Top Level:

Hi! I am currently a math teacher and Director of Debate at Mamaroneck High School. I work debate pretty much full-time. I attend tournaments and work at summer camps to help out debate. I invest a lot of my time thinking about debate. This will be my 12th year in debate.

I debated four years at Glenbrook South. I mainly was a 2N my entire time there. I went for a variety of arguments such as the politics DA, the privatization CP, framework, the terrorism DA, various Process CPs, the Cap K and Security K. I debated three years at the University of Pittsburgh as both a 2N and 2A. I mainly wrote AFFs with plan text when I was a 2A, and as a 2N went for the Economy DA, Midterms DA, and Cap K during my time. I qualified to the NDT my junior year (2019).

I have been coaching debate for a while. I helped out GBS from 2016-2018 for a small bit just cutting small files. I worked with Pine Crest 2018-2021 doing research on a vast amount of areas. I focused on AFF writing mostly while researching the occasional topic DA/CPs to K literature for both the AFF/NEG. With Mamaroneck, I have just started the role of leading a large team. I have researched everything from primarily policy strategies to critical literature in high theory, critical race/identity literature.

**Before the start of every round: I want every person in the room to go around and state your name, pronouns and one fun fact about yourself. You all are way too stressed out before rounds and having this little icebreaker before the start of rounds promotes a safe, friendly space. It helps create a community in debate, and the teacher in me enjoys the idea of promoting community building.

I evaluate arguments on a Tech over Truth basis. A dropped argument is a true argument on the flow. However, the word "conceded" does not mean you get to skirt by with laziness on the flow. Implicating your argument/evidence/impact etc. as to how it relates to you winning the argument or the overall debate is something that I value. The only time tech over truth will not matter is on Death Good (Ligotti style), Racism Good, Sexism Good, etc. Reading these arguments at your own expense will lead to an inevitable L and 25's immediately. As an educator, it is my responsibility to make debate a safe space for everyone.

-

Non-Negotiables:

You cannot just "re-insert" highlighting into the round. I know this a judge dependent statement, but if you are going to talk about a re-highlighting, you MUST READ it. I am not going to evaluate the re-highlighting unless you re-read it. This is non-negotiable. This will cost you speaks.

I will not evaluate things that occur outside of the debate round. My role as a judge is to evaluate arguments relevant to flow. Ad Hominems are not arguments. I have no authority nor resources to launch an investigation about something that occurs outside of the debate.

No requesting "can you send a marked copy of the doc, and take out the cards that you did not read" before CX or speeches. If you ask, there are two options that can occur: a) the other team has the right to just say NO or b) if the other team says yes, I'm going to run YOUR prep time and the other team can stall as long as they want because you decided not to flow. I don't care if they purposely run your time to ZERO, you didn't FLOW! You all have the document in front of you. That is a privilege debaters about 15 years ago did not have. If I can flow the speech without looking at the doc, you can to.

-

Fiscal Redistribution Topic Thoughts:

After doing very basic preseason research and hearing the arguments put out by the camp on this topic, I enjoy researching this topic a ton. There is a topic DA now, please go for it!! It is a valuable asset. Seriously please go for DA's, it makes sense. I think process counterplans are pretty weak this year, and I am kind of tired of hearing basic process CPs after the quagmire from last year. I will probably have a ton of other thoughts about the topic once we get closer to the start of the season.

Topicality Debates are actually going to be good on this topic. The files and definitions that have been put out are quite interesting, and T seems like a great option. Now, there are some definitions that I am skeptical about such as "FR can be tax or transfer instead of tax and transfer". But I am happy to hear that T debate for sure. Limits may be very persuasive on this topic with the right interpretation.

Economy Advantage vs Economy Disadvantage: Having debated the health insurance topic a couple of years ago, this debate was the most prevalent on the topic. If you take this route, please make sure you isolate your offense on Economy. This is important since it helps me look on the flow how the AFF either solves the economy or crashes the economy. Highlighting key warrants and links reduces the messiness on the flow.

The Taxes/transfers PIC seems pretty OP. But there are a ton of reasons why Taxes are needed. Would love to hear this debate.

Recalling a very old thought I had on the CJR/Education/Immigration topic when I judged soft left AFFs. It feels really ironic that teams who have "framing contentions" do not do any framing at all. Both AFF and NEG are at fault for just reading cards and not "framing" anything. Please make some role of the ballot/judge or something to frame the debate if there is one. The spamming of Util Outweighs or Deontology First does nothing to help me evaluate the round.

-

Consider the Following:

1) Implicate Arguments:

Judge Instruction is pretty non-existent in 90% of debates. As a math person, I really care about how things are concluded. What implicating your argument is pretty much equivalent to showing your work to me on a test. Telling me how to vote prevents major judge intervention from me. Clash, compare, articulate, explain arguments and tell me how they relate to you winning the debate round. Arguments without warrants depreciate in value compared to arguments with warrants are appreciated.

Nothing frustrates me more when teams say their arguments but do not tell me how to evaluate them. If I cannot figure out what I am supposed to do with your argument at the end, I am pretty much going to ignore it or not evaluate it. It is pretty consuming to try to sort out a wad of arguments that have no value to them. It is equivalent as to you telling me that this shape is a rectangle, and you cannot tell me why it is a rectangle without the proof/work. Do not bank on me trying to figure out what you are trying to tell me if you do not provide judge instruction, otherwise your arguments get bogged down.

2) Theory:

Please just stop reading pre-written blocks in these debates. I know you think you are "answering" the argument, but you are really not. Do Line-by-Line as you would normally do on any other flow. That is just so much better to listen to because it actually shows you are actively listening and thinking about your opponent's arguments in the round.

Conditionality is probably good. I have voted both ways when it comes down to conditionality. Impact calculus and counter-interpretation debating does matter. New AFFs justify condo and perf con.

3) Framework:

I end up judging these debates a lot. In these debates, both in K AFF and K rounds, are often quite frustrating to resolve at the end of the day. To win Framework on either the AFF or NEG, you need to do impact calculus! Most debates tend to stagnate and never expand on their impacts. This gets really left out in these debates and ends up being two ships passing each other. Use the language of the other team to really help me guide the debate.

The other thing that annoys me that teams do not do is explaining their interpretation of debate. Both sides just breeze through this when this actually matters to me a lot as to why you resolve your own offense and why they link to your own offense. Debating and refuting each other's interpretations matters a lot and gets you a lot farther in the debate.

Hey Jake, is Fairness an impact? Yes and No. I think Fairness is an internal impact that can produce a plethora of external impacts. Hence, I tend to think Fairness is more of an internal link. I prefer clash style impacts over fairness impacts, but fairness can be a powerful impact set up for a lot of framework offense if executed correctly. However, I am not the person debating, and if you make frame Fairness as an external on the flow, I will treat it as an impact on the flow. It is your job to implicate it. Yes, I have voted on Fairness being an impact in the past: Walter Payton SW, MBA BM, Whitney Young MM, and LFS MR are a few teams that I have voted on fairness for.

I prefer the AFF to have a counter-interpretation most of the time than just going for the impact turn strategy. Counter-interpretations help me get a perspective as to what I should think about debate and how I should come to the conclusion about debate. Most teams fail to provide also any UQ framing about debate.

TVAs are a great tool. A lot of NEG teams fail to understand the purpose of a TVA. A TVA does not need to solve the AFF. If the NEG can prove there is a TVA that can resolve a lot of offense from the AFF, the NEG is in a good spot. The AFF's best shot at beating TVAs is proving how silly sometimes these TVAs are. I am also shocked how AFF teams just let the NEG get away with blatantly untopical TVAs. There are so many times where I am just shocked that I end up voting for a TVA that just sounds very UNTOPICAL under the NEG's definitions.

Switch Side Debate is an under utilized argument that helps with most NEG teams. AFF teams can easily combat this by stating an AFF key warrant, which goes back to my thoughts about the counter-interpretation always being present in the 2AR.

4) Counterplans:

I am always down for a counterplan debate. I did find the NATO topic last year a bit annoying with the amount of process CPs that came out of it, so let's try to avoid it this year since there are decent non-process CPs on this topic. Counterplans should be both "textually and functionally" competitive is the immoveable standard that I will stake in counterplan debates.

Not only this forces better counterplans writing, but better permutation writing. Limited intrinsic perms really are go-to strategy against counterplans such as Consult NATO or the Lopez CP when they really have no intrinsic purpose to the topic. But a very good counterplan that destroys the intrinsic perm is very much a power move. I am easily persuaded that the "other issues" perm should be abolished since it limits out NEG ground a ton. Debating out words, phrases, and reasons behind it will go a long way. Should/Resolved debates are pretty meh, but they have stuck with me for a long time given my time debating against GBN and hearing Forslund's thoughts about counterplan competition theory.

Permutation Do Both seems lost in most process CP debates. I sometime think that you can just do both. That places the burden a lot of the NEG to really explain any inherent trade-off between doing the plan and the counterplan, especially with garbage internal net benefits.

Permutations are not advocacies. They are tests of competition/trade-offs. That is it. Permutations also DO NOT have to be topical. What's up with this trend lately?

Text-Only Counterplans: This is might be a hot take. If the NEG team just reads a counterplan text in the 1NC and nothing else, the AFF can just say Perm Do Both and move on. Here's why: a) there is no claim of solvency established after the text. The Counterplan text explains what you are doing, not how it solves and b) you have not established the threshold of competition. Jimin Park and I had an interesting conversation about this.

5) Disadvantages:

Huge fan of disadvantages. However, this is a sliding scale. There are some DAs that are pretty heat, ie. Assurance DA on Alliances Topic, Econ DA on Health Insurance Topic, Russia Fill-In DA on Arms Sales topic. Then, there are some DAs that are absolute garbage, ie. Federalism DA on Education topic, DoD Trade-Off on the NATO topic.

Much prefer you focus on the link level of the DA. This is where a lot of DA debates are either won or lost. A lot of debaters really fail to explain or attack the link. I see the common tactic against DAs is just impact defense, when again link level debating helps. AFFs should link turn DAs when they have the opportunity. Straight turning stuff has become a lost art.

Politics DAs: Okay, I will admit these DAs are non-sensical. However, I love a good politics DA debate. It was my most common 2NR in high school. That being said, the politics DA is probably the hardest DA to both execute and answer. There are a ton of moving parts to it, that a lot of debaters end up getting lost in the sauce and just make this debate about who likes/hates the plan. Defenses of PC theory, UQ warrants, takes outs of the bill all have large implications on the DA. Winner's Win theory is a great debate to listen if the AFF decides to put offense against the DA. Rider DAs are bad (sorry Voss).

6) Critiques:

Critiques are an argument I hear a lot when I judge. I have voted both ways in Cap, Security, Psychoanalysis, Afropessmism, Settler Colonialism, Baudrillard, etc. debates.

Framework for me dictates how I evaluate the round. Both teams should have a comprehensive interpretation of what debates should look like and how I should evaluate it. Both teams should also impact out why their model of debate is better than their opponents. This is where a lot of debates just fall flat. AFF team says fairness and clash. NEG team says that's capitalist/anti-black and that's it. Lack of impact calculus just frustrates me a lot. Why should I have to "weigh the plan" or "prefer representations first prior to weighing the plan". Bronx Science BD was the only team that really impacted out framework and provided a clear lane for judges to evaluate rounds.

I prefer if the critique had links about the plan/topic rather than representations of the AFF's impacts. That is a preference, not a mandate. A lot of good executions of the link debate utilize re-highlightings and implicating the reason for a link. AFF's can easily combat this by just defending their threats are real. I am pretty good for AFF teams that just that their impact is true OR their AFF is just a good idea.

Extinction is First is a default for me, unless there is another Utilitarian thought process that is presented and articulated well to me to think otherwise.

7) Topicality:

I am probably not the best judge for topicality debates. I think it is definitely an important stock issue for sure. T debates are very hard to execute because majority of the time teams are just saying buzzwords without any real meaning to it. I will default to competing interpretations majority of the time.

What matters to me is counter-interpretation debating, and how you explain to me your view of the topic is better for debate. A lot debates end up messy for me to evaluate because there is no impacting out why limits outweighs ground or AFF ground better than NEG ground. I will always will try to figure out which topic is best for both the AFF and NEG.

Much prefer limits over ground, unless there is a clear linkage between the AFF's interpretation decking NEG ground.

Plan Text in a Vacuum is a questionable standard. NEG teams keep forgetting to answer it for some strange reason.

8) Case Debating:

Love a good case debate. Both sides will profit well from a good case debate. Making smart internal link/solvency takes outs really provide the NEG a lot of leverage. If going for a counterplan, still having case defense to the advantage that you think the CP solves the least forces me to drop you twice as I have to decide the CP doesn’t solve AND that the case impact outweighs your net-benefit. That seems like a pretty good spot to be in for NEG since I can judge kick the CP and weigh the net benefit. What most high school debaters end up doing is just spamming impact defense. Much prefer internal link/solvency take outs.

Majority of the time, a lot of 1ACs are hyperinflated, illogical and run into a ton of problems. If you tell me you cannot find an illogical flaw in an internal link chain that says, "plan's biofuel research promotes ag research, ag research promotes GMOs, GMOs help solve food shortage in Ukraine, lack of food in Ukraine causes NATO intervention, NATO scares Russia, NATO-Russia war goes nuclear", I will be shocked.

9) Ethics Violations:

Clipping: a team misrepresents how much evidence they have read in a debate, such as improperly highlighting their evidence, “clipping cards” (the team says they read more than they actually did by clipping a card short of the indicated end), or “cross reading” (the team skips words or sentences in the middle of the text but indicates that they read all the highlighted words).

Any use of AI or other services to generate random text and use the text as "evidence" is deemed a fabrication of evidence.

Any altering of the author's original text such as deleting/adding/re-arranging words/phrases/paragraphs is also deemed a fabrication of evidence. Proof of fraud is necessary.

Any ethics violation challenge, the other team must present evidence. Whoever wins the challenge gets the win and max speaker points. Whoever loses the challenge gets the lost and lowest speaker points possible (probably a 25).

-

Miscellaneous:

High School Coaches I agree with - Jeremy Hammond, DB, Gabe Koo, Eric Forslund, Allie Chase, Tim Lewis, Peter Susko, Jazzy Stidham, Yao Yao Chen, Will Katz, and Maggie Berthiaume.

Schools I judge the most: Lexington, GBN, Calvert Hall, New Trier, Berkeley Prep, Peninsula, and GDS

I am a big fan of the Washington Urban Debate League! Appreciate all of the work David Trigaux does down there.

Top 5 Favorite Topics I debated/coached (top was favorite): Domestic Surveillance (2016), Oceans (2015), Executive Authority (2019), Transportation Infrastructure (2013), Alliances (2021),

Top 5 Least Favorite Topics I debated/coached (top was worst): Education (2018), Space (2020), NATO (2022), National Health Insurance (2018), Latin America (2014)

Giving the final speeches (2NR/2AR) off the flow (ie paper) will boost speaker points!!!! Shows great ethos in round.

Brandon Reynolds is not funny.

-

Old Thoughts from Previous Topics

T-A5 is the worst argument on this topic. I just WON'T vote on IT. (NATO)

Why are people talking about Space Elevators on this topic? (CJR)

Assurance and Deterrence DAs are the best on this topic. Please put these DAs on case when relevant, just makes things flow easier. (Alliances)

Con-Con seems cheating. (CJR)

Zoey Lin (she/her/hers)

Lexington '20 | Dartmouth '24

Please put me on and properly name the email chain! [lin.debate@gmail.com] [Tournament - Round X: Aff Team v Neg Team]

I'm colorblind, so please highlight in green (or give me time to change your color)

tl;dr

Be genuine, be nice, just do what you’re good at. I promise I'm very low maintenance, as long as you're nice, give me an outlet and a chair, and are a reasonable human being I will and flow what you say! Don't be rude pls

This picture encapsulates both my personality and my judging philosophy

Please be super clear. I can flow you, but I might not be able to flow you + mumble + echo + distance + zoom. If you're unclear and lose even though "but I said it in my speech", imma give you this look: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Policy (Updated 9.23.23)

Do what you're good at, don't adapt for me (yes I have biases, but if I'll be persuaded more by what you say than what I think).

Frame the round and tell a good story, unless told otherwise I am tech > truth, theory is a reason to reject the arg (but condo is a reason to reject the team), judges don't kick, and anything goes. Other than that, I am a sucker for specific strategies. Even if you don't go for them I will reward case specific research (aff recuts, counterplans that solve the internal link, specific pics against k affs, etc). Do your best with neg ground—even though you need a DA, that's not an excuse for awful ptx scenarios.

Other thoughts: I don't think enough 2a's are willing to go for theory and I'm happy to vote on 2+ condo bad!

What You're Here For (K Stuff)

Debate is definitely a game and clash is an intrinsic good for debate. I find myself particularly persuaded by switch-side debate arguments and well crafted TVAs. Despite that, I think debate could be much more than a game even though we're here "playing" it and the history of the args I read supports that idea. I'm most familiar with and went for identity critiques (anti-blackness and queer theory) and security (fem ir, racial ir, and traditional ir). I'm pretty decent for psychoanalysis and various anti-capitalist lit bases (marxism, left accelerationism, semio-capitalism). I'm average for other white pomo, and pretty bad for death good. That being said, I don't want to listen to nebulous appeals to buzzword impacts... K teams win when they are able to contextualize their k to their opponent's args, especially with links. You don't need a "good k" you need a well applied k.

LD Updated for the 2021-22 Season

I've judged more LD rounds compared to policy at this point, but I still don't have a real paradigm, if what I've said above isn't enough, then just know I'm a policy debater who doesn't care what you read. The only thing you should consider is that although I will flow your argument and its warrants, I might not fully understand it to your liking (i.e. just because you said permissibility doesn't mean I'll fill in the warrant for you).

If you want to know specifics though, I'm definitely better for k/larp compared to phil, and definitely questionable for theory and tricks*. I don't care if you defend the topic, but have some sort of grounded criticism, please.

Long LD Specific Paradigm: I think like Jeffrey Gu, I aspire to be Henry Curtis

*Caveat: Lexington Debater Brett Fortier told me "if you're willing to listen to tricks, you're a tricks judge." While that is me... I really do not want to listen to RVI's, trick's, nebel t, a prioris and just LISTS of paradoxes. Much thanks!

Misc Stuff

I flow on a computer and sometimes often away or stare blankly. Don't worry I can type without looking, this just means I'm thinking

I've realized that zoom debate has made it so that y'all prep so loudly. I don't super care but it's also just jarring that I can hear all of your conversations about the debate and especially your conversations about me...

Also if y'all wanna bring me food, like... I won't say no... to be clear I'm not asking for food... I'm just saying it will make me more happy <3

Bottom Line

Debate is a great place to challenge yourself and have fun while doing it... the first thing that I want to see is that everyone is enjoying themselves and having a good time. Some debaters think that they're too good or cool to afford their opponents respect and decency in-round: if this is you, I will not be a good judge to have in the back of your round. We are all here to have fun and get better, so if you are jeopardizing that in any way, don't expect me to be as willing to vote for you.

I really care about the participation of queer debaters, especially gender minorities and poc. It's really difficult to find queer spaces in general, never mind in debate and worst of all in an online debate environment. I will be extremely sensitive to the way people who are not cis white men are treated in the debate space. If you are looking for additional resources, please check out https://www.windebate.org/ for the most passionate mentors and https://www.girlsdebate.org/ for funny memes, cool people, and amazing overall help.

If you have any questions, don't be afraid to shoot me an email or ask before the round starts. I'd be happy to clarify anything on this paradigm or offer you any other insight that I might have forgotten to include here.

Good luck!

Jake LoRocco

Updated 1/10/2023

-

About Me

I did policy debate for four years in high school at Dallas Jesuit. I did not debate in college but judged throughout and stayed involved in the community.

Currently judging/volunteering with the Boston Debate League.

-

General

I'm good with any type of argument (as long as it's not racist, sexist, etc...) in any form (K, DA, CP, etc...). No matter the argument though, tell me why it's important and why I should vote for it. And please make it aff specific.

You can talk as fast as you want (and I will let you know if you aren't clear).

I don't think new affs bad is a legitimate argument.

I'm a versatile judge but also keeping in mind that this is policy debate, I intend on voting at least with the barest minimum required:

1. Framework - what's yours, reasons to perfer, why is your opponents f/w undesirable, etc.
2. Impacts - what is the urgency? In round impacts included. If going for theory, what's the terminal impact of that.
3. Risks - what conquenses will be made from an opposing ballot?
4. Solvency - evidence of proof
5. Topicality/Theory - if there are no voters, I will not be voting on the argument. Independent voters need to be impacted out.

K affs have the burden of proof which means even if you don't claim fiat, solvency is still required. Evidence can be used as proof but there's going to be a deeper analysis needed to support your commitment and legitimacy of your advocacy if it is a performative style of debate especially. I still expect clash and line by line. You cannot get caught up in the argument that you refuse or forget to engage in actual debate. If by the end of debate I don't understand the solvency mechanism being used to solve the impacts of the aff and no analysis on reasons to perfer affs f/w I'm probably going to vote on persumption.

Lastly but should've been firstly, after years of debating and over a decade of judging, I have seen an upward trend in bad ethos in debate. Lets keep it respectful. If there are trigger warnings, they need to be addressed before the debate starts.

Open cross-x is fine.

I'm not going to evaluate any questions past cross x but if you want to ask simple questions during your prep during contructives, that's fine.

for email chains: georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com -- include pairing and tournament in the subject

my name is sim, you can use any pronouns. i'm studying public health and Black studies at johns hopkins university. i debated for a small school that only competed on the local circuit in the pacific northwest -- i have accomplished nothing notable. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school

i never debated on the national circuit and i learned entirely from flowing rounds online. i'd say it means i keep a pretty decent ear and a neat flow. i'm alright for kritikal and clash debates, bad for everything else.

things that are good: proper extensions, framing and layering the debate, explaining concepts. things that are bad: jargon, not implicating concessions, no judge instruction.

the competitive nature of debate can truly create some cruel behavior. names on tabroom are not just your opponents or your judges, they are real people. losing rounds, reading arguments you dislike, or being a “bad judge” are not reasons to say disgusting and mean things. people deserve to be respected regardless of their debate skill and merit.

for ld: no tricks, no phil, nothing that you wouldn't see in policy. i don't know how to judge it and i simply won't, i'll pretend i'm a parent judge.

Email: cydmarie.minierciriaco@saschools.org

Coaching Experience:

Policy + PF Debate @ Success Academy (September 2022-Present)

Parliamentary Debate @ Inwood Academy for Leadership (2017-2021)

Hi everyone! I am very excited about coaching and judging policy debate this year! Although this is my first year coaching policy debate, it is certainly not my first time coaching or judging competitive debates. Here are a few things about my style/preferences to keep in mind:

1. Tabula Rasa: I try my best to enter each debate round with a "clean slate." I leave my biases at the door and will judge solely based on the quality and skills of your argumentation.

2. WEIGH WELL. I often find it difficult to judge rounds involving little to no weighing. I HIGHLY consider impacts in my decision-making.

3. I pay close attention to the rebuttal speeches. Stay away from being redundant, meaning your rebuttal speeches shouldn’t sound like your constructive speeches. Paint a picture, and tell me why your side should win. I

4. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.

5. I find K-AFFs and Kritiks to be very unique and interesting. I enjoy them if presented well enough for me to understand. Do your very best to explain the complex rhetoric you're stating in the round. Regarding critical affirmatives, the expectation is that your plan is still topical and related to the resolution. Regarding Kritiks on the Neg, please make sure you present a decent link story to the AFF and that you prove that your alternative is better than the AFF's plan.

6. I enjoy cross-examination periods. Take advantage of your cross-examination periods and ask your opponents specific, meaningful questions. Try not to waste your C/X time asking clarifying questions.

7. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect. Please be a kind and decent human being. *Any racist, and discriminatory arguments or language will result in low speaker points and may result in the loss of the round.*

8. Run anything on the NEG, no preference.

9. I typically find myself voting on 3 things in a debate: solvency, impact calc, and framework.

10. I will never vote for a "human extinction good/death good argument."

11. Regarding speed, I'm totally fine with spreading. Just please project your voice, roadmap, and please make sure you're clear. If I can't understand you, then I will probably stop flowing.

BEST OF LUCK AND HAVE FUN! :)

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

Email for sharing evidence: Anne.c.peckham@gmail.com

Debate & judging experience: I was a policy debater for Lexington High School in MA from 2000-2004. I coached and judged for Oyster-Adams in DC in from 2016-2017.

I've judged at a couple policy tournaments since 2016. Please don't assume any knowledge on this year's resolution / subject matter / typical cases.

I'm generally ok with spreading as long as you're clear, but appreciate if you can slow down a bit more in the rebuttals and help crystalize things.

Judging preferences: Fine with any arguments that are explained clearly. Please explain for me why your argument / position is better than the other team's, and what I should be voting on.

I appreciate when you give me a roadmap at the top of your speech, and for you to go line-by-line in addressing the other team's arguments. In the later rebuttals please step back and explain for me why you should win using impact analysis or another framework for how I should be making my decision.

I think debate should be fair and educational, and I am fine voting on Topicality or theory, but please explain it to me rather than just asserting it's a voting issue.

Please be respectful of each other in cx and in your characterization of the other team / their arguments.

Have fun!

I think that debate should be safe and welcoming for everybody. If you prevent this, I do not want to judge you, and you will not want to be judged by me. This is very important, so I’ve put it first.

LASA 21, Emory 25. I coach for Pine Crest.

He/Him. poedebatedocs@gmail.com

I primarily judge policy debates, but I also understand LD to some extent and have been an instructor at an LD camp. I am familiar with PF as well, but to a lesser extent.

My average speaks given in varsity policy (all time) are 28.71

TLDR

Do what you'd like and don't over-adapt. I'm fine with both policy and K strats, but I'd rather hear a specific strategy than generics. I think research is the most important part of debate. I try to be tech>truth but I'm skeptical of garbage arguments. Speed is fine if you're clear. Have good disclosure. Don't say stuff that's racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist etc. (but also don't accuse the other team of doing this if they didn't.)

Theory

If the abuse is egregious I'll totally vote on it. 2-3 condo worlds usually seems ok, but it's easier for the aff to win this debate with more worlds. Well researched strategies and specific solvency advocates help the neg win theory.

Lean neg: most agent CPs, advantage CPs, PICs out of something in the plan, CPs recut from aff ev, basically anything with an aff-specific solvency advocate.

Lean aff: generic process CPs, kicking planks, 2NC CPs, CPs with no solvency advocate, CPs that only compete textually.

Topicality

Not a huge fan! I think about T in a more truth>tech way than I do other arguments. Have specific case lists, examples of ground loss, and a qualified interp that's somewhat contextual to the topic. "More affs bad" isn't good enough.

Policy Affs

Have an actual solvency advocate. I prefer specific impact scenarios like "these countries go to war" over something like "democracy solves everything!" Neg teams should do case debate. Generic framing frustrates me.

Counterplans

Case-specific CPs > generics. Big fan of advantage CPs. If your CP steals the aff to get a contrived internal net benefit, it's an uphill battle to beat the perm. 1NC needs a solvency advocate.

Disads

Good spin and story > dumping 50 cards and hoping I'll sort them out. I prefer DAs based on the outcome of the plan rather than the process, but I'm more down for politics DAs based on stuff like political capital than I am for bad Rider DAs. 0% risk is possible.

Kritiks

Have specific links and explain how the K implicates the aff. Generic state bad or cruel optimism links aren't persuasive. I've got a high bar for structural arguments, but if you do a good job I'll vote on it. Answer examples.

I lean toward thinking the neg should have links to the plan or the 1AC's core ideas (which could include reps, but might not include "your author defended stuff we don't like in an unhighlighted part of the card.") I start the debate assuming the aff gets the plan but you can change my mind.

Tell me what the alt does and give examples if you can. Alts that do something material > alts that think really hard.

Kritikal Affs

Explain what your aff does and why it matters. It should be about the topic, not just a previous year's aff with one topic-adjacent card. You should defend something and be stuck defending it. It's hard to win that your performance actually did something unless your evidence is fantastic.

Neg teams should try to engage with the content of the aff, but I get it if you can't. I'm often persuaded by presumption. K v K debates are awesome, but only if both sides know what's going on.

Framework

Clash/Research > "fairness because fairness." I enjoy creative styles of framework like "T - talk about the topic at all." Tell me the ground you lost, why it's good, etc. Explain the types of debates that would happen in the world of the TVA if you want to go for it.

Top Level

-I debated policy at Georgetown Day School for 4 years and am now debating at Brown University. In HS, I had 8 bids to the TOC.

-Unless your argument is in favor of discrimination (racism, sexism, etc.), I’m down to vote for it. Tech>Truth for sure.

-Examples are awesome, and you should use them whenever possible. A few well-explained ones are usually better than a bunch of small ones. These can be used as historical contextualizations of why something will fail/succeed, or turn out well/poorly, or as demonstrations of your praxis.

-In debate, I spent more time reading kritikal args (see below), but I'm more than hyped to judge a policy throwdown.

-I read evidence when asked to or when a team makes a big deal out of a card in the last rebuttals. Quality evidence makes for good later speeches, especially when you can pull direct quotes from your ev that are really applicable. Just remember, that debaters, not cards, win rounds, so you can absolutely spin a bad card into a phenomenal argument.

-If you have any questions, just ask before the round!

Case

-Explain what your aff (policy or K) does in crossex, especially on the K side I need concrete solvency examples, and on the policy side, I need to know exactly what policy change the aff makes.

-For the neg, case debate is great, particularly solvency takeouts, and recuttings of the affirmative team’s own evidence (hint: these recuttings are not nearly as hard to find as they should be).

Disads

The two most important things to win here are a credible internal link story and impact comparison. Too often, neg teams get away with a ridiculous internal link chain, that the affirmative should absolutely expose (affs also tend to have these, neg teams should expose these as well). The 2nc/1nr and 2nr should explain step-by-step how the aff causes your impacts. Impact comparison means not just explaining what your impacts are, but why I should prioritize them over the aff’s. For example, I don’t just want to know why the aff causes nuclear war, I want to know why that matters more than/happens more quickly than/is more probable than, the aff’s impact scenario(s).

Counterplans

Establishing exactly what parts of the aff you do and do not claim to solve (and why) is key here. The net benefits to your counterplan should be explained in the context of the disad (or if you’re not going for a disad as an independent off-case position, why mutual exclusivity is clear, and why your impacts outweigh). Also, the theory in these debates tends to get extremely muddled. If this happens it will make me sad.

T (vs plan affs)

In these debates, both sides generally agree with the theoretical impacts the neg is going for (i.e. that fairness/education etc.) are good in the abstract, so the nuance comes down to whose interpretation provides them better and/or is more resolutionally based. That means that knowing what debates look like under your model is paramount. Topical Versions of the Aff, especially ones with cards, are cool, so are arguments (on both sides) about how your model of debate produces ethical subjectivities, better advocates etc.

Theory

Slowing down and getting off your blocks is crucial here, especially since I feel strongly that jargon is not a good replacement for nuanced warrants. That said, if you can clearly explain why something the other team did is/should be illegitimate, I’m more than happy to vote for it. Also, please specifically explain why whatever they did is a reason to reject the team rather than just the argument, if you’re going for it that way.

Kritiks

These are the majority of the arguments I read in debate (aff and neg). This is both good and bad for you if you read Ks. This is good for you, because I’m probably at least relatively familiar with your arguments (particularly Afro-pessimism, coloniality, variants of the cap K, and high theory like Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Psychoanalysis). It also means that your link contextualizations can be more creative than a hardcore policy judge might prefer (note that “creative” does not mean link to the status quo, but rather that you can, if you win it in the round,link into the aff’s discourse or political telos). This is bad for you if you read Ks because I know how these arguments can be poorly executed, which means that using a bunch of jargon without explanation and not doing line by line will generally not turn out well. Fun K Tricks are fun.

K affs vs Framework

I had these debates. A lot. As a result, I’m probably pretty good for both teams here, for the aff because I've debated on your side a ton so I can definitely see your argument, and for the neg, because I know that a lot of K affs are ridiculous and completely unconnected to the topic area (which is distinct from using the USfg). For the aff, a counterinterp that provides a real and better model of debate + a couple impact turns to their standards are best. For the neg, I’m really cool with any standards you wanna go for, and TVAs are good as long as they actually solve some of the aff (as opposed to, “Look! We have something that is tangentially related to their lit base!”) Also, showing how the aff’s model produces terrible debates is going to make it harder for them to win on impact turns alone. The only argument I don’t like here is that being topical is a “rule.” In contrast to things like violating speech times, clipping, etc (which will result in an automatic loss), almost all judges will agree that you should not inherentlyreject affs that are not topical (i.e. vote neg after the 1ac) and I’m not sure how something is a "rule" if teams get rewarded for breaking it all the time. I, however, am open to voting for framework as a good norm.

**Final Note: I'll boost your speaks a bit if you make a good (emphasis good) reference to The Dark Knight or The Matrix.

Debate Experience
Law Magnet High School: 2012-2016
The University of Texas at Dallas: 2016-2019
Assistant debate coach at Coppell HS: 2018-now

sanchez.rafael998@gmail.com - I would like to be on the email chain :)

Specifics:
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are best when they are debated correctly.

Topicality: I enjoy T debates. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.

DAs: DAs are a core debate argument and I love judging DA(& CP) v. case debates. Specific DAs are always a plus, but obviously that's not always possible. I tend default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Counterplans: A well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.

Kritiks: I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the more popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. But be aware that if you are reading more PoMo/high-theory args, you might have to explain the arg a bit more.

K AFFs: I have no problem with teams running untopical affs but this doesn't mean that I wont pull the trigger on FW, you still have to win the affs model ow the negs model of debate.

Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard.

*Note for online debates: I'm very forgetful and my keyboard is loud af, so if I forget to mute, remind me to mute myself if the keyboard noise is being bothersome.

**EMAIL FOR EVIDENCE CHAIN**: aubrey.semple@successacademies.org

Coaching Background
Policy Debate Coach @

Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (Present)

NYCUDL Travel Team (2015-2019)

Brooklyn Technical High School (2008-2015)
Baccalaureate School for Global Education (2008-2010)
Benjamin Banneker Academy (2007-2008)
Paul Robeson HS (2006-2007)

Administrative Background
Program Director - New York City Urban Debate League (September 2014 - July 2020)

Director of Debate - Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (August 2020 - Present)

Debater Background
New York Coalition of Colleges (NYU/CUNY) (2006- 2009)
Paul Robeson High School (New York Urban Debate League) (2003-2006)

Judging Background
Years Judging: 15 (Local UDL tournament to National Circuit/TOC)

Policy Short Version:

** 12/1/21 - 2021 NY FALL FACE OFF UPDATE**

This will be my first tournament on the water protections topic and my first time judging remote in a while so I ask that you prioritize clarity over speed as I will be flowing on paper and if I can't catch your arguments because I can't hear you then those arguments will not be evaluated in my decision.

I try to let you, the debaters decide what the round is about and what debate should be. However, as I grow older in this activity, I will admit that certain debate styles and trends that exist from convoluted plan texts/advocacy statements where no one defends anything and worse; debaters that purposely and intentionally go out of their way to make competitors and judges and even spectators feel uncomfortable through fear tactics such as calling people out in debate because one doesn't agree with the other's politics, utilizing social media to air out their slanderous statements about people in the debate community and so on is tired and absolutely uncalled for. I say this because this has been an on-going occurrence far TOO often and it has placed me in a position where I'm starting to lose interest in the pedagogical advantages of policy debate due to these particular positions. As a result, I've become more and more disinterested in judging these debates. Not to say that I won't judge it fairly but the worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot fails to explain what your argument is and not tell me what the ballot signifies. So, if you are the type of team that can't defend what your aff does or how it relates to the topic and solely survives off of grandiose rhetoric and/or fear tactics... STRIKE ME!

Long Version:

The Semantics of "So-Called" Rules or Norms for Debate Rounds


THE INTRO: I try to have zero substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. But as I judge, judge, and judge policy debates, that tends to shift. So, in out of all honesty, I say to you that all debaters will have the opportunity to argue why you should win off with a clean slate. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you all to make things up. So at the end of the day, don’t make me have to do the work to adjudicate the round… you do it. DON'T MAKE ME HAVE TO DO THE WORK THAT YOU SHOULD DO IN THE ROUND!!! I don't mind reading evidence at the end of a debate, but don't assume that I will call for evidence, make sure that if you want me to evaluate your argument with your evidence at the end of the round just tell me what I should review, and I'll review the argument for you. Also, if you intend to use acronyms, please give me the full name before you go shorthand on me.

TOPICALITY: I've come to enjoy T debates, especially by those that are REALLY good at it. If you are that T hack that can go for T in the 2NR then I am a lot better for you than others who seem to think that T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it, that brings major weight when it is time for adjudication. FYI, T is genocide and RVIs are not the best arguments in the world for these debates but I will pull the trigger on the argument is justified. (and I mean REALLY justified). Voting on reasonability or a competing interpretation as a default paradigm for evaluating T is up for grabs, but as always I need to know how the argument should be evaluated and why it is preferable before I decide to listen to the T debate in the 2NR (e.g. predictable limits key to topic education).

COUNTERPLANS: I don’t mind listening to a good (and I mean) good CP debate. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. I award debaters that are creative and can create CPs that are well researched and are competitive with the AFF plan. Those types of debates are always up in the air but please note that in my experience that debaters should be on top of things when it comes to CP theory. Those debates, if executed poorly are typically unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve so be careful with running theory args on CP debates that A) makes ZERO sense, B) that is blimpy, and C) that is not necessary to run when there is no abuse. Violation of any of the three will result in me giving you a dumb look in your speech and low speaks. And it really doesn't hurt to articulate a net benefit to the CP for that would win you some offense.

DISADVANTAGE: I evaluate Disads based on the link story presented by the negative in the 1NC and what is impacted in the 2NR. To win my vote, the story needs to be clear in terms of how specifically does the affirmative link to the DA. Any case can link but it’s how specific the link is and the calculus of the impact that makes me lean more towards the neg.

KRITIKS: I can handle K debates, considering the majority of my debate career has been under critical arguments (i.e. Capitalism, Statism, Racism, Biopower…) But, if you are a team that relies on the judge being hyped up by fancy rhetoric that you learn from camp, practice, or a debate video on YouTube, you don’t want me. In fact, some of you love to read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like a fast debate like anyone else, but if you read the overview to your tortuously complex Kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, go nuts with speed. I will vote on offensive arguments such as "K Debate Bad/Good or the perm to the alt solves or turns to the K, as long as you win them. Overall, I’m cool with the K game, ya dig. All I ask of you all is a comprehensive link story for me to understand... an impact and what does the alternative world looks like and how that is more desirable than the aff policy option. "Reject the aff" as the alt text.... very long stretch on winning the K if I don't know what it means.

FRAMEWORK: Like Topicality, I also enjoy framework debates, if done properly. And like topicality, I try to not have a default preference in terms of defaulting to policymaker or activist or whatever in the fairness of approaching the debate round from a clean slate. At the end of the debate, I need to know what the round should be evaluated and what is my jurisdiction as a judge to evaluate the debate on a particular framework versus the opponent's competitive framework (if they choose to present one). If there isn't a competitive framework, I'll simply default to the original framework mentioned in the debate. In essence, if I am not presented with a framework of how to evaluate the argument, I'll take the easy way out and evaluate the argument as a policymaker. However, it is up to the debaters to shape the debate, NOT ME.

PERFORMANCE/ K Affs: I'm slowly starting to dislike judging these types of debates. Not because I don't like to hear them (I've ran critical affirmatives and neg positions both in high school and in college) but more and more I'm stuck judging a debate where at the end of round, I've spent nearly two hours judging and I've learned little to nothing about the topic/subject matter but instead subjected to grandiose rhetoric and buzzwords that make no sense to me. I really dislike these debates and the fact that these types of debates are growing more and more places me in a position where I'd rather not judge these rounds at all. As a judge, I shouldn't have to feel confused about what you are saying. I shouldn't have to feel pressured into voting a certain way because of one's pessimistic view of the debate space. Granted, we all have our issues with policy debate but if you don't like the game... then don't play it. Changing the debate space where diversity is acknowledged is fine but when we lose sight of talking about the resolution in lieu of solely talking about one's personal politics only becomes self-serving and counter-productive. For that, I am not the right judge for you.

That said, if you want to run your K aff or "performance" affirmative, do what you do best. The only burden you have is that you need to win how your level of discourse engages the resolution. If you cannot meet that burden then framework/procedural arguments become an easy way to vote you down. If you can get through that prerequisite then the following is pretty straightforward: 1) I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. 2) If you want me to engage the debate via a comparison of methodologies, you need to explain what it is and how it functions in the context of the resolution and prove that its preferable against your opponent or vise-versa. 3) I want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say (or the dances they do, or whatever). If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance/K Affs with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me, in fact, you will just hate me when I give you lower speaks. However, if you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine. 4) If you answer performance/ K Affs arguments with well-thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you’ll easily pick up my ballot.

THEORY: This is something that I must say is extremely important to mention, given that this is greatly a big issue in policy debate today, especially in the national circuit. So let me be clear that I have experienced highly complex theoretical debates that made virtually NO sense because everyone is ready to pull out their blocks to "Condo Bad" or "Vagueness Good" or "Agent CPs Bad" without actually listening to the theoretical objection. With that I say, please pay attention. Good teams would provide an interpretation of how to evaluate a theory argument. Like a procedural argument, you should prove why your interpretation of the theoretical argument is preferred for debate. It would also help you to SLOW, SLOW, SLOW down on the theory debates, especially if that is the route that you're willing to go to for the 2NR/2AR. If the affirmative or negative are planning to go for theory, either you go all in or not at all. Make sure that if you're going for theory, impact it. Otherwise, I'm left to believe that it's a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

FLASHING EVIDENCE/EMAIL CHAIN: I have a love-hate relationship with paperless debate but I can accept it. That being said, please be aware that I will stop the prep time once the flash drive is out of the computer of the team that is about to speak. I take this very seriously considering the ongoing mishaps of technical issues that are making the paperless debate, in general, a notorious culprit of tournament delays, considering the flashing of the evidence, the opponents searching for the correct speech file, and the infamous "my computer crashed, I need to reset it" line. If you are capable of having a viewing computer... make it accessible. I'm also cool with email chains. You can send me your speeches to semplenyc@gmail.com. Same rules on flashing apply to email chains as well.

BEHAVIOR STYLE: To be aggressive is fine, to be a jerk is not. I am ok if debates get a bit heated but that does not allow debaters to be just plain rude and ignorant to each other. That said, please be nice to each other. I don't want to sound like the elementary school teacher telling children to behave themselves, but given the experience of some debaters that simply forgot that they are in an activity that requires discipline and manners... just chill out and have fun. For example, POINTLESSLY HOSTILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS really grinds my gears. Chill out, people. Hostility is only good in cross-ex if you making a point. And oh yeah, be nice to your partner. At the end of the day, they're the ones you have to go back to practice with.

Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socio-economic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate gives you an opportunity to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals of their individuality when presenting arguments however I will not condone arguments that may be sexist, racist, or just plain idiotic. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament and most importantly respect yourselves.

HAVE FUN AND BEST OF LUCK!!!

shonkakatrina@gmail.com

I don’t have any strong preferences just be respectful of your opponents and have fun debating!

TLDR: Seven years of policy debate experience. Preserving education in debate informs my likes/dislikes. Have fun! Don’t spread. Make smart analytics! Explain your internal links and perform thorough impact calculus. Closed CX. Don’t be rude.

Experience

Former debater from the Washington Urban Debate League. I debated parliamentary for three years in middle school and policy for four years in high school. I've judged several rounds on this topic, but I have more experience judging novice than varsity. I haven’t debated in three years, so please bear with me as I reorient myself to this space. I’m appreciative of a team that can provide roadmaps, signposts, and clear overviews to make this transition easier.

Philosophy

Education is inherently political; What we learn and don't learn influences how we frame problems and decide which lives matter. Amid Twitter beefs and black squares, debate is one of the few spaces that produces pedagogical outcomes that change the way students engage with geopolitical issues. Debate fosters critical engagement between the policy nerd, the activist, and the community. Today's debate rounds will create tomorrow's future activists; the pioneers that will change the world one day. Any attempt to make this space inaccessible is harmful to not only the activity of debate, but also to the balance of the scales of justice, and the people willing to sacrifice their lives to balance its scales. Debate uniquely allows its participants to negotiate what is and isn't educational discourse. With this privilege and responsibility, we must actively work to create a space that promotes fair and constructive discussion. This includes considerations for accessibility to literature, speed, and peace of mind while debating these complex issues. As a judge, I will respond negatively to any educational injustice in this space that discourages students from attending debates.

Debate should be in some part accessible to outsiders. Some paradigms mention the phrase “debate is a game”. This perspective limits the number of spectators able to participate constructively to those that know the rules, which are quite technical. Debate must be an education equalizer rather than a dramatization of the esoteric academy and the jargon-filled chambers of Congress. Let's address issues without the high horse and ivory tower. There is a reason debate is not just archive making. It's the performance of the ideas themselves that makes the cards we read not just a part of an archive, but evidence that significantly changes our orientation toward issues within our schools, communities, and the world. Preserving education in debate provides us with the tiniest bit of leverage when nudging the arc of the moral universe closer toward justice. Without the space to intervene in the archives we create, we limit the number of people that get to determine how these archives are read, interpreted, and applied to the real-world impacts that are happening. Thus, debaters should work to understand as much as they work to win. There is immense privilege here. Educational spaces, though powerful in their potential to contemplate just futures, are not accessible to everyone.

I want to see passionate and respectful engagement with your cards and especially your internal links. I don’t want you to spread through three war scenarios without flinching. Be careful when reading plans about marginalized groups you’re not a part of. Establishing affective relationships to your evidence can hopefully mitigate using war scenarios as currency to get shiny trophies. Lives have inherent value, and any treatment of a life as disposable will affect your speaker points. Speak about these issues with dignity and respect. When you spread through your impacts, it is dismissive of the lives affected by tragedy. If you show up on a weekend to debate about NATO, an organization created after a devastating war, I’m going to assume you’re better than that.

After a long day of debating/judging, we get to go outside and breathe in fresh air and hug our families. While this may not be the reality of every debater, it is certainly much better than the worlds created by your hypothetical impacts. Either that, or we’re not talking about issues important enough to sustain the activity of debate. If you spread, especially without clarity, I will assume that you’re conceding that winning a debate takes priority over round accessibility and cultivating affective relationships with literature.

General

• Familiarity w/ Topic. I haven’t done a ton of topic research. Don’t assume I know an acronym.

• Research and Evidence. I know that research is a skill, and everybody has various levels of research skills and access to coaches. Not every student has access to prestigious summer camps, coaching opportunities, and even tournaments. I take that into consideration when judging a round. If you’re a novice and want to learn how to do research, I'm more than happy to talk with you and spend time with you throughout the tournament to help you learn how to research.

• Arguments. I award high speaker points to debaters that can explain key specific details about their arguments. Good warrants will be the difference between two cards and an explanation of why I should prefer yours. It also makes for a good debate where novices can learn, please consider the educational impacts for them as well. Giving back to the sport by prioritizing education in rounds is crucial to the fairness and longevity of debate.

Affirmatives

• Must be a change to the status quo.

• Performance: I haven’t judged a performance aff yet, but I would appreciate some explanation of how the design of your aff links to some real-world impact. I’d also appreciate an explanation of why your specific methodology is important for how we address the topic, and to what audience. Like K affs, show me how to situate myself to the round and what I should do with my ballot.

Off case

• Topicality. Only if necessary. Very pretty debates to flow if the team is good but unnecessary if they stop us from talking about things that are clearly relevant. Also, convince me why having T debate trades off with or solves education in the round. Lenient toward novices that are just learning how to use topicality. I want to see well-defined and limited counter-interpretations. I’m not a fan of incrementally better counter-interpretations. Predictability, limits, and ground are internal links.

• Kritiks. I’m not as familiar with K literature, so I’d appreciate clear explanations without jargon. Your K overview should be easy enough to explain to a five-year-old. The goal of educational spaces that take on this type of literature is to make it accessible. Don’t describe the status quo, will vote aff if I’m not convinced that the alternative is substantial enough to overcome the status quo. Please have clear and specific links. I will also vote aff if the issue in the K describes an issue that is larger than what the aff is capable of solving, although aff will have to win no link at least (can’t perpetuate harm).

• Disadvantages. Convince me your impacts aren’t deus ex machina to save your ass in the round later. Don’t just run a random DA because you feel you should strategically do so. Have a story that makes sense, have a clear and specific link to the aff, and have a good internal link story that can be reasoned out in terms of impact calculus (weighing the probability and timeframe of each IL) 2ACs should expose weak internal links with smart analytics.

• Counterplans: Perm. Don’t default to theory in 2AC without at least trying to make substantial responses to the cp.

Likes

• Well signposted line by line in rebuttals. Help me trust your flow.

• Be smart, engaging, and entertaining. Have fun! Be passionate! Read tags clearly and emphasize figures.

• Quality of cards over quantity. Use cards with statistics and expert analysis.

• Talk about whatever you want. I don’t have any preferences for policy or k affirmatives if the policy/advocacy statement is articulated well. I’m interested in learning about whatever it is you're passionate about if it’s clearly and thoroughly explained and I am convinced of your harm. Go for interesting, fun, logical, smart, and non-problematic arguments.

• Tell me how I should position myself in relation to the round. Clearly articulated education impacts will often be voters for me. I will vote against anything occurring in the round that perpetuates significant harm to education. However, please don’t run theory to avoid engaging with the case.

• Smart analytics. I award good analytics generously with speaker points. Use cards wisely. Only read extension cards if you must, but otherwise do your due diligence and put your best evidence out in the first half of the round. If your scenarios don’t make sense, I will vote against you. The best way to get my ballot is to paint a clear picture of the world of the affirmative and the world of the negative. Articulating the big picture purely through chunks of evidence will lose me.

• Show me some level of engagement with the other team by having specific strategies against the case. Demonstrate at least some effort of engagement, even if you have no idea what to do. Ask as many questions as you need during CX to figure it out but try to find at least some evidence/analytical argument that is strong.

• Explain your evidence. Everything needs to be thoroughly explained. Making sense of the literature is crucial to good clash debate.

• Closed CX. (1) Debate is a public speaking activity. (2) There’s a reason for four CXs.

• Roadmaps and signposting. Novices get a lot of leeway here.

• Read tags clearly.

• ! calculus. Will vote for the team that wins their impacts.

Dislikes

• Feeding your partner answers in speeches and in CX.

• Reading cards that you cannot explain.

• 1NRs that are constructive speeches. As a former parliamentary debater, it makes my skin crawl.

• Theory. Not a fan of theory unless the other team gives you no choice.

• Shadow extending. Leniency toward novices, but I expect you to be engaging with the evidence and familiarizing yourself with your opponent’s cards as the round progresses. Otherwise, the entire debate will be “extend [author], [date]”, which is just archive-flexing, and we can do that at home. I have higher standards for you all.

• Email chains. Send them for accessibility purposes, but in no way does that excuse you from spending 30 seconds spreading a nuclear war scenario. If I must look at an email chain to know what you're saying, your speaker points will reflect that. I would’ve gone to the library if I wanted to sit and read all day.

• Bad link stories. I need to be convinced of your internal links. Be generous with impact calculus.

• Jargon. Tags and overviews should not be jargony for Kritiks. I have not read a lot of K literature and I'm not remarkably familiar with the literature on this topic. If you can’t explain your Kritik, you shouldn’t be running it. It hurts clash.

• Long overviews. Be smart with your time.

• Spreading. Recently I had a conversation with a debater from my league about how judges are supposed to teach students how to have affective relationships with literature. That we should teach students how to be more ethical people and to understand the assumptions that underline the evidence read in rounds. That reading things for 8 mins with no thought, not flinching when talking about nuclear war and purposefully dissociating to train yourself to spread negatively impacts the affective value of debate. Please help debate be something that I can bring my little siblings to, and they'll learn something about the world versus fixating on the spreading. Centering debate around technique reinforces elitism in debate and can function as a voter if flagged by the other team.

• Rude behavior. Positionality in the debate space is huge. I still see a lot of problems for neurodivergent debaters in this space. Please consider your privilege- and check it. Or else I will do it for you in speaker point deductions. I find rude behavior to be ignorant and discouraging to students interested in debating or continuing their debate careers. I will be exponentially generous with deductions the more you defend your behavior during and after the round. If you're particularly unpleasant, I will make you go outside and touch grass. We will take a walk after the round until we find a tree or something, and I will make you touch the bark or the grass around it while I deliver my RFD (As someone with allergies, I’m only being slightly facetious) …post-rounding will be handled with a similar procedure. If you can afford to be rude then you have not engaged with your evidence and your impacts.

• Leaving DC out of your States CP.

• Having a laptop eye level/blocking face. Like damn, we just went through a pandemic and you’re really not tired of looking at a screen all day?

topspin12.8@gmail.com - add me to email chain

lexington high '22

michigan '26(not debating there)

PF - you do you, be clear, be nice, control big picture arguments and be technical and you will get my ballot - do impact calculus and explain why you're controlling the flow

LD - just check my policy paradigm and i don't like tricks

Policy -

4 years of policy debate - first year out- debated throughout the nat circuit

qualled to toc senior yr if that means anything to you - probably know me best from the wakanda cp memes

TLDR: you do you, control big picture args, be technical, signpost, do coherent line by line, clarity over speed, be kind and respectful and have fun

Preferences:

1. Tech > Truth, but I don't evaluate arguments like racism good(sorry GBN) sexism good etc. because those are intrinsically negative and discriminatory arguments and I feel as a judge I shouldn't be fostering those kinds of discourses in the debate space
2. Framework vs K affs - my favorite debates. I read a K aff for most of my career, both with and without plan texts, but I also went for framework in almost every 2NR against a K aff. In an ideal world where both teams are equally prepared and are evenly matched, I strongly believe the negative would win 9 times out of 10. That being said, this world is not ideal. Now, I don't have a bias against K affs and I love hearing them and I probably get whats going on so you dont have to strike me if you're a K team but make sure you explain what the aff does(even if its nothing) and have a good impact turn to framework. K aff counter-interpretations are bs(sorry LRC) and they almost never solve negative offense. But the negative needs to explain why this is true and have a tangible impact to those deficits. Fairness is an impact, education is also an impact. Tell me how to weigh the two and why your model generates better debates. I'm not a "they said fairness so I'll just vote neg" type of judge but I do believe procedural fairness is an intrinsic necessity to the activity but that doesn't affect how I evaluate arguments if anything it just means I view the debate solely based on who debated better which is a net positive for both teams(I hope).
3. CPs + DAs - these are also fun. I hate CPs with 50 planks and a billion cards to explain each plank so don't do that unless your CP is actually fire. DAs are fine I know there aren't many on this topic but link and impact debating is essential in these debates and I don't think debaters emphasize these portions of the debate as much as they should. I'm a fan of process CPs, consult CPs, CPs in other realities, etc. they usually make the debates more fun to judge. If you are aff against these kinds of CPs I highly suggest you just out debate them on a technical level instead of shrugging them off as crappy args because I am not afraid to vote on meme arguments since I've gone for a bunch myself.
4. T + theory - Topicality debates are fun, and I find myself being split 50-50 on both sides. These debates are best when there's in depth line by line, clear analysis and explanation of your impacts and how your interpretations solve them and clear impacts to DAs to their interp. Just saying "that kills limits" means nothing unless theres a clear explanation of why preserving limits is good. Aff teams should have a counter interp with a solid net benefit and substantial defense to negative interps. You can always go for plan text in a vacuum too since I think negative teams usually fumble that debate but if you do make sure you explain your net benefits to plan text in a vacuum and why it is net better for debate. Theory debates are silly and I hate judging conditionality rounds unless the negative team reads 5+ condo. I do think international, object, and utopian fiat are bad but I'm still likely to vote up teams with arguments that utilize those kinds of fiat if the theory debate is a wash.
5. Impact turns - great and even better when they're paired with advantage counterplans, explain what your UQ is, the different impact modules and if you have an alternative of some sort(like in dedev debates) then why it solves any residual offense. im fine with arguments like spark or wipeout but make sure you ask your opponents first if they're ok with death related arguments before debating them in front of me.
6. Ks on the neg - just do you. I probably know what's going on and I definitely know whats going on in cap k, antiblackness, settler colonialism, anthro, cybernetics, psycho, and unfortunately baudrillard debates. However, if you are to read baudrillard in front of me your speaks are capped at a 28.8.
7. Speaks and presentation - don't call me judge. just call me shreyas. be nice, don't be overly mean its just cringe. be assertive but not aggressive and if you can make me laugh then +0.2 speaks. if i have to yell clear you're losing 0.5 speaks. line by line is my favorite part of debate so good line by line will be rewarded. references to rishi mukherjee, kunal kapoor, will yang, armaan tipirneni, chris yang, matt berhe, chris jun, jeffrey he, atul venkatesh, vinit iyer, alex eum or any lex debater in general gets you +0.3 speaks(unless you say smthn bad about them).

Hey y'all,

Introduction: My name is Ariella Taylor and I am a freshman at Case Western Reserve University. I have experience running Ks (black futuristic stuff and afro pess) and regular policy cases.

Voting: Impact Calc and Internal link explanations are key for my vote. If the debate is coming down to fw please tell me how I am supposed to engage with these arguments, tell me what my role as a judge is in this round.

If you run - DA - CP - Inherency cards, I need you to explain to me why these arguments matter. Many Aff teams state a problem but do not articulate how their plan solves it. I will buy the internal link between the plan and solvency impacts if the neg does not bring it up, but if they even hint at it I will agree and concede to a huge gap in your case. I try to come into each round unbiased, in most cases, I will not care about (for example) whether black people can vote or not, or billions of people dying in a nuclear war if you do not tell me why I should care. Moreover, please please do not assume that I will just buy args because I am black, I will not.

* Note for the Aff: Please try to get to your solvency in the first speech

* Note for the Neg: Do impact calc on your Das and turns

* I will vote any team down for clear bullying.

Please add me to email chains: lexingtonkt@gmail.com

Lexington High School '22.

2A/1N

Disclaimer: My last debate tournament was over a year ago, and I haven't judged any rounds on this topic. I may be a bit rusty. I'm probably best for straight-forward policy rounds, as I've probably forgotten a lot of my K knowledge at this point.

Tech > truth, I'll try to be as non-interventionist as possible. I view it as my job as a judge to adapt to whatever y'alls styles of debate are and not your job to adapt your style of debate to my preferences. You can take this to mean that I'm fine with whatever kinds of arguments you want (besides blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc arguments), as long as you explain it well.

If no one brings up how to weigh impacts, I will default to utilitarianism.

I strongly recommend that the 2NR and 2AR start with a quick overview of why I should vote for the neg or aff team respectively. Judge instruction strongly increases the chance of me seeing the debate round from your perspective, and voting for you.

Analytics are underrated. In my opinion, most arguments in debate can be beaten by a little bit of critical thinking. If you’re facing a new disad for example, I’d much prefer you respond to it in the 2ac with 30 seconds of analytics which take out the logical basis for the DA than 2 minutes of impact defense.

Here are my thoughts on different kinds of arguments:

Disadvantages: A lot of the common DAs on recent have simply made very little logical sense. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but it does mean that an aff team can often beat disadvantages by pointing out their logical holes (even without cards).

Counterplans: These can be very strategic, especially when your disadvantage is somewhat weak. Also, don't feel compelled to only read generic CPs. A lot of the time you can come up with creative aff-specific counterplans just by reading through the other team's evidence or using your brain. Process CPs are also fine, but they can often be beaten by strategic perms.

Kritiks: I'll do my best to evaluate any kritik in an unbiased manner, but I'll be most familiar with security kritiks or kritiks relating to settler colonialism or afropessimism.

K-affs: Not an expert in these, but I've read them on the aff a few times, and been negative against them many times.

--- When going for framework: Neg teams should do more case debate IMO. Especially now that a lot of K affs are basically designed just to beat framework, conceding the affirmative team's case can make it hard to win.

--- When going for a K against a K aff: Go for it, but I may end up being very confused if there's a lot buzzwords involved. I'm most familiar with going for cap against K affs.

Topicality: I tend to lean towards legally precise definitions, as I find them to be the most predictable. Probably slightly aff-biased

Impact turns: Good w me. You can read spark/wipeout/whatever, you just need to justify it.

trancally172@gmail.com

I’ll vote on anything that makes sense and is elaborated upon. I need to feel confident about what I’m voting for. Additionally, tell me what to do as the judge. I won't be connecting the dots for you. If I don’t know who to vote for, we will conduct a lip sync as a tiebreaker.

Debate is a tool meant for expression and empowerment. And so, I’ll be more inclined to vote on performance debates that can captivate, inspire, and/or transform the debate space in any capacity.

I don’t particularly enjoy topicalities. I think the way they’re oftentimes utilized is meant to silence people and their approach to debate.

I don’t enjoy spreading. I think that practice is elitist and ableist. If you’re spreading, I probably won’t be inclined to give you high speaker points especially if I need you to clarify. Other than that, debate how you want and conduct the space as you wish.

Lastly, I don’t tolerate bigotry in the debate space.

David Trigaux

Former (HS + College) debater, 15+ years experienced coach / increasingly old

Director, Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

10 Sec Summary:

I judge 30 rounds at national circuit tournaments each year, cut A LOT of cards on each topic, and am in the middle of the argumentation spectrum. I often judge clash debates. I have some slight preferences (see below), but do your best, be creative, and I am excited to hear whatever style/substance of argumentation you'd like to make.

Accessibility:

I run an Urban Debate League; debate is my full-time job. I work with 500+ students per season, ranging from brand new MS students refining their literacy skills and speaking in front of someone else for the first time to national circuit teams looking to innovate and reach the TOC. Both debaters are equally valuable members of the community and accessibility is a big issue for me. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship and strategies as presented to me in round.

5 Min Before Round Notes:

• Speed: I can handle whatever you throw at me (debate used to be faster than it is now). 75% Speed + emotive is always better than squeezing in that last card or two.
• Policy v Kritik: I was a flex debater and generally coach the same way, though I have run/coached 1 off K and 1 off policy strategies. Teams that adapt and have a specific strategy against the other team almost always do better than those that try to just do one thing and hope it matches up well.
• Theory: I often find these debates shallow/lacking details and trading-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and show me why you don't have other options.
• Creativity + Scholarship: *Moving up for emphasis* I heartily reward hard work, creative thinking, and original research. Be clever, do something I haven't heard before. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat. (Read: Don't barf Open Ev Downloads you can't contextualize) Go do some research!
• Performance: “Back in my day….” Performance Affs were just being invented, and they had a lot more actual “performance” to them (music, costume, choreography, etc.). Spreading 3 lines of poetry and never talking about it again doesn't cut it. I have coached a few performative teams and find myself more and more excited about them....when there is a point to the performance. Focus on why / what the net benefit is of the unique argument / argumentation style.
• Shadow Extending: I literally don’t flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you. Novices get a lot of latitude here; I am always down to help folks develop the fundamentals. Try extending things even if it isn't perfect.
• Email Chains: This is a persuasive activity. If I don’t hear it/flow it, you didn't do enough to win the point and I’m not going to read along and do work for you. I’ll look through the cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your citations.
• About "the State": I was born and live in Washington D.C., have a graduate degree in Political Science, and worked in electoral politics and on public policy issues. This has shaped a pre-disposition that governance of some kind is inevitable. The US government has a poor track-record on many issues, but I find generic "state bad" links unpersuasive, historically untrue, and/or insufficiently nuanced. I think you are better than that, and I challenge you to make nuanced, well researched claims instead. Teams that do usually win and get exceedingly high speaker points, while those that don't usually lose badly. This background also makes me more interested in implementation and methodology of change (government, social movement, or otherwise) than the average judge, so specific and beyond-the-buzzword contextualization on plan/alt, etc. solvency are great.
• Artificial Intelligence: I am going to flesh out these thoughts as the season goes, and as I talk to the great, thoughtful peers in the community, but initially, reading rebuttals written by generative AI seems to be cheating, and actively anti-educational, so if you are doing that, don't, and if you suspect the other team is, raise it as an issue.

Ways to Lose Rounds / Speaker Points:

1. Be a douchebag--I am very flexible with speaker points, heavily rewarding good research, wit, and humor, and am very willing to nuke your speaker points or stop the round if you are rude, demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.
2. Leave D.C. Out: Don't leave D.C. out of your States CP Text or other relevant advocacy statements. There is a racialized history of erasure and abuse of the 750,000 + majority black residents who live here and experience taxation without representation. Don't perpetuate it.
3. Make Debate Less Accessible: I run an Urban Debate League; it is my professional responsibility to make debate more accessible.
1. If you erect a barrier to accessing this activity for someone else, I will vote you down, give you the lowest possible speaker points, report you to TAB, complain to your coach, and anything else I can think of to make your time at this tournament less enjoyable and successful.
2. This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own) when in person. This is a big accessibility question for the activity that gets overlooked a lot, many of our debaters still use paper files.
4. Rude Post-Rounding (especially if it is by a coach who didn't watch the round): I will contact tab and vigorously reduce speaker points for your team after submission.
5. Multi-Minute Overviews: Enough Said
6. Extinction Good: This is an objectionable school of argumentation that usually has some nasty racial undertones. Don't be a troll, get a better strategy.
7. Intentionally Trolly or Technobabble Arguments: If you just want to demonstrate how good you are that you can make up nonsense and win anyway, strike me. There should be a point to what you say which contributes to our understanding of the world.
8. Highly Inaccurate Email Chains: Unfortunately, some folks put a giant pile of cards they couldn’t possibly get through in the email chain, and skip around to the point of confusion, making refutation (and flowing) difficult. It’s lazy at best and a cheap move at worst and will impact your speaks if I feel like it is intentional.

In the Weeds on Specific Argument Structures:

Do: Better Speaks, increase likelihood of winning the round

Don’t: Worse speaks, decrease likelihood of winning the round

Disadvantages:

· I like DAs. Too many debates lack a DA of some kind in the 1NC.

o Do:

§ Research! Cut Updates! Quote a card from this week! I am a huge sucker for new evidence and post-dating, and will make it rain speaker points. Have some creative/Topic/Aff specific DAs.

o Don’t:

§ Read an Elections DA after the election / not know when an election is, or be wrong about what the bill you are talking about does on Agenda Politics DAs.

o Politics DA: Given my background in professional politics, I am a big fan of a well-run/researched politics DA. I read Politico and The Hill daily, enjoy C-SPAN, and many of my best friends work for Congress -- I nerd out for this stuff. I also know that there just isn't a logical scenario some weekends. Do your research, I’ll know if you haven’t.

Counterplans:

· I like a substantive counterplan debate.

o Do:

§ Run a Topic/Aff specific CP, with a detailed, well written/explained CP Texts and/or have some topic specific nuance for Generics (like Courts).

§ Clearly explained net benefit stories.

§ Questionably competitive counterplans (consult, PIC, condition, etc.) that are supported by strong, real world solvency advocates.

§ Substantive, non-theoretical responses (even if uncarded) to CPs.

o Don’t:

§ Forget to perm.

§ Fake a net benefit

§ Default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses too.

Procedurals/Topicality:

· Can be a strong strategy if used appropriately/creatively. If you go into the average round hoping to win on Condo, strike me.

o Do:

§ Prove harm

§ Have qualified evidence and intent to define

§ Slow down. Less jargon, more examples

§ Creative Violations

o Don’t:

§ Use procedurals just to out-tech your opponents, especially if this isn't Varsity.

Case Debate:

· More folks should debate the case, cards or not. Do your homework pre-tournament!

o Do:

§ Have specific attacks on the mechanism or advantage scenarios of the Aff, even if just smart analytics.

§ Make fun impact and link turns that aren't arguing that racism / sexism, etc. is good.

o Don’t:

§ Concede the case for no reason

§ Spend a lot of time reading arguments you can’t go for later or reading new cards that have the same warrants already in the 1AC

Kritiks:

· I started my debate career as a 1 off K Debater and grew to see it as part of a balanced strategy, a good strategy against some affs and not others.

o Do:

§ Read a K that fits the Aff. Reading the same K against every Aff on a topic isn't often the most strategic thing to do.

§ Read Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links.

§ Have coherent Alt solvency with real world examples that a non-debater can understand without having read your solvency author.

§ Tell a non-jargony story in your overview and tags

o Don’t:

§ Read hybrid Ks whose authors wouldn't agree with one another.

§ Read a K you can’t explain in your own words or one that you can’t articulate why it is being discussing a competitive forum or what my role listening to your words is.

§ Generic Links. See note about "The State" above

o Literature: I have read a lot of K literature (Security, Cap, Fem, Anti-Blackness, etc.) but nobody is well versed in all literature bases. Explain your theory as if I haven't read the book.

o Role of the Ballot: I default to serving as a policymaker but will embrace alternative roles if you are clear what I should do instead in your first speech.

· Update: I find myself judging a lot of psychoanalysis arguments, which I find frustratingly unfalsifiable or just hard to believe or follow. I'd love to be proven wrong, but run at your own risk.

Public Forum: (Stolen from Sim Low, couldn't have said it better)

I'm sorry that you're unlucky enough to get me as a judge. I'll be grumpy and tell how PF was created as a result of white flight and the American pursuit of Anti-Intellectualism far more than you want to hear (but less than you need, if you are still doing PF). If you do not have cards with proper citations, you paraphrase, and/or you don't have full text evidence ready to share with the other team pre-round, I will immediately vote for your opponents. If both of you happen to ignore academic integrity, I will put my feet up, not flow, and vote based on.....whatever vibes come to me, or who I agree with more. I also might extend my RFD to the length of a policy round to actually develop some of the possibilities of your arguments. Without academic integrity, this is a Speech event and will be judged accordingly.

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Lexington High School '21, MIT '25

Pronouns he/him

Please add me to the chain: doubleturnsareouroffense@gmail.com

If you open source I will boost your speaks +0.3. Tell me before I submit my ballot.

I will judge all debates in the following manner after the 2NR/2AR:

1) Framing issues - I will circle these on my flow and then determine how they interact with other arguments

2) Line by Line - I will see how the line by line resolves said framing issues if needed and then determine what specific subset of arguments each team won with minimal intervention/assumption from me as a judge. It will suit your chances of winning and speaks well if you did this.

3) If needed, I will read evidence to resolve ev quality/warrant level issues that appear in the line by line.

4) Intervention - this is on you if you don't do enough argument resolution/decision framing/line by line in your rebuttals. Usually will not happen unless both teams completely drop the line by line.

Other things you might find relevant to your preffing calculus -

1) I have zero topic knowledge - nothing about T-norms etc. Extra explanation will serve you well.

2) K-affs - I prefer if you have some semblance of relationship to the topic and counter define words in the resolution. Ultimately however, the path to my ballot for the aff is solid impact turn debating along with a significant defense to neg offense.

3) Limits, fairness, and clash are generally good things. Reasonability generally is not a thing if warranted poorly. A good substance crowd-out story would serve you well if you have to go for it.

4) Theory stuff - multiple condo and perf-con are warranted to an extent. A 2AR that wins on it will have to have a pretty good abuse story. Really good for well thought out PICs that aren't about semantics/reps. Generally good for process CPs but bad for consult. Conditional CP planks and 2NC CPs are bad. I don't judge kick unless instructed to do so.

5) Terminal defense is a thing I guess if warranted extremely heavily and well substantiated with great evidence. I'll still be grumpy about voting on it though.

6) With the K, framework and specific links are everything. Unique turns case arguments can also win my ballot.

7) Please read unique arguments! Impact turns, weird procedurals, bizarre CPs. I'm all for them if they're well warranted. Generally, interesting debates => higher speaks.

8) New arguments have to be called out in the next speech in order to be rejected, otherwise I'll evaluate them. So if the 2NR makes new arguments the 2AR has to call them out. This doesn't need to be high effort you just need one sentence acknowledging your opponent's arguments are new. The only exception to this is if the new args are in the 2AR.

And most importantly have fun and don't stress too much.

I’m Zach, freshman debater at Georgetown.

Yes, I want to be on the chain: zinobzach@gmail.com

TLDR: Anything is fine if you stay big picture, tell me what the central question of the debate is and how I should evaluate it.

Long Thoughts:

I am here because I wanna judge good debates. I don't care what you read as long as you think it's you doing your best. That being said, I have some thoughts that could be useful: I tend to read the K and am familiar with most K lit bases (primarily "high theory" if it means anything to you), but will vote on anything as long as you win your offense. DON’T CHANGE YOUR STRATEGY OR OVERADAPT! I’m just making you aware of how I tend to debate, but will vote for the team that wins.

T/Theory:

Condo is fine until I look annoyed, then 2A’s are invited to go for it. I think perf con is the biggest independent reason to reject a team, especially if you’re reading a K aff. Topicality debates bore me and I’m quick to vote on reasonability. I think critical theory args are cool but you have to impact out your offense as much as possible.

Case Debate/Impact Turns:

LOVE THIS. I love when the neg talks about the aff, challenges their impact directly, challenges their advantages, it’s literally my favorite thing. From death good to Dedev, the impact turn is definitely one of my favorite kinds of debates. I think 2NRs/2ARs here should be smarter and sit on the bigger picture arguments, instead of extending six pieces of evidence on four separate issues that don’t really matter to the debate more broadly. Especially against K affs, I think impact turning their method (resiliency bad, IDpolitics bad, party bad) and presumption are really underutilized.

DA/CPs:

2NR/2AR need to write my ballot. I understand most of what is going on, but need you to do the work on what that means for the world of the aff. Impact calc is a MUST. Know that I have not been involved in a lot of these debates so I am a little out of my comfort zone judging them. That being said, explain what’s happening at the important parts and be clear as to what is winning you the debate and you’ll get my ballot.

FW Vs. K Affs:

Aff: More offense. Counterinterps rarely do much and if they do you have to explain them to me. What does your model of debate look like? How does it resolve their offense? How does it resolve yours? I am reluctant to vote on “they excluded our aff/scholarship/position” type arguments if there is a warranted TVA or switch side claim in the 2NR (not just a random extension, but contextual defense), I think that these exclusion type args are substituted for offense against their actual framework claims. It is very easy to garner offensive turns on most of the shitty truth testing/cede the political turns that no negative team will actually go for and you can now force them to have to defend. Just win your offense and why it outweighs.

Neg: Don’t change your strategy for me. If you like going for fairness, go for fairness. If you go for movements, go for movements. But know that I need a lot more impact explanation if you go for a framework arg that isn’t something to do with education and political engagement. I tend to find “they also rely on fair judging” and “debate is a game” as annoying args with no real purpose by the end of the debate. My biggest piece of 2NR advice is to flow the 1AR closely. K teams almost never do enough 1AR work on framework and you can take advantage of 1AR drops/warrantless arguments to make most of their offense go away. Win why your offense turns the aff or their offense, and talk about the aff as much as possible.

Ks on the Neg:

Neg: Mostly read kritiks but it means I’ll have a pretty high threshold to vote on it-you have to explain the theory and can’t expect me to vote on “they dropped ressentiment, ontology, information is dissuasive, etc.” without any further warranted explanation of what that means for the debate. I think people underestimate the benefit of reading one off. I also think K teams have most of their trouble on the alternative, explaining the alternative, or winning that it’s enough to overcome deficits in framework. As far as the 2NR goes, you should try to give some kind of judge direction, write my ballot if you can. You can use framework to overcome problems with your alt, but I’m hesitant to completely moot an aff based on a dropped FW DA that hasn’t been impacted out.

Aff: Stick to your guns. Most of these Ks try to distract you from talking about what you want to talk about (your aff), so use it more. Your advantages are also offensive reasons why most of their theory isn't contextually true. Use the 1AC more. I’m not talking about adding a bunch of framing cards to the bottom, but instead you should use the advantages, impacts, and value statements behind your aff as offense against the K instead of links. This only works if your advantages are good, though. I think terror and disease advantages are terrible against the kritik and generally K teams have a very easy time answering them.

KvK Debate:

Hinges almost completely on the perm. I’d almost recommend negatives kick the alt in the 2NR if you’re winning enough offense and turns case analysis. “No Perms in Method Debates” is an arg that isn’t super convincing but 1ARs almost always drop or mishandle it. Aff perms are broken in these debates and need to be very thoroughly addressed by the neg. That being said, I love these debates even if they are hard to evaluate. The brunt of your work on the aff and neg should be offensive reasons why the perm is or isn’t true.

Ethics:

--- Do not clip. if you don't know what that means, it refers to representing that you read evidence, or parts of evidence, that you didn't. It's cheating.

---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is is entirely up to me." – Truf.

Feel free to email to ask me anything before or after the round or any clarifying questions about this paradigm.