CX(Policy) Debate

I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech.

T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(22-23), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round.

DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.

CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.

K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see.

ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.

Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.

Last, I WILL NOT INTEREST. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.

Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

(I,E UIL.TFA/NSDA EXPECTATIONS)

I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.

Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

LD Debate

I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief.

Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber

I have found that most PO in my balloting history will start in the 3 positions, and your effectiveness in this position will dictate if you move up or down from this position. I do place a premium on speeches, as I still think this is the most important piece to the event, so it will be common for my ballot that the speakers are ranked higher than POs, but if this is done well can push them to the top of a chamber but it is harder for these characters in the chamber to get my 1s.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

Interp

These are my weakest events to judge...That doesn't mean that I can't, just that I believe my qualifications are less in this event. I do place a premium on some of the speaking tactics over the theatrical elements (blocking). Not that I won't appreciate your movements and evaluate them throughout the performance, but it's not unheard of that someone who can tell an effective story and take me through their performance allowing me to feel what their performance is asking, will have better success with me over someone who uses blocking to communicate these moments throughout your performance. I would encourage you to utilize both throughout the performance as that is ideally what I am looking for in this performance. My best encouragement to you if I am judging your interp round, is to probably block less and what you do block, make sure that it has a purpose other than the "over-top" movements won't be as effective with me at the back of the room. I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

UPDATE 10/14/22

TL:DR

I have not updated by paradigm in well over a decade but much of what I wrote then continues to be true. I've been coaching/judging various styles and forms of debate for over 12 years. I am most comfortable judging debates in Policy, Lincoln-Douglass, and Public Forum. I flow and listen to all arguments, so please debate in whichever way you are most comfortable and I will attempt to evaluate it to the best of my ability. That being said, if you have a position that is complicated or difficult to follow, the onus is on the debaters to ensure that their arguments are well explained. I will not vote on arguments that I do not understand or are blatantly offensive/discriminatory. Otherwise, try  to have fun!

My email for chains is: carlito2692@gmail.com

Old Paradigm:

I competed in LD at University High School in Newark New Jersey, I was nationally competitive for three years.. I also compete in policy debate for Rutgers University.

Presumption: I typically presume neg unless the affirmative advances arguments for why presumption should flow aff (i.e the negative team introduces a counterplan/kritik alt/etc.

Speed: I don't generally have an issue with speed, however I do have a problem with monotone speed, unclear speed. I will yell clear if I can't understand you, but it will only be maybe once or twice, if you don't become clear by then, my ability to properly evaluate the arguments may possibly become impaired. Also, your speaks probably won't be awesome if I have to keep yelling clear.

-I would like you to significantly slow down when reading tags/card names so I can have a properly structured flow, but while reading the card you are welcome to go at top CLEAR speed(a few caveats to be explained later)

-When making analytical arguments, please be clear, because it's difficult for me to follow analytics when they are weirdly phrased and also being spread.

-I don't like speed for the sake of being fast, I prefer when speed is used as a catalyst for an awesome case or a multilayered rebuttal with really nuanced responses on case.

Evidence: Despite what happened in the round, I may call for the cites for cards read in round, I'll specify which specific cites I would like to see. I do this for two reasons: to ensure that there was no miscutting of evidence, and because I believe in disclosure and am from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the round. I don't appreciate a denial to share citations, if citations are not readily available, I may choose to disregard all evidence with missing citations(especially evidence which was contested in the debate).

Cross Examination: I don't know how much I can stress it...CROSS EX IS BINDING! I don't care if you present arguments for why it shouldn't be binding or why lying in CX is ok, or any arguments with the implication which allows dishonesty in CX, there is NO theory to be ran to change my mind. Nevertheless, I don't flow CX, so its up to the debaters to refresh my memory of any inconsistencies between speeches and CX answers. On the other hand, CX can be the BEST or the WORST part of a debate, depending on how it plays out. A funny yet not disrespectful CX will score big when I'm deciding on how to assign speaks, while a rude and boring CX will negatively influence how I assign speaks. Clarification questions during prep is fine, but I'm not cool with trying to tear down an argument during prep, if it was that important, it should have been in the formal CX, rather than during prep. Don't be afraid to refuse to answer a non-clarification question during your opponents prep time.

Critical/Weird Arguments: I love well explained critical positions. With the caveat that these critical arguments are logically explained and aren't insanely convoluted. I have no issue voting for the argument. But if I can't understand it, I won't vote on it. Also, I am a fan of interesting debate, so if you have a neat performance to run in front of me, I would love to hear it!

Theory: I don't presume to competing interpretations or reasonability. The justification for either one needs to be made in round. I don't like greedy theory debates, which means that I generally view theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than the debater. YES, this means you must provide reasons in or after the implications section of your shell, for why this specific violation is a reason for me to use my ballot against the other debater. I'm not persuaded by generic 12 point blocks for why fairness isn't a voter, I prefer nuanced argumentation for why fairness may not be a voter. RVIs have to be justified but I'm willing to vote on them if the situation presents itself, but its up to you to prove why you defensively beating theory is enough for me to vote for you.

Prestandard: I don't like having preconceived beliefs before judging a round, but this is just one of those things that I need to reinforce. I WILL NOT vote on multiple apriori blips, and winning a single apriori is an uphill battle, a serious commitment to advocacy is necessary(you devote a serious amount of time to the apriori position.)

Speaks: I average about a 27, I doubt I'll go lower than 25(unless you do something which merits lower than a 25) because I personally know how disappointing the 4-2/5-2 screw can be, nevertheless I am more than willing to go up or down, depending on the performance in that particular round. The reason I average around a 27 is not because I generally don't give nice speaks, its because the majority of tournaments, I'll judge only a few rounds that deserve more than a 28. It's not difficult at all to get good speaks from me. I reserve 30's for debaters who successfully execute the following: speak really well, good word economy, good coverage/time allocation, takes risks when it comes to strategy, weighs really well, provides AWESOME evidence comparison, and adapts well to the things happening in the round. I really enjoy seeing new strategies, or risky strategies, I.E. I am a fan of the straight refutation 1N, attempting something risky like this and pulling it off, gives you a higher chance of getting a 30. Another way to get high speaks is to be a smart debater as well as funny without being mean or making any kind of jokes at the expense of your opponent(this will lose you speaks)

Delivery: I need evidence comparison! It makes me really happy when debaters do great evidence comparison. Also, I would appreciate for you to give status updates as the rebuttals progress, as well as giving me implications for each extension. When extending arguments which rely on cards, in order for it to be a fully structured extension it must contain: The claim/tag of the card, author/card name, warrant from the card, and the implications of that extension (what does it do for you in the round).

Miscellaneous: You are more than welcome to sit or stand, I don't mind people reading from laptops or being paperless as long as it doesn't delay the round. Also, I don't care if you are formally dressed, jeans and a tshirt will get you the same speaks that a shirt and a tie will. :) I also believe its impossible for me to divorce my judging from my beliefs, but I'll do my best to attempt to fairly adjudicate the debate.

P.S. I don't like performative contradictions...(just felt like I should throw that out there)

About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjae (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

add me to the email chain- elizabethb1880@gmail.com

Truth is unimportant, I decide based on the flow and am willing to suspend all logic and follow the directions of the debaters. I will flow cross x. Judge instruction for how I should evaluate / prioritize arguments matters a lot for me. I believe that I think about debates less than the average judge, and I like it when the debaters basically do the thinking for me. This is largely because I feel the more I think about the round, the worse my intervention gets. I find myself often deciding debates pretty quickly, so telling me which arguments I should prioritize and how they interact will be more beneficial than letting me figure it out after the 2ar.

I am extremely unlikely to vote on an argument about a debater's character based on events that occurred outside of the round. If the round is a high school debate, I won't vote on it ever.

I don’t like to decide debates on my own opinions of evidence quality. If you card is better, explain why. That being said, I do actually read most of the cards in the debate - I just don't want to vote on my own interpretation of the cards but will if left undebated.

Insert generic statement about how while all judges have their predisposition, I try my best to limit it when making decisions. However, everyone makes that claim. Some things that may illuminate my potential biases: I read exclusively policy argument for four years at the University of Iowa and throughout high school (Niles West). I currently coach at the University of Iowa, and primarily work with a K squad. I am currently getting my MPH degree in Biostatistics. Two people who have influenced how I think about both debate and in general are Ethan Muse and Ellis Chen. My baseline emotion is something close to boredom. My astrological sun sign is a capricorn. My ssn begins with a 3. My will to power is weak. My will to transparency is strong. I want to know everything, please share all your gossip with me.

Argument Specific Preferences

Framework - best neg framework impact for me is fairness. I don't understand skills type impacts. I have a hard time understanding debate as not a game at its most basic core. Being too defensive with a K aff often loses me. Being too much with framework "debate gives us clash and skills to advocate for change in the real world and break down ideologies" equally feels unpersuasive.

Ks on the neg - I will decide the framework debate firmly for one side unless it's specifically advocated for some middle ground interpretation of framework. No matter how much of a wash it may be.

CPs - I default to judge kick unless successfully instructed to otherwise. I'm pretty lenient with what the negative is allowed to fiat. Sufficiency framing doesn't make that much sense to me, but you do you.

Be very clear what is going on in competition debates. I suspect these rounds are where I would give the weirdest RFDs, and usually prefer resolve debates substantively first if possible.

Daryl Burch

currently the director of high school debate for McDonogh

formerly coached at the University of Louisville, duPont Manual High School (3X TOC qualifiers; Octofinalist team 2002) the head coach for Capitol Debate who won the TOC.  McDonogh won the TOC in 2007.  I have taught summer institutes at the University of Michigan, Michigan State, Emory, Iowa, Catholic University, and Towson University and Wake Forest as a lab leader.

I debated three years in high school on the kentucky and national circuit and debated five years at the University of Louisville.

I gave that little tidbit to say that I have been around debate for a while and have debated and coached at the most competitive levels with ample success. I pride myself in being committed to the activity and feel that everyone should have a voice and choice in their argument selection so I am pretty much open to everything that is in good taste as long as YOU are committed and passionate about the argument. The worst thing you can do in the back of the room is assume that you know what I want to hear and switch up your argument selection and style for me and give a substandard debate. Debate you and do it well and you will be find.

True things to know about me:
Did not flow debates while coaching at the University of Louisville for two years but am flowing again

Was a HUGE Topicality HACK in college and still feel that i am up on the argument. I consider this more than a time suck but a legitimate issue in the activity to discuss the merit of the debate at hand and future debates. I have come to evolve my thoughts on topicality as seeing a difference between a discussion of the topic and a topical discussion (the later representing traditional views of debate- division of ground, limits, predictability etc.) A discussion of the topic can be metaphorical, can be interpretive through performance or narratives and while a topical discussion needs a plan text, a discussion of the topic does not. Both I think can be defended and can be persuasive if debated out well. Again stick to what you do best. Critiquing topicality is legitimate to me if a reverse voting issue is truly an ISSUE and not just stated with unwarranted little As through little Gs. i.e. framework best arguments about reduction of language choices or criticism of language limitations in academic discussion can become ISSUES, voting issues in fact. The negative's charge that the Affirmative is not topical can easily be developed into an argument of exclusion begat from predictable limitations that should be rejected in debate.

It is difficult to label me traditional or non traditional but safer to assume that i can go either way and am partial to traditional performative debate which is the permutation of both genres. Teams that run cases with well developed advantages backed by a few quality pieces of evidence are just as powerful as teams that speak from their social location and incorporate aesthetics such as poetry and music. in other words if you just want to read cards, read them poetically and know your argument not just debate simply line by line to win cheap shots on the flow. "They dropped our simon evidence" is not enough of an argument for me to win a debate in front of me. If i am reading your evidence at the end of the debate that is not necessairly a good thing for you. I should know what a good piece of evidence is because you have articulated how good it was to me (relied on it, repeated it, used it to answer all the other arguments, related to it, revealed the author to me) this is a good strategic ploy for me in the back of the room.

Technique is all about you. I must understand what you are saying and that is it. I have judged at some of the highest levels in debate (late elims at the NDT and CEDA) and feel pretty confident in keeping up if you are clear.

Not a big fan of Malthus and Racism Good so run them at your own risk. Malthus is a legitimate theory but not to say that we should allow systematic targeted genocide of Black people because it limits the global population. I think i would be more persuaded by the argument that that is not a NATURAL death check but an IMMORAL act of genocide and is argumentatively irresponsible within the context of competitive debate. Also i am not inclined to believe you that Nietzsche would say that we should target Black people and exterminate them because death is good. Could be wrong but even if i am, that is not a persuasive argument to run with me in the back of the room. In case you didn't know, I AM A BLACK PERSON.

Bottom line, I can stomach almost any argument as long as you are willing to defend the argument in a passionate but respectful way. I believe that debate is inherently and unavoidable SUBJECTIVE so i will not pretend to judge the round OBJECTIVELY but i will promise to be as honest and consistent as possible in my ajudication. Any questions you have specifically I am more than happy to answer.

Open Cross X, weird use of prep time (before cross x, as a prolonging of cross x) all that stuff that formal judges don't like, i am probably ok with.

db

jmu '25

2x ndt qualifier, ceda doubles x2

affiliations: berk prep (2022-), solon and saint ignatius (2021-22)

mconcon4@gmail.com

bprep-debate@googlegroups.com

tl;dr

tech>truth

I primarily run policy arguments and coach critical ones.

will vote on 0 risk

I have found that aff teams are just not sufficiently extending solvency to any of their advantages, internal links, etc., thus the I find myself having a lower threshold for neg offense

speed is fine (I will only "clear" you once and then ill flow what I can)

call me matty or matt not judge (he/him)

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

clipping = auto L an 0

unlikely to vote on things that happened outside of the round

K Affs/FW

I think K affs should have some relation to the topic and am less persuaded by debate bad arguments. you don't need a c/I to win. I am persuaded by both fairness and clash. the easiest way to my ballot is establishing external offense vs internal link turns and do real impact comparison. presumption isn't gone for as much as it probably should. contextualizing the links to how they specifically destroy the ability of the alt to happen will help you out a lot. don't assume I know any of your lit.

Ks

fine. you can win without an alt, however I prefer if you generate UQ from somewhere else rather then going for the k as a linear disad. I think teams spend way to much time on fw, in almost every case the aff gets to weigh the 1ac and the neg gets reps links.

CPs

I like well thought out advantage cps. affs don't utilize their 1ac enough when answering cps. condo is good, multi-plank condo is good. pretty much all other theory is probably a reason to reject the arg.

DAs

fine. I like complex stories with clear internal link turns to the aff or some form of cirvumvention/a solvency take out. teams who explain how the direction of x shapes the direction of y are much more likely to win a close debate. I will probably not read you ev during the debate, but if the final rebuttals include a DA, please send a card doc.

T

default to competing interps but its not hard to get me to vote on reasonability. the simpler the definition/the clearer the violation the better.

misc

organization/signposting is important

I enjoy impacts turns/traps/double binds etc.

trailer park boys references = +.1 speaks

have fun

Strath Haven '20 Northwestern '24

I debated in high school, but I don't debate in college.

Updated for the 2023-2024 topic: Blake will be the first time I judge this topic. I haven't done any topic research prior, and I'm pretty far removed from the activity now. I'll try my best though.

General:

- Add me to the chain jding67@gmail.com also add mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

- If you're fully open source on the wiki (every card you read in your debates), tell me after the round for +0.3 speaks.

- Tech > Truth, but arguments need to be coherent and complete (claim, warrant, impact)

- Do what you do best. I was primarily on the policy-side of things when I debated, but have a good amount of experience debating the K. Take that as you will, but I'm pretty open to everything.

- Please read re-highlightings and not just insert.

- Jake Lee is my role model in debate. I may be washed and disconnected, but his passion for the activity, community, and education is very admirable. I'm with him on the idea that debate should be fun and enjoyable, so please have fun!

DA:

- Love them, but of course, there are quality disads and silly ones.

- Link debating and comparative analysis puts a smile on my face.

- I was a 1N that gave a lot of 1NRs on politics.

CP:

- Also love a good counterplan. Having good solvency evidence or mechanism explanation is important for me.

- Process counterplans get a little less love.

- Most theory, besides Condo, are reasons to reject the arg. Debate it out though.

Case Turns:

- Fine with me.

Topicality:

- Not going to lie, it's a personal weakness of mine. Probably not the best judge for these debates.

- Will probably default to competing interps. Prefer limit args.

K Affs:

- Creative, strategic, AFFs that have something to say about the resolution are preferred.

- My partner and I used to go for fairness as an impact on T-USFG

- Again, pretty open to hearing whatever arg wise. Just explain everything coherently. Obviously, don't be offensive.

Ks vs. Policy Affs:

- Links to the plan and turns case are definitely favored, but not necessarily required.

- Framework and alternative debating are both important for me. FW dictates how I evaluate the arguments.

- I've seen a lot of different areas of scholarship introduced in debate, but don't assume I know what you're talking about as well as you may.

About me/TL;DR:

• She/her
• Debated at Iowa City West High School 2014-2018
• Education: UMich - Bachelor's ('22) and Master's ('23) studying Economics, Cognitive Science, Biopsychology, Cognition and Neuroscience (BCN), and Management (Master's)

If you get one thing out of my paradigm, it's that I don't flow off docs, I don't look at docs during the debate, and I only look at cards if the debate is really close and the debate hinges on 1-3 cards and there's something about the card itself that is contested (rare event).

Another thing: prep stops when you hit send on your email, not "stop prep, okay I'm sending it out"

With that being said, please put me on the email chain: laernst@umich.edu just in case that rare situation happens.

I have a name, please use it. I will be sad if I am only referred to as "judge".

IF ONLINE: please speak a little slower (tech sound distortion makes you and me sad), and hold timers away from your computer mic, I'm jumpy and the loud beeps are yucky to my brain(especially if they're mid speech, I will likely stop flowing for a sec and potentially miss something)

Ask questions if you want clarification or if I forgot anything :)

Please put trigger warnings on your args as needed and ask if they're okay before the round (for the sake of myself and your opponents) -- one caveat: please do not read su*cide arguments in front of me -- I will go to tab and get you a different judge if needed but no one wants to deal with me crying in the back.

Long Overview --

I debated primarily policy arguments throughout high school and if you rely on jargon my brain will shut off and you will be just as frustrated with me as I am with you. However, I'll be open to whatever you want to debate, just be aware I might need additional explanation. In general, case-specific everything is wonderful. I also actually enjoy well-executed kritiks, just don't read a 2-minute overview, and if you say "sarcophagous DA" I will mentally cry.

Caveat to "open to whatever": if you make the round an unsafe space (race, gender, mental health, disability, etc based), I will end the round, drop you and give you the lowest speaks I can and probably follow up with your coach. Be mature, and good people. If you think "can I say this?" don't. Also, asking for pronouns is always okay. You also are never obligated to share your pronouns.

Also, debate is supposed to be fun, not stressful. Have fun, be nice, and if you make me laugh or excited your speaks will increase. Also, if you get excited about an argument, I'll get excited because smiles and laughter are contagious.

I vote on what I can give a coherent RFD on. If I look lost, I probably am. Help me help you. If at the end of the round, I don't understand your theory, I will not vote on it. I avoid going into the email chain and I do not flow off speech docs. I make decisions based on the shortest path.

Since I do not flow off of speech docs, I would recommend looking up occasionally to see if I am flowing. If I'm not and you want me to be, slow down and fix your clarity. It is not on me to fix your clarity. I will stop flowing and stare at you if I can't understand what you're saying. Oh I also flow cross x. Same thing applies. During cross and in general, remember you should be facing and speaking to the judge. Also, if it's early, you should slow down, no one can go their fastest first thing in the morning.

It has recently come to my attention that ethics violations with respect to broken links, forgetting authors in a cite, etc., are popular ballot-winning tactics. I, for the most part, will not vote on this. Save your crappy ethics violation for a different round, you probably need those 20 seconds to explain a warrant in your card. That being said, if something is legitimately an ethics violation (e.g. clipping cards), I'll vote on that in a heartbeat.

Generic stuff --

I will do my best to be open if you're doing your best to communicate. Debate isn't about who can speak the fastest, it's about who can EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE ARGUMENTS the best (aka how many arguments the judge gets on their flow per minute). I love watching people do what they love and I love to learn, so feel free to do whatever as long as you're confident you can communicate your argument to me and teach me something.

I will not make arguments for you, something has to be on the flow and I try to avoid judge intervention as much as possible. Also along those lines, dropped = true, but you have to tell me WHY IT MATTERS that they dropped it. Otherwise, I'll be frustrated.

If you make any argument vaguely related to behavioral or decision science there will be at least a small part of me that gets really excited, especially if it's psychology related.

My high school experience would land me squarely in the "policy" camp, but y'know I'm here to watch you do something you love so don't stop doing what you love because you're afraid I'll drop you on principle. I read big stick policy affs my first two years in high school, then ended with my senior year reading a soft left aff I cared about and going for the cap k consistently (was a 2A, switched to 2N). Also, I discovered that I like Ks more after finishing my undergrad and returning to debate.

T --

I default to competing interpretations, usually because reasonability is incorrectly debated most of the time. Reasonability applies to the definition, not the aff, that is, is your definition something a reasonable person thinks that word means. Please go slower on T. Don't spread it like you would a card because I'll miss half your standards and everyone will be sad at the end of the debate. Probably especially you.

K --

I'm most comfortable with cap and security. Pomo usually makes me want to cry because it relies so heavily on jargon. If you can successfully explain your kritik with minimal (preferably zero) jargon, I am 110% here for that. However, I am not heavily versed in the lit. The same goes for identity Ks. I love a good identity debate, but I'll need additional explanation because I do not read the lit. Psychoanalysis is a) a pseudo-science, b) written by Freud and I just disagree with what he called "science," and c) is usually not deployed well in debate. I will vote on it, but I'll be sad.

The alt better solve the impacts of the kritik. Otherwise, everyone will be sad.

Also, it'll be difficult to convince me to exclude either the aff or the k.

If I haven't made it clear enough, I hate jargon. It's a crutch and to me, usually functions as words to freak the other team out. My main issue with kritiks is that the theories behind them are usually deployed poorly in debate and come off as an attempt to confuse or intimidate the other team. I am intrigued by the theories behind most Ks, so please explain your argument to me, I'd love to learn more about your theories.

Planless affs --

Look, I went for f/w consistently. I can be persuaded either way, but everyone has to do explanation otherwise I'm going to be sad. Specific analysis of each other's arguments makes the debate better for everyone. I'd rather see a negative strategy engaging with the thesis of the aff rather than framework. For the love of debate and coherent RFDs please explain things.

Aff, labeling your DAs is nice and all but "Sarcophagus DA" makes me sad. That tells me not a lot about the DA and honestly, you probably could have made the same argument without labeling it as a DA. Also, if you show that there is a role for the neg in your world of debate, I am much more likely to vote for you.

Rejecting debate altogether will probably make me sad.

Neg, fairness can be won as an impact in itself, but can also be an internal link to other stuff - e.g. there's a distinction between fairness as a competitive incentive and fairness in terms of education. Make your analysis specific to the aff, don't just read the blocked-out version that your coach gave you.

Topic-specific planless affs actually make me really happy. There was an identity team that I debated on the education topic that had a beautiful model minority aff without a plan and I loved that debate. If you can teach me, great.

CP --

I love me a smart counterplan. Be it a PIC or winged in the 1NC because of a card in the 1AC, if it's smart and kinda sneaky I love it. However, don't be awful and read a lot of one-liner counterplans because that ends up being a waste of paper which will make me sad because I like trees. Plus that sucks as a 2A and I'll listen to theory.

Process counterplans are cool IF THE PROCESS MAKES SENSE IN CONTEXT OF THE AFF. Throwing a process CP at an aff and hoping it sticks is bad. I'll listen to process theory, but it usually isn't a reason to reject the team. These just get kinda tricky so you'd better have a darn good explanation for competition and a legitimate net benefit that isn't contrived and just kinda awful *insert snarky GBN comment here*

2 advocacies, you're fine. 3, you're probably still okay. 4 is pushing it, but if you have a really good reason you might be able to pull it off.

Disclaimer, since I was a 2A for a while, I am sympathetic to theory. However, I usually default to reject the argument, not the team (add reasoning for this please please please if you spread theory I'll be sad).

Theory (because it fits under counterplans best)-- I will just about only vote on condo unless it's something that is never answered but is impacted out. Please, if I have to vote on intrinsic bad or severance bad for a perm you do not go for because you forgot to say "reject the argument not the team solves all of their offense," I will be SAD. Seriously, could be the LAST SPEECH OF THE ROUND AND YOU DROPPED IT THE REST OF THE ROUND BECAUSE IT WAS BLIPPY and I'll grant "reject the arg not the team."

DA --

The more case-specific the better. I am a fan of storytelling and if you can coherently explain link chains and internal links and have it sound more plausible than some DAs sound, I'll be happy.

I feel like I have to mention politics DAs at some point in this. I love politics but gut check yourself, don't pick your most obscure scenario, and hope the other team doesn't have answers because if it's that obscure, a good 2A will wipe the floor with you with just analytics.

For economics, please understand the economic theory behind your disad. I studied econ and I enjoy these arguments, but they're bad disads when not understood or executed poorly. Hopefully it's not an issue this year.

Also, case turns are good. Really good.

I reserve the right to end the debate due to anti-blackness

I evaluate debates based on offense/defence.

brixztheflip@gmail.com

Hello college debate its been quite a while (2016) I'm sure you barely recognize me. Also what's up texas debate? I just hope yall are exciting and keep me engaged the whole time. It'd be darn shame if we spent all that time together being bored.

My favorite ice breaker is two truths and a lie. Feel free to tell me your guesses as well as your two truths and a lie.

1. From my first tournament ever to my last tournament when i was debating you would've seen me playing guitar and singing songs as arguments. (It'd be cool to see other musicians use their talents in debate)

2. My last 4 debate partners all went on to win one or more collegiate national championships either as a debater or coach.

3. My freshman year of college I debated in somewhere around 148 policy debate rounds.

Now back to your regularly scheduled paradigm....

Coach For Hire Based out of San Antonio for now.

Honestly kind of a wildcard, I find myself voting in ways I never would’ve thought of quite often. At one point in time, I was a well-known policy debater, now I might as well be anyone they just picked up on the way to the tournament.

I’ve judged everything from the finals of CEDA Nationals to pf finals at NSDA. Debate and music pays my rent and puts food on my table, this is a job for me, so take that seriously. I am a member of the Cherokee Nation, I grew up in a suburban Chicano/Filipino American Household… I say this because Debates that most capture my heart occur in a similar fashion to the arguments we make at the dinner table. In my house things are not up for discussion unless you have shown that you are the absolute AUTHORITY on any given subject. In other words I need you to be such a convincing expert that like my Mima you can just say "because I told you so" and the debate ends there. Proof of expertise can be given in many forms, compelling evidence or spin, testimony to life experience, maybe you can just say things really assertively... I don't care what you do just don't fumble the ETHOS.

HIGH SCHOOL POLICY: There aren’t a lot of arguments I haven’t seen/heard/smelled… I like clear-cut offense in policy debates. It’s very rare that I vote for anything along the lines of “gotta have a plan” or Topicality in general. I’ve coached both high school and college teams on the explicit premise that the topic and or community engaging the topic is flawed in some way. Ideal debates for me will be more about performance and method, I’m more intrigued by what you did/do than the hypothetical. Even when doing fiat style debate, you need to defend it like it has benefits. If heg/cap is good you gotta sell me on a unique enough reason why in THIS instance I NEED/HAVE NO CHOICE OTHER THAN vote for you. Uniqueness absolutely determines the direction of the link for me in more traditional debates. Although I believe in my heart that conditionality is bad, it's hard for me to vote for condo bad when it is debated so nebulously, I generally believe that the negative should have access to everything under the sun to negate the affirmative.

LD: The best LD debates for me are not some mutant reproduction of old policy arguments and styles. I’m a great judge for you if you read a plan text and go multiple off, but in the back of my mind, I wish more LDers would push arguments against fiat, against this way of debating. My ideal form of debate is based on evaluating performance and method… I.e. I think what you do/did is more important than what could potentially happen if x hypothetical policy were passed. Also after judging a significant amount of y’all on the national circuit I’d like to know who is “we”…A lot of top-level LDers are getting away with regurgitating policy arguments to the point where they don’t even think or change up the blocks. I can’t be the only one slightly concerned at the implications of debaters mindlessly reading whatever is on the page right?

PF: I want a copy of your evidence so I can look at it for myself, preferably a speech doc too… other than that these debates are all about uniqueness and terminal impacts for me. I want a clear and cut disadvantage to your opponents' case… it can’t just be a “here’s our side, here’s their side” type of thing. Challenge sources, challenge privilege, and bias. Don’t be afraid to think outside of the box.

Paradigm 

I vote on almost anything if you win the debate. I believe that debate should be an even competition of what happens in the round and how it affects the outside world instead of the other way around. Also don't do anything racist, homophobic, sexist, patriarchal, transphobic, heteronormative or simply disrespectful in round without expecting poor speaker points. It will also affect how I view your argumentation in this safe space.

 Spreading

In regards to spreading I'm fine with it just don't start out at full speed I need time to adjust to voices. Also be clear and slow on tags so I can know what you are saying and what I should be voting on. I can't vote on something that I  can't hear.

Hi, I'm Tessa -- I use she/they pronouns and will openly laugh if you call me "judge" at any point during the debate.

Don't feel the need to read this whole philosophy, I keep it long so those people who don't have access to a lot of national circuit debate and the intergenerational/institutional knowledge that comes with mentorship and coaching can know where to pref me.

Got a few First Rounds to the NDT at Wake Forest University, alongside a generally high level of competitive success writ large. My college career was spent reading critical arguments although I spent quite a lot of time as a policy debater in high school as well. Since leaving debate, I have spent time both in the cybersecurity and AI industries as well as the academy discussing AI and critical theory. I am heavily involved in grassroots organizing as well. Do with this brief bio what you will.

Currently coaching for University of Iowa and Head-Royce Highschool.

Yes I want to be on the email chain -- ask for my email if you don't have it. (Don't put your emails online in searchable places like this, kids!) That said, I will probably not open speech docs much. See evaluation section.

Spark Notes:

Do what you love. If you have no passion in your heart, then do what you are good at. Debate is about scholarship, rhetoric, and competition, so do one or more of those well and you will probably have my ballot.

I don't care what kind of argument you read, I just care that you read it well - I love nuanced K on K debates about how we as activists and scholars should respond to our fucked up world and it is critical questions that I am most interested in, but am always willing to listen to a case-specific counterplan/DA strategy if that floats your boat.

I enjoy daring, ambitious, and nuanced strategies and will reward debaters who put in the work to execute them, whether it is a hyperspecific PIK in a policy debate or taking a critical team up on the internal debates of their own literature base.

All of my assumptions and proclivities are endlessly negotiable and if a team makes an argument I will do my best to put that before my own thoughts on the matter.

I tend to view arguments > evidence. Debate is a communicative activity, and therefore how I evaluate evidence is filtered through what I am told about it, all else being equal. For me, reading evidence after the debate occurs when it is sufficiently flagged by one or both teams as central to a key issue in the debate. Good evidence is not an excuse for a bad articulation, but can be a net benefit to a good one.

That said, I care very, very much about research and will listen to evidence as it is being read and reward teams that can explain their research, its context, its warrants, etc. Quoting, rehighlighting, or otherwise engaging with both your own and opponents evidence will greatly influence the weight I assign to arguments and the speaker points I award.

How to win my ballot:

I find myself voting for the team who best combines explicit judge instruction with one to two pieces of specific, warranted, and evidenced offense.

Judge instruction is the single most important aspect of the debate, especially the final rebuttals and how both teams frame and compare offense will massively influence how I approach my flow. Explicitly comparing and evaluating offense in the 2AR and 2NR will be the surest route to my ballot regardless of the content of the debate. Extending offense without instructing me on how to compare it to the other side will leave me in the unfortunate position of having to think too deeply about the debate, which neither of us want.

Framing and judge instruction can (and should!) span arguments about impact prioritization to truth over tech to sequencing and uniqueness claims to identity/positionality arguments about me as a white trans woman -- what is more important than content is that comparative and offensive nature of the argument as it relates to my evaluation of the line by line.

I allocate speaker points generously to debaters who are explicitly comparing offense and instructing me on how to evaluate it, extending smart defensive arguments, speaking passionately or persuasively, and articulating the utility of evidence and research comparisons deeper than the author's name and tag.

Specificity, examples, and warrant comparison control how I evaluate top-level theories and adjudicate clash. The "truth value" of an argument is determined by the specificity and evidence provided to support it, which means I find myself erring towards teams that make fewer but more detailed arguments, referencing specific parts of evidence, and providing historical examples.

Tech and truth are metrics to compare offense, not opposed philosophies. I am just as happy to toss out the flow and vote on vibes as I am to adjudicate the debate through strict adherence to line by line --just tell me why I should do so and how the technical concessions or performative moments should influence my decision. In other words, a dropped argument is a "true" argument, but not always a winning argument. Winning how I should evaluate arguments will always predetermine how I evaluate dropped arguments in the first place.

If you do wish me to toss out the flow but please tell me to do so explicitly, early, and give me a clear alternative way to adjudicate the debate. I will likely take notes on the debate even if told to toss out the flow, but that is likely comments to share in the post round.

0% risk is possible -- some arguments are just bad. Winning 0% risk is generally easier when making framing arguments about how I evaluate risk in the first place. Offense-defense paradigm is a loose default for me unless otherwise framed or explicitly told in some other way that I should assign 0% risk.

Clash debates:

Okay, I know this is the only part of a paradigm anyone ever reads so...

1. I judge *a lot* of these debates and, thus far, my voting record appears to be very evenly split, which I attribute primarily to execution and top level framing. Be on top of those two and you'll have a good shot at my ballot regardless of what you read.
2. "Intrinsic goods" do not exist. Procedural impacts might, but I must be convinced as to why and how they interact with other concerns about how we should use this pace. Make warrants for fairness as an impact and do impact calculus about why it outweighs. Saying "it comes first because debate is a game" will rarely get my ballot if given a similarly tagline aff response. I tend to vote for impacts other than fairness far more often as it seems notably difficult for many debaters to articulate fairness beyond such an internal link or tautological defense of old school debate.
3. I view FW debates as a question of models of debate, not the specific affirmative forwarded by the 1AC. I am as unconvinced that a no link or permutation to a 1NC disad prove "abuse" on FW as I am that defending a 1NC position is sufficient to check "abuse." You'd be better off forwarding viable positions and answering metatextual questions about the value of debate, what orients research, etc.
4. Defense is underrated in these debates. Most of my decisions in these debates are heavily influenced by small, smart defensive arguments that break ties between well-crafted pieces of offense on both sides. For example, critical affs that extend an interp tend to have an easier time getting my ballot, even if that interp doesn't look like the kind of strict ground allocation that policy teams give. A 2AR that is impact turns alone without a vision for what we are doing in this activity or a given round will be much harder for me to vote for than a warranted vision for debate that tells me what debates look like and where clash is focused (or at least some defense/link turns to their standards). This doesn't require any interpretation of the resolution or universal mandate, just something I can vote for other than "not for framework."
5. I tend to view PIKs, disads, and counterplans as relatively competitive arguments in these debates when done well, and I enjoy evaluating them. I particularly enjoy 1ACs that have clear points of action capable of being negated and able to be defended rigorously.

K v K debates:

My favorite kind of debates. I am likely familiar with every major critical scholar cited frequently in debate and will do my best to provide as specific feedback as I can to the style and content of your argument.

The more specific link debating and permutation debating is, the more likely I will to vote for you. I love debates that hash out important disagreements between or internal to a literature bases.

I tend to evaluate quite a few performance v structural critique debates, and without fail my ballot goes to the team best able to articulate why the questions they've posed should be where I decide my ballot. In this way, "FW" is often a relatively instructive portion of this debate for my ballot, but it doesn't need to be framed in that language.

Just because debate is a performative activity doesn't mean I automatically disregard other considerations about what it is. Tell me why I should or should not!

Specific examples and historical analogues tend to determine how I evaluate theories. I am less convinced by a theoretical reason why a link or aff is wrong than I am by a theoretical critique combined with an example that illustrates and proves it.

Policy Throwdowns:

I very much enjoy these debates and judge far more of them than I debated myself.

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive argument to me -- this is my only real argumentative preference in this style of debate, but I am generally unconvinced that every team the resolution in their plan text is a good way to write plans, evaluating whether a plan is topical, understand the scope of a plan action, etc.

I have been told that I am a slightly eclectic judge of theory debates as I tend to not be "in the know" about the dominant interpretations of what is reasonable and instead evaluate theory based on the arguments provided in the debate.

Can't believe I have to say this but...

- Microaggressions such as anti-blackness and other forms of racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, etc. will be responded to with anything from an autoloss to zero speaks to a 27 depending on the severity of the issue. Impact > Intentions.

- clipping is an autoloss as well and results in the lowest possible speaks.

- I do not believe the other team has the burden to call these things out and will stop the round if I feel it is unsafe or un-educational for anyone involved.

- Independently, disclosure is good and should be reciprocated absent safety concerns.

- And, an unclear/unflowable argument is a blank space on my flow -- I will not evaluate arguments I cannot hear and understand.

Pet Peeves in no particular order...

Calling me "judge." Ever.

Being mean to younger debaters. This activity can be harsh and terrible, don't contribute to that.

Profoundly untopical policy affs written only to beat critical teams but never to be read against policy teams.

Overadaptation to what you think I want to hear.

Bastardizing revolutionary history.

Planicality.

Ignoring alternative forms of evidence such as music, poetry, etc.

Reading the cap K as the "root cause/state good" double whammy, rather than, ya know, a real argument.

Ericson 3. That's not interpretating anything lmao.

"Not my baudrillard!" Yes it is. Just defend how you read it lol.

Asking for double wins.

Assuming I know things about you, high school debate, college debate, or even what the topic is. I probably don't. I also probably don't care. Your debating matters infinitely more than whatever rep you think you have.

*****LD*****

As I have had the opportunity to judge LD a few times now, here are some unedited comments:

1. Clarity and pen time are underrated -- if it is not on my flow, I will not evaluate it. If I can only understand every other word, I will not reconstruct the argument for you. I do not read docs during the round unless they are a dispute over what a specific piece of evidence says.

2. Substantive argumentation matters. I am not informed about most LD conventions that differ from CX/Policy, so explain how your argumentation impacts the flow and my ballot.

3. I have a high threshold for what I perceive as cheap-shot theory arguments. While I have voted multiple times on theory, I find that the more substantive and developed the theoretical objection, the more amenable I am to evaluating it. In that regard, I tend to view RVIs are contrived and I tend to have a low threshold for responses to them.

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

uk 2023 is my first tournament judging college debate, and i have not done any topic research for nukes. i've been out of college debate for a few years, but have been consistently coaching and judging high school debate. i am pretty experienced coaching/judging most different types of arguments, but for the past three years have mostly coached teams going for critical arguments. i used to primarily judge policy debates, but have gradually started judging primarily clash debates and some kvk debates

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

my opinions about debate:

i try my best to decide debates strictly based on what is on my flow. i generally try to intervene as little as possible, but i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, etc.

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

if your plan text is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs - i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i wish case was debated more in these debates, because i am very willing to vote on presumption in them

t-usfg/fw: voting record in these debates probably leans aff. i think this is often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense. the team with a more convincing explanation of debate's effect on debaters' political subjectivity will likely have an easier time controlling how i think about either team's impacts (for example, if i am convinced that debate does not affect subjectivity, then i am more likely to be persuaded by fairness impacts). i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debate is (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something like else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think there are circumstances where "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links is not persuasive to me.

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. also, by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

New for Kaspar Cup: I expect you to share your evidence and cases with your opponents and me. It can be paper or digital, but all parties participating in the debate need to have access to the evidence read in rounds. This is because NSDA requires it, because it for promotes good evidence ethics in debate, and because hoarding evidence makes debate even more unfair for small programs who have fewer debaters and coaches. Not sure why we're still having this discussion in 2023.

To be clear, if you don't provide both sides with copies of your evidence and cases, then I will be open to your opponent making that an independent voting issue. I might just vote you down immediately if I feel it's especially egregious.Oh and I'll gut speaks for not sharing cases.

The brief rundown of whatever event I am judging this weekend is below, but here's the full breakdown of how I feel about various arguments as well as my paradigm for other events. I even used the google docs outline to save you time in finding what you need: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KwX4hdsnKCzHLYa5dMR_0IoJAkq4SKgy-N-Yud6o8iY/edit?usp=sharing

PGP: they/them

I don't care what you call me as long as you don't call me broke (jk, I am a teacher so you can also call me that ig)

Email chain: Yes, I do want to be on the email chain (saves time): learnthenouns[at]the-google-owned-one.

Head coach at Lincoln East (10-ish years), 7 years of debating in high school (LD, Policy and Congress) and college (NFA-LD and NPDA/NPTE Parli)

Overview for all events

• Debate is both educational and a game. I believe the education comes from ideas engaging with one another and students finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal beliefs and advocacies. Thus, I consider myself a games player as it is a necessary component of the educational experience.

• A major exception: I will not listen to you promote any kind of advocacy that says oppression good or structural violence denial (ie claiming anti-white racism is real). They are an auto-ballot against you regardless of whether your opponent points it out or not.

• I flow tags and internal warrants. I only flow author names if there’s nothing else to write down, so don't just rely on 'surname extensions' with zero warranting to get you through the round. I am more interested in the content of your arguments than the names of the person that you are citing.

• On that note, I want the speech doc so that I can check evidence, but I will almost never flow from the docduring your speech.

• Speed is fine in everything except congress. I watch NDT rounds for fun, so I can handle it. But I do expect clarity in all events. I will yell "clear" once or twice if you're mumbling, and after that I reduce speaks. Also, slow it down a bit when online, especially if you have a bad mic.
  

LD

K debate (pomo or ID tix): 10 out of 10

Performance: 10 out of 10

LARP/plan-focus: 9 out of 10

T/theory: 8.5

Phil (aka trad): 7 out of 10

Tricks: 0 out of 10 (boooo boooooo!!!)

These are just preferences though. I have and will vote for anything (even tricks, unfortunately, but my threshold is extremely high). For more details on how to win specific arguments in front of me, check the doc linked up top.

Speed (for context, conversational is like a 3 or 4 out of 10)

Speed in person: 9/10

Speed online: 6 or 7/10 (depends on mic quality)

How I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

**Note: this is all assuming that no other debate happens to establish specific burdens or about the importance of any particular level of the debate. In other words, I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should.

In short:

ROB/ROJ/Pre-fiat Burdens > Procedurals (T/thoery) > Framing (value/crit) > Impacts

Not so short:

-First, the role of the ballot, the role of the judge, and the burdens of each side are up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I tend to believe that these are a priori considerations (though that is up for debate as well) and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

- Next, I will resolve any procedurals (i.e. topicality, theory shells, etc) that have been raised. I will typically give greater weight to in-depth, comparative analysis and well-developed arguments rather than tagline extensions/shells. If you're going to run one of these, it needs to actually be an argument, not just a sentence or two thrown in at the end of your case (again, no "tricks").

-Absent a ROTB/ROJ or procedural debate I look to the value/crit/standard, so you should either A) clearly delineate a bright-line and reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's (not just the obnoxious 'mine comes first' debate please) or B) clearly show how your case/impacts/advocacy achieves your opponent's framework better (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I finally look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will always get preference over blippy extensions (you might be sensing a theme here).

For a more detailed breakdown of how I judge certain arguments, please see "argument specifics" in my policy paradigm in the google doc linked at the top. The only major differences are that I do think aff RVI's are semi-legit in LD because of time limits.

Speed and delivery:Go for it, just be clear and articulate on the tags, warrants, and analytics if you are planning on going especially fast(might even be worth it to knock the speed down a notch on these things).I also expect a very well-organized flowonce you start to approach top speeds (outline style numbering/lettering can help a bunch....).

Pet peeve: speed=/=clear. "Speed" is for how fast you are going. "Clear" is for mumbling. I can handle pretty fast speeds, I can't handle a lack of clarity.I will usually give you one warning, two if I am feeling generous (or if you request it), and then will start docking speaks. I am also good with you going slow. Though since I can handle very fast speeds, I would suggest you give some impacted out reasons for going slow so as to avoid being spread out of the round.

Bio (not sure anyone reads these but whatever): I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity (16 years coaching, 7 years competing). My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. As such, please read my feedback as me being invested in your success. Also, if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post-round questions as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged (just don't be a jerk please).

I debated for four years at Lexington High School, and am currently not debating in college. I have little to no topic knowledge.

Please add me to the email chain: justinh4033@gmail.com

PF:

- Disclosure is extremely important.

- Debate whatever style you are comfortable with. I'm experienced with speed but do what you are comfortable with. Seriously. I just want a good debate.

Top Level

I'm a firm believer in the strategic aspect of debate. My favorite part of judging a debate is watching what kinds of unique strategies you can have come up with, the research you have done to support it, and how you execute it. I'm pretty open-minded and enjoy pretty much any type of debate, so run whatever you want. I would much rather you run what you're comfortable with, rather than trying to over-adapt to me.

I will not accept any discriminatory behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). I generally believe that you are good human beings and will be respectful to each other, so don't prove me wrong.

Tech over truth. How well something is debated determines how much truth I assign to it. While the truth level can lower or higher the threshold of tech required to persuade me, I will judge by the flow. A dropped argument is a true argument. That means it must have a claim, warrant, and impact.

Draw comparisons. Explain why your impacts are important outweigh those of your opponent. This also goes for every part of an argument, like uniqueness, the link, etc. Compare evidence and warrants. Draw a distinction between the alt and the perm. Explain how each argument implicates your opponent's arguments and the rest of the debate. The best rebuttals will break down the core issues of the debate and write my ballot for me. Debates that lack comparison make it difficult for me to write a decision, which will probably make one side unhappy every time.

Evidence quality. Evidence is incredibly important, but it can also be trumped by sound, logical arguments. I value good spin of your evidence. That being said, I strongly dislike when people highlight words out of context or jumble together random words to form an argument. So many teams get away with reading bad evidence, but if you don't mention it, it will continue.

T

I default to competing interpretations over reasonability, but this is totally up for debate. Reasonability can definitely be persuasive in the right circumstances. Lots of impact calc needs to be done on both sides, and the internal links to your offense should be clearly explained.

DA

Have good turns case analysis at each level of the disad (link, internal link, impact). Make sure to have good, recent evidence because these debates often come down to evidence quality. I don't have any strong opposition to the politics disad – the internal links may be silly, but it's probably a necessity on this topic and I will evaluate it like a normal disad.

CP

While it is very helpful to have them, CPs do not need carded solvency advocates, especially if they are based on some of the aff's internal links. All CPs need to have a clear net benefit and must be competitive. I would like an explanation of the perm and how it shields the link to the net benefit, and this explanation should be happening early on in the debate. PICs are awesome, especially ones that are specific to the aff.

K

I enjoy a good K debate, as long as there is good analysis and explanation. I will typically allow the aff to weigh their impacts. That being said, what does it really mean to weigh a fiated extinction impact against your epistemology? I believe affs should have a stronger framework push than just "weigh the aff" because most neg framework arguments will implicate this very process of impact calculus. Specificity to the aff is extremely important, but not necessary. However, generic link arguments without sufficient analysis will make me much more receptive to the perm. Don't read super long overviews - put the explanation of the K's thesis there, maybe an impact explanation, but the rest can go on the line-by-line.

Planless Affs

I think fairness is an impact, and probably the most convincing one. However, you still need to explain to me why that matters. Impacts that rely on some spillover to institutions (i.e. Lundberg 10) are unconvincing to me. If you are going for T, you should answer relevant arguments on the case page. I think TVAs are strategic and don't have to be perfect.

The aff should have a mix of offense and defense to defeat framework. Most of the time, the impact turn approach is a lot more convincing than trying to win a counter-interpretation, but this depends on the aff. Leverage your aff against framework – impact turn the aff's model of debate or read disads to it based on the thesis of the aff. Defensive arguments can also mitigate a lot of the risk of the neg accessing their impacts.

Theory

If you're going for theory, in-round abuse is extremely important. I think the only the thing that can rise to the level of a voting issue is conditionality. 3 condo is fine with me; 4+ is pushing it. Counterplan theory objections are much less convincing if you have a good solvency advocate. I will lean neg on agent cps and 50 state fiat because of the lack of great neg ground on this topic. I lean aff on consult cps, word pics, and certain process cps. Unless there is a 2NR argument for it, I will not kick the CP for you.

Cat Jacob

Northwestern' 23

WY'19

Coaching at Head Royce 2019-Present

Put me on the chain - catherinelynnjacob01@gmail.com

Topicality - I have been in a lot of T debates this year - the only thing I want here is good line by line and impacted out standards in the 2nr/2ar (e.g. and aff ground o/ws neg ground -but why?) *** its not a reverse voter issue/its not genocide (dont annoy me)

T-USFG - I hate judging these now but I still have a conscience, I'm just hostile to them - couple things - make the 2ar responses to the 2nr on FW clear, the 1ar is make or break in FW debates for me so beware technical concessions. I don't really have a preference between prioritizing fairness vs education arguments. For the aff in these debates - dont drop SSD, TVA, or a truth testing claim on your scholarship - with minimal mitigation that's an easy neg ballot to write.

Disadvantages - They're lit - do turns case analysis and have a link story (even if its non specific), have an external impact and you're golden. Bad DAs are fine (ANWR, tradeoff etc), if they read a bad DA produce an amusing CX from it to showcase the contrived link chain, it'll up your ethos (and your speaks)

Counterplans - Have a competitive counterplan text with a net benefit. I will vote on a CP flaw/whether or not a CP is feasibly possible, I will not judgekick unless I am told to. Theoretically illegit CPs are fine and the theory debate should be done well if you really want me to reject them. Unorthodox CPs are also cool w me - anarchy for example.

Conditionality - Explain it, go for it if you want - I don't consider myself having a high threshold for judging theory, unless condo is dropped it should be at least 45 seconds of the 1ar (if extended) or else I will be less lenient in a 2ar on theory. In the 1ar, if condo is extended in 10 seconds as an afterthought (e.g. YEAH condo ummm its abusive next) that's annoying and I won't vote on that if the 2nr spends 8 seconds there and is marginally less coherent than you.

Kritiks v Policy Affs - - I have seen any K you're going to run in front of me and have a reasonable threshold for voting on K tricks. That being said - Reps are shaped by context - In round links/impacts are fine .

--------things that will annoy me in these debates

- Claiming that I should give you leeway because they read a "K trick" a. no BL for a K trick, b. unless you're going for condo with an impact of in round abuse/some other theory arg stop whining to me.

- unresponsive answers to FW that lead to an interventionist decision

- an incoherent link story/alt solvency

- not being able to explain your K in CX

-not Cross applying FW if they read more than one K and instead spending twenty seconds reading the same FW again

-Claiming the role of the aff in debates is to "stfu" - I don't like voting for this model of debate because it is one sided and in debate as a competitive activity engagement is critical - but I can't make that argument for you.

That being said - go read Khirn's reasoning for why he votes for Kritiks most of the time, and what his RFDs look like. I agree with him.

Ks I have written files on/answering/into the lit for - spanos, psycho, cap, communist horizon, security, fem, mao, death cult, berlant, scranton, queerness, set col, *the thing you'll really need to do in high theory debates is be responsive to 2ac answers and break your prewritten block dependency, show me you know what you're doing and I won't use my background knowledge to help you.

Kritiks v K affs - Usually interesting. the RFD will most like be they did/didnt win the perm (that's usually how it goes).

Death Good - I'll vote on it but I'll have a high threshold.

Ethics Violations - Dont clip. Ethics Violations as pertaining to evidence quality/evidence flaws are not usually a voter (these types of debates will also annoy me)- it is not your role to persuade me that it was particularly abusive - if you introduce one of these into the round a. it is make or break - if i determine you're wrong, you lose and that is a decision I will make myself without consideration from either team by reading the ev, b. these are usually accidents and stupid to waste time doing, c. the appropriate thing is to tell the team to correct it and not weaponize it for a strategy - that's a bad model of debate for several reasons and doing so makes you a living representation of a moral hazard.

Impact Turns - They're funny and usually have questionable evidence quality, I think that good impact turn debates are underused and very threatening to a stupid team that reads both an ineq and hard impact adv.

Misc -

- don't shake my hand, don't try it's weird and i don't like it

- I'll vote on a floating PIK

- There's a brightline between being argumentative and being rude, everyone loses that line sometimes but it's important to be attentive and paying attention to the responses of your opponents.

- Ill be on the email chain but I usually won't be flowing off of it

- You get two clears - then I stop flowing

- Time your own prep

- do untopical policy things against K teams it is their fault they can't go for T

-counter-fiction/poetry is acceptable

Feel free to message me w questions about my RFDs/comments - take notes during the RFD

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at CKM and a couple of new schools SUDL has recently signed up for.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: If you want to read 9 off you can.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

Yes, put me on the email chain - koperski.debate@gmail.com

Any pronouns

Please refer to me as my name and not as "judge" in round.

University of Iowa 2025
Farmington High school 2021

If you're looking to do college debate feel free to reach out and ask about Iowa debate, I'd love to answer any questions!

Topics I've debated:
Immigration - 2018/19
Arm Sales - 2019/20
Criminal Justice Reform - 2020/21
Antitrust laws - 2021/22
Legal Personhood - 2022/23

Top level

1. Clarity over speed - this is even more important in the era of online debating, and you should always send your analytics in speech docs

2. When debating case, the first thing I look to is solvency. If I conclude that your aff doesn't do what you say it does, then I have no reason to vote for the affirmative. If solvency becomes a core issue in the debate, I will always go and read the aff's cards.

3. The neg needs to explain what their advocacy on the Kritik or Counterplan does for me to weigh it, it really boils down to "If I don't know what it is, I won't weigh it"

4. I am a good judge to go for Topicality or Theory in front of so long as you can explain things sufficiently and really impact it out - for novices, "Packet checks T" is not an argument

5. Cx is a speech, so use it well to attack your opponents while propping yourself up - tag team is fine so long as its not your partner taking up the whole cross period when you are supposed to be asking the questions

6. Do not read objectively bad procedurals in round, this means stuff like arguing USFG is faceters guild or bad links in the citations when you forgot to remove a period at the end (it shows that you don't care for debating, but rather you just want to waste your opponents time). I find these arguments to be detrimental to debate as an activity because it distracts from critical thinking and good argumentation, to being caught up in semantics that really don't matter. However, if the procedurals are based in good faith I am more sympathetic to voting on it. If your procedurals are in bad faith, I will dock speaks for it, I have no tolerance for it anymore.

7. I do not judge kick unless instructed to, if the other team argues that I should not judge kick after instructed to, then they should explain in detail the reasons why judge kicking is bad. If judge kick bad is argued, I am very sympathetic to agreeing that it's bad and end up not judge kicking the position. You read it, and now you must stick with it.

8. Tech > Truth - However, both are important in a debate round, and I can be swayed to evaluate Truth>Tech if you warrant out why viewing the round this way is inherently better

9. If you have to ask if there are any theoretical reasons to reject the team, one of two things is true, either you weren't paying attention, or the other team isn't giving enough importance to them. Reasons to reject the team should be at the forefront of the debate if you actually want me to reject the team on something.

10. My general philosophy on evidence is that you should read less evidence that is of higher quality rather than reading more evidence. Debate is a game of arguments, not one of speed. I am also very sympathetic to teams that rehighlight the other teams evidence because I believe that it's the evidence that should be making the arguments in a debate, and if the evidence you choose to read contradicts itself (even if it's part of the same source that you do not read), then you shouldn't be reading that card, and the teams that point this out and argue it well, will see an increase in speaker points and an easier path to the ballot.

Ethics Violations

I, as a judge will not intervene on something that can be considered an ethics violation without the opposing team raising the issue in round as well as clearly stating that they are making an ethics challenge. If/When that occurs, the round will stop, and I will assess the alleged violation. If I find that a violation has occurred, the challengers will win the round, and the team that committed the ethics violation will receive at most 25 speaker points. In the event that I find that no ethics violation has occurred, the challengers will lose the round and receive at most 25 speaker points.

Specifics to off case positions

Theory - I believe that theory is under utilized in debate, a theory debate should end up being about in round harms and methods and models of debate. I enjoy a good theory debate, this does not mean you should read theory in front of me, especially if you don't know how to impact it out. I typically lean aff on condo and disclosure theory, but will easily vote neg on condo if they argue arbitrariness of interps well. I do believe that theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but, there are a few exceptions to this, especially if the other team does not make the argument that it's not a reason to reject the team.

K - Going for the K can be a bit of a daunting task, however if you can use the affs evidence to point out a link and can explain how the alt functions and solves then you will be in a pretty good position. The aff should always perm the K. I'm familiar with most kritiks that you'll probably run, but it's always a good idea to explain things especially if you are running a more obscure or high theory K. I also find that a lot of K teams get trapped in an echo chamber of their alt and assume that they don't need to explain the alt on a more general level. Being able to clearly explain your alt in a way that everyone can understand will greatly increase your chances of winning the alt debate (assume you're explaining it to someone who has never done debate). Yes your Baudrillard

T - Topicality comes down to competing interpretations and methods of debate, your aff simply being topical isn't enough to win on T, you need to prove why the resolution should include your aff. As stated above, "Novice packet checks T" is not an argument and I won't consider it, instead, as the aff, you should challenge T head on instead of trying to skirt the question of Topicality. I believe that a more limited topic is always better than a broad topic, it allows for more depth and conversation about the topic, and it encourages innovation and better research for both the aff and the neg instead of finding some obscure topic that's impossible to research. I also do not believe that "plan text in a vacuum" is a good "We meet" argument, it encourages bad and vague plan writing. A good limits argument should include a case list with explanation on why what their topic includes that yours doesn't is bad.

CP - Every CP needs to have a net benefit for me to weigh it. You need to have warranted analysis on the net benefit and how the CP solves. Solvency deficits, when argued well can easily take down a CP. As the aff, you always need to perm the CP and extend the perm throughout the whole debate, If there is no perm on the CP you need to win a large solvency deficit.

DA - Weigh the impacts of the DA to the impacts of the aff, I personally like link debates and find them to be the best way to challenge or defend a DA, that being said, this does not absolve you from doing impact work, if the link isn't clearly contested the impact is the next thing I look at, so focus more on the impacts, because if the DA doesn't link, the impacts of the DA are moot.

Case - See top level point 2 for aff stuff. For the neg, impact turn everything, if they say "x" is good, then say "x" is bad, if you have the cards for it, then I will listen (unless it's so untrue that it becomes harmful). I will listen to even the most absurd impact turns and vote on them, but only if you can actually convince me that they are true.

K affs - I am not the best judge to read these in front of, that being said, I have ran K affs before. My general philosophy is that in order to win while running a K aff, you must do the following

1. Prove why the K aff is better than following the resolution (unless you are reading a topical K aff, in which case, you'll just need to explain what makes it topical if it's not obvious)

2. Win on FW and on how your model of debate is better, the easier it is to understand your framework and the model of debate it proposes, the more likely you are to win it in front of me.

3. Do enough work on the impact/advocacy level to prove that not only is the impact/advocacy necessary, but also why we should first focus on that and not the general impact scenarios in typical debates.

4. Avoid relying on K and FW tricks to win, I greatly dislike them and I find them to ruin the spirit of debate. Debate is and should continue to be focused on education, by relying on tricks, it takes away from this education and skills building.

5. On Framework, SLOW DOWN, I'd rather you make less arguments that are smart and well thought out, than make a lot of arguments just to fill the flow. Also, if you are reading pre-made arguments, send them out, going fast and not sending what you read is super problematic and I find that a ton of teams do this as a way to win, and I find this practice to be detrimental and contributes to exclusionary practices in debate.

My views on debate

1. I believe that debate is a competitive game that can have some real world implications through rhetoric and discussions of how different forms of knowledge and power shape someone's lived experiences

2. This is a reading and research activity - attack your opponents warrants and author qualifications but if you are going to do this, make it clear why I should reject that piece of evidence. If you are going to run a Kritik in front of me, the best way to win the link debate is to use the aff's 1AC evidence to prove a link.

3. I have no tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Homophobia etc. in debate. This is an educational safe space and everyone should be treated with the upmost respect. If I find that you are making the space unsafe or problematic, I will dock speaker points, and if it's bad enough, I will drop the team. I find that the debate space can be very problematic at times and that it drives people out of the activity, and I want to ensure that this does not continue.

4. Actively debating is a performance and you are the performer, the time is yours when you speak and you may use that time however you want, but you should have a justification as to why you do the things you do.

5. At the end of the day, debate should always be something you do for fun. Debate can be tiring for everyone, so maintaining civility in the debate should always be the top priority. You don't know what your opponents have been through, or how they feel about debate, and I would hate if you contributed to why people leave this activity.

Speaker Points

Speaker points are mostly based off of the vibes in round. Everyone starts at a 28.5, debating well and being nice will increase your speaks, conversely, poor debating and being mean/hostile will lower your speaks. If you get below a 27, that means you either made a massive round ending mistake that should have been easy to spot, or you said something objectionable. If you get a 25, that means you either lost on an ethics violation, repeatedly said something in round that was objectionable and unethical, or said something about your opponents or myself that is beyond any doubt meant to demean, dehumanize, ostracize, or cause mental anguish.

Sarah Lawrence '25, Caddo Magnet High '21, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain-- ejarlawrence@gmail.com

Top-Level: I prefer a fast, technical debate and default to evaluating debates as a policymaker, but can be persuaded otherwise. Don't overadapt - debate is a game, and winning your arguments is what matters. I like to reward good evidence, but I won't be reading every card after the round unless it is flagged or a close debate and good evidence is not an excuse for unwarranted debating/little explanation.

T vs policy affs: I don't enjoy close definitions debates. T debates where the interpretation becomes clear only in CX of the 2NC or later will be very hard to reward with my ballot. I understand that good T debates happen (T-LPR on immigration comes to mind) but if the topic doesnt have easily understandable, legally precise definitions based in government literature (CJR comes to mind) I'm going to err towards reasonability more than anyone I know. Plan text in a vaccum probably sucks, but if you can't articulate a clear alternative you probably can't win. Predictability probably outweighs debatability.

T vs K affs: Debate is probably a game, but probably also more than that, and neither team's offense is likely truly reliant on winning this anyway. Fairness is probably an impact, but it is frequently pretty small. Neg teams that clearly explain what the aff's interpretation justifies (ie. internal link debating) and why that's bad are more likely to win my ballot. Aff teams that come up with a counter-interp that attempts to solve for some limits/predictability seem more instinctively reasonable to me than those who try to impact turn things I think are probably good like predictability, but either strategy is fine.

Counterplans/Theory: Theory other than conditionality/perfcon is not a voter and going for it will wreck your ethos (and speaks). On a truth level, I think being neg in a world without massive conditionality and theoretical abuse is impossible on lots of hs topics. Given that, I'm actually fairly familiar with and interested in hearing good condo debating- competing interps means if you have something explainable and not arbitrary (infinite condo, infinite dispo, no condo) and can articulate some standards I won't hack for anyone. Default to judge kick, but can be convinced not to, counterplans should probably be textually and functionally competitive, I'd love to hear a real debate on positional competition but I'm not optimistic.

Disads: Uniqueness matters, and determines offense on the link level, but win the link too. No politics disad is true, but some politics disads are more true than others. These were my favorite arguments to cut and go for, and interesting scenarios that are closer to the truth or strategic will be rewarded with speaks. I'm of the somewhat controversial opinion they make for good education and the less controversial one lots of topics are unworkable for the neg without them, so don't go for intrinsicness/floortime DAs bad theory.

Impact Turns: Nothing much to say here, other than a reassurance I will not check out on something I find unpersuasive in real life (any of the war good debates, spark, wipeout). If you can't beat it, update your blocks.

Impact Framing/Soft Left Impacts: I default to utilitarian consequentialism, and have a strong bias in favor of that as a way to evaluate impacts. If you want to present another way to evaluate impacts, PLEASE tell me what it means for my ballot and how I evaluate it. "Overweight probability" is fine for the 1AC, but by the 1AR I should know if that means I ONLY evaluate probability/disregard probabilities under 1%/don't evaluate magnitudes of infinity. Anything else means you're going to get my super arbitrary and probably fairly utilitarian impulse. I would love if whoever's advocating for ex risks would do the same, but I have a better handle on what your deal means for the ballot, so I don't need as much help. "Util Bad" without an alternative is very unpersuasive - BUT a fleshed out alternative can be very strategic.

K vs Policy Affs: I vote neg most often in these debates when the neg can lose framework but win case takeouts or an impact to the K that outweighs and turns the aff. I vote neg somewhat often in these debates when the aff does a bad job explaining the internal links of their FW interp or answering negative impacts (which is still pretty often). For security type Ks, it seems like some people think they can convince me sweeping IR theories or other impacts are false with all the knowledge of a high schooler. Read a card, or I will assume the aff's 3 cards on China Revisionist/cyber war real are true and the K is false.

Brief tangent ahead: If you think the above statement re: the security K does not apply to you because you have a fun way to get around this by saying "it doesn't matter if the K is false because we shouldn't just use Truth to determine whether statements are good to say", I think you're probably wrong. You're critiquing a theory of how we should evaluate the merits of Saying Stuff (traditionally Truth, for whatever value we can determine it) without providing an alternative. So, provide an alternative way for me to determine the merits of Saying Stuff or you're liable to get my frustration and fairly arbitrary decisionmaking on whether you've met the very high burden required to win this. I've judged like four debates now which revolved around this specific issue and enjoyed evaluating none of them. Aff teams when faced with this should ask a basic question like "how do we determine what statements are good outside of their ability to explain the world" please. First person I see do this will get very good speaker points. TLDR: treat your epistemological debates like util good/bad debates and I will enjoy listening to them. Don't and face the consequences.

K vs K affs: I've now judged a few of these debates, and have found when the aff goes for the perm they're very likely to get my ballot absent basically losing the thesis of the affirmative (which has happened). This means I don't think "the aff doesn't get perms in a method debate" is a nonstarter. Other than that, my background in the literature is not strong, so if your link relies on a nuanced debate in the literature, I'm going to need a lot of explanation.

Miscellaneous: These are unsorted feelings I have about debate somewhere between the preferences expressed above and non-negotiables below.

For online debate: Debaters should endeavor to keep their cameras on for their speeches as much as possible. I find that I'm able to pay much more attention to cx and give better speaker comments. Judging online is hard and staring at four blank screens makes it harder.

I am becoming somewhat 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.

At my baseline, I think about the world in a more truth over tech way. My judging strategy and process is optimized to eliminate this bias, as I think its not a good way to evaluate debate rounds, but I am not perfect. You have been warned.

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

For LD/PF: I have judged very little of either of these events; 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.

Non-negotiables:

In high school policy debate, both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, 3 minutes for CX, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says. CX is binding. There is one winner and one loser. I will flow. I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab so that they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate on.

You have to read rehighlightings, you can't just insert them. If I or the other team notice you clipping or engaging in another ethics violation prohibited by tournament rules and it is found to be legitimate, it's an auto-loss and I will give the lowest speaks that I can give.

It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously very arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it is also up to the judge's discretion for when the line has been crossed.

background

Mamaroneck ‘21, Johns Hopkins '25

Add me to the chain - twl.debate@gmail.com

+0.3 speaks if you open source all of your docs and tell me.

Tech > truth, but everything needs a warrant.

I was 1a/2n.

topicality

I will default to competing interpretations.

You need an alternative to plan text in a vacuum.

policy

Tell me to judge kick.

Smart perms destroy process cps.

You can insert perm texts.

You can insert rehighlightings.

The more specific the disad, the better.

Impact turns are fun (excluding wipeout).

ks on the neg

Ks should have specific links to the plan. Pull quotes from their aff for links.

Reps links are bad.

If the other team doesn’t understand you, don’t assume I will.

Policy teams that can't answer the K deserve to lose.

k affs

Framework: Procedural fairness and clash are impacts.

I can very easily be persuaded by presumption against k affs.

If argued by the neg, k affs probably don’t get a perm.

theory

Condo is good but you can persuade me that it is not.

Neg leaning for most theory.

Will vote on conceded aspec and other theory arguments.

non-negotiables

Follow speech times, don’t ask for high speaks, don’t ask for double wins, and don’t try to destroy the game.

Affiliations and History:
Please email (damiendebate47@gmail.com and tjlewis1919@gmail.com) me all of the speeches before you begin.
I am the Director of Debate at Damien High School in La Verne, CA.
I was the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX from 2020-2021.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
Author of Suburba(in)e Surrealism (2021).

Yearly Round Numbers:
I try to judge a fair bit each year.
NATO Topic Round Count: 75
I have judged over 50 rounds on the Water Topic.
I judged around 40 rounds on the CJR topic.
I judged 29 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020) (not including practice rounds without a decision rendered).
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
LD Protocol:I have a 100% record voting against teams that only read Phil args/Phil v. Policy debates. Adapt or lose.
NDT Protocol: I will rarely have any familiarity with the current college topic and will usually only judge 12-15 rounds pre-NDT.
Please make your T and CP acronyms understandable.

Front Matter Elements:
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.

I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.

Decision-making:
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.

The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.

I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.

Reading evidence only happens if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).

I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge). I do not think the act of reading FW is necessarily constitutive of a violent act. You can try to convince me of this, but I do start from the position that FW is an argument about what the affirmative should do in the 1AC.

If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education. Subject formation has really come into vogue as a key element for teams and honestly rare is the debate where people engage the questions meaningfully--keep that in mind if you go for subject formation args in front of me.

In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.

I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.

While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.

I am 100% DONE with teams not showing up on time to disclose. A handful of minutes or so late is different than showing up 3-5 min before the round begins. Punish these folks with disclosure theory and my ears will be open.

CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'

Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand

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.

Hi!! I’m Addie -- please add me to the chain -- addie.lowenstein@yale.edu

Georgetown Day School ’22, Yale ’26, pronouns are she/her/hers

I debated 3 years in the Washington Urban Debate League, 4 years at GDS (went to the TOC twice, 7 bids), and have attended 2 college debate tournaments this year for Georgetown University as a hybrid. Have always been a 2A.

Read primarily feminist kritikal affs all of high school but have been reading policy affs for Georgetown this year. Have always been pretty flex on the neg.

I worked at the WUDL Ornstein Summer Institute. Always assume my topic knowledge is limited.

General Things

- Always feel free to reach out with questions and please do what you do best!!

- Tech > truth

- Absolutely will not tolerate in-round violence or hostility. If you are concerned about or hurt by something that happened in a round, don’t hesitate to reach out.

- Things that will get high speaks: creativity and jokes!! Favorite part of the debate is CX – take advantage of that. Making me laugh, esp during cx = much higher speaks. That being said, don’t be annoying. I understand the importance of getting your question in and answering fully. Please do not consistently interrupt or talk over people. Walk the line between being persuasive + confident and being rude/arrogant.

- Write my ballot for me at the top of the 2NR and 2AR – be very clear about what you are going to go for and why that will win you the debate. Please do impact calculus AND impact comparison. Also make “even if” statements. 2NR especially should spend extra time explaining why I still vote neg even if the 2A wins xyz. Contextualize your 2AR overview to that specific debate. Make cross applications!!

K affs

I have the most thoughts about these because they were my favorite debates, as well as the debates I was in the most.

Aff --

Love them! but 1. I enjoy these debates much more when I think the affirmative actually has a strong justification for reading their K on the aff 2. Your aff should also probably be somewhat related to the resolution. K affs that have really specific critiques of the resolution are more persuasive to me. Make prerequisite arguments -- if the things you've said are bad are true, then how does that implicate the world of the negative. Why does that mean your aff has to come first. Use your 1AC to your advantage to get offense against the content of their specific arguments, as well as the form they use to describe them.

I am much less well versed in high theory, even though I’ve been in quite a few of these debates. If you read it, take extra time explaining your theory and how it interacts with debate, the resolution, and the neg’s args.

I tend to think reading a counterinterp vs framework is always strategic (more so than just straight impact turns), but could vote on either. If you do read a counterinterp, clear explanation in the 1AR & 2AR about why your model resolves your offense is crucial.

neg –

I have been in a million K aff vs. framework debates (on both sides) and can genuinely go either way. I’ve gone for framework many times in the 1NR (including this year), and also gave 2ARs against it most of my senior year. I probably have a higher threshold for voting on framework against an identity aff. If you’re reading high theory with lots of buzzwords and not a lot of explanation, I’ll probably have a lower threshold for voting on FW. Either way, being creative with your framework offense will help you, as well as thinking about the interaction between your offense on the case page and your arguments/model of debate on the framework page.

Don’t just name a TVA without explaining how it accesses the aff’s lit or solves some of their offense. TVAs don’t have to solve all the aff’s offense, but that doesn’t mean you can stick a TVA plan text in your speech without explaining why I should care – especially when it’s not immediately clear that there’s a relationship between the TVA and the aff’s lit base.

Love a good K v K debate. Examples are huge in these debates – much more likely to buy your advocacy aff or neg if you give examples and explain them. Alt and perm explanations are the core of these debates, so be creative. I think generally teams underutilize the case page when they are negative vs a K aff. I would love to hear a robust case debate vs a K aff and am very willing to vote on presumption.

Policy Affs

Aff--

Limited topic familiarity; don’t assume I just know how your aff works. Start explaining your long internal link chain to me during 1AC cx and avoid using jargon.

Your entire 1AC is a justification for your way of understanding the world. Use that in K debates – don’t get distracted from talking about what you know best.

Neg—

Good with DAs, CPs, any combination -- though less experienced with CP debates. Your CP should have a clear net benefit (internal or external) by the 1NC. I don’t love CPs with tons of planks, especially because I usually forget what a lot of those planks were by the block. If you read 10 off, I am going to feel bad for the aff.

T vs policy affs

I don’t necessarily find these the most fascinating debates, but I am very willing to vote on T vs a policy aff. Have given many 1NRs on T and my partner and I went for it pretty frequently vs policy affs.

Caselist is super important. I want to know what affs your model excludes and why those are bad. I want to know what affs your model encourages and why those are better. This goes hand and hand with impacting out your model well.

Reading more cards that substantiate your interp and violation can be helpful.

K vs policy affs

Do it! Make specific links, label them, impact them out, and explain why they turn case. Individual links on the K are like mini disadvantages to the aff. That means be specific and creative with your link arguments, recut 1AC and 2AC evidence and pull lines from cards-- don’t JUST read a state bad link. If that’s all you’ve got, the K is probably not your most strategic option. The less good your links are, the better your alt must be. I will be less persuaded by an alternative that’s just “reject the aff” absent great link analysis. Explain what it means for the aff if you win the thesis of your K, don’t just make generic role of the ballot arguments.

Framing – if you’re going for util arguments, I am probably persuaded more by avoiding mass biological extinction being good to the extent that people can make their own choice about their own value to life rather than just preserving future generations.

Theory

Prefer spending some time sitting on these arguments rather than just one-liners i.e. “severance is a voter” or “no perms in a method debate”
I am generally inclined to prefer a nuanced, educational debate about content unless you spend a considerable amount of time explaining why I should care more about your theory argument.

The briefest background info ever:

2A at Binghamton - I did a lot of K debate in high school - I do a lot of K debate now.

1- K, phil

2- policy/LARP

3/strike- theory/tricks

Put me on the email chain

cmarin1@binghamton.edu

Do whatever you want* just tell me how to vote, what to vote on, and why I should vote on it

* Misc things that are not up for debate

- problematic behavior/rhetoric/language/vibes means your speaks= the number of hours of sleep I got last night (I promise it's less than 10)

- presumption flips neg until a CP, alt, or FW is read

- If you're reading Schmitt or Heidegger your speaks are capped at 26 regardless of whether or not you win

- Brownie points in the form of speaks for a well-executed phil strat in any event (that includes util if you do it right)

- if you spread your unsent analytics at card speed im only going to evaluate what i was able to flow so be careful

My default procedure for evaluating a debate -

*I believe very strongly that the three points under this heading are up for debate - these are just defaults*

1. Who am I, what is the round, what is the ballot and what can it do? Absent arguments that tell me otherwise:

- I am a college debater majoring in linguistics and psychology, I care a lot more about the activity than policymaking

- The round is a competition predicated on your ability to persuade me to vote for you

2. What are the roles/burdens of the aff and the neg

- I don't care if the aff reads a plan, defends a change from the status quo, makes no arguments at all, you just have to explain why it means I should vote aff

- the negs job is to convince me to vote neg

3. Who solves which impacts and how do I evaluate/compare them?

- I start my evaluation with probability of solvency

- discourse/education matter (ie. I would rather you just go for liberalism good than argue that your reps aren't important)

more detailed takes for people who want them:

K's:

I have probably read your lit base, if I haven't I'm equally excited to hear it

Do something fun and exciting, do something we've all seen before, just do it well and enjoy doing it. It's your round, I'm just living in it

There are probably no perms in a methods debate, but you still have to win that

DAs:

Love them (and never get to judge them lmao)

Don't be afraid to go for a DA and case just don't forget presumption

CPs:

Solvency advocate theory is probably true

These are a solid and underutilized strategy against k affs

Theory/T:

think of this as like a break glass in case of emergency option in front of me

Disclosure theory means I need screenshots with a timestamp

if you're a circuit debater and your opponent has no idea what's going on I will deck your speaks

affs

I'm a 2a, I've read all kinds of affs.

K aff's- literally do whatever you want. I don't care if you mention the topic. I don't care if you have a c/i on fw.

I will vote for soft left affs, and honestly, I miss them, probability>magnitude is very winnable in front of me.

Policy affs- please keep your internal link chains alive ???? - tell me how the aff solves your extinction scenario

Debated @ UNT 2009-2014

Coach @ St Marks since 2017

Coach @ UTDallas since 2018

If you have questions, feel free to email me at mccullough.hunter@gmail.com

For me, the idea that the judge should remain impartial is very important. I've had long discussions about the general acceptability/desirability of specific debate arguments and practices (as has everybody, I'm sure), but I've found that those rarely influence my decisions. I've probably voted for teams without plans in framework debates more often than I've voted neg, and I've voted for the worst arguments I can imagine, even in close debates, if I thought framing arguments were won. While nobody can claim to be completely unbiased, I try very hard to let good debating speak for itself. That being said, I do have some general predispositions, which are listed below.

T-Theory

-I tend to err aff on T and neg on most theory arguments. By that, I mean that I think that the neg should win a good standard on T in order to win that the aff should lose, and I also believe that theory is usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

- Conditional advocacies are good, but making contradictory truth claims is different. However, I generally think these claims are less damaging to the aff than the "they made us debate against ourselves" claim would make it seem. The best 2ACs will find ways of exploiting bad 1NC strategy, which will undoubtedly yield better speaker points than a theory debate, even if the aff wins.

- I kind of feel like "reasonability" and "competing interpretations" have become meaningless terms that, while everybody knows how they conceptualize it, there are wildly different understandings. In my mind, the negative should have to prove that the affirmative interpretation is bad, not simply that the negative has a superior interpretation. I also don't think that's a very high standard for the negative to be held to, as many interpretations (especially on this space topic) will be hot fiery garbage.

- My view of debates outside of/critical of the resolution is also complicated. While my philosophy has always been very pro-plan reading in the past, I've found that aff teams are often better at explaining their impact turns than the neg is at winning an impact that makes sense. That being said, I think that it's hard for the aff to win these debates if the neg can either win that there is a topical version of the affirmative that minimizes the risk of the aff's impact turns, or a compelling reason why the aff is better read as a kritik on the negative. Obviously there are arguments that are solved by neither, and those are likely the best 2AC impact turns to read in front of me.

- "The aff was unpredictable so we couldn't prepare for it so you should assume it's false" isn't a good argument for framework and I don't think I've ever voted for it.

CPs

- I'm certainly a better judge for CP/DA debates than K v K debates. I particularly like strategic PICs and good 1NC strategies with a lot of options. I'd be willing to vote on consult/conditions, but I find permutation arguments about immediacy/plan-plus persuasive.

- I think the neg gets away with terrible CP solvency all the time. Affs should do a better job establishing what counts as a solvency card, or at least a solvency warrant. This is more difficult, however, when your aff's solvency evidence is really bad. - Absent a debate about what I should do, I will kick a counterplan for the neg and evaluate the aff v. the squo if the CP is bad/not competitive

- I don't think the 2NC needs to explain why severence/intrinsicness are bad, just win a link. They're bad.

- I don't think perms are ever a reason to reject the aff.

- I don't think illegitimate CPs are a reason to vote aff.

Disads

- Run them. Win them. There's not a whole lot to say.

- I'd probably vote on some sort of "fiat solves" argument on politics, but only if it was explained well.

- Teams that invest time in good, comparative impact calculus will be rewarded with more speaker points, and likely, will win the debate. "Disad/Case outweighs" isn't a warrant. Talk about your impacts, but also make sure you talk about your opponents impacts. "Economic collapse is real bad" isn't as persuasive as "economic collapse is faster and controls uniqueness for the aff's heg advantage".

Ks

- My general line has always been that "I get the K but am not well read in every literature". I've started to realize that that statement is A) true for just about everybody and B) entirely useless. It turns out that I've read, coached, and voted for Ks too often for me to say that. What I will say, however, is that I certainly focus my research and personal reading more on the policy side, but will generally make it pretty obvious if I have no idea what you're saying.

- Make sure you're doing link analysis to the plan. I find "their ev is about the status quo" arguments pretty persuasive with a permutation.

- Don't think that just because your impacts "occur on a different level" means you don't need to do impact calculus. A good way to get traction here is case defense. Most advantages are pretty silly and false, point that out with specific arguments about their internal links. It will always make the 2NR easier if you win that the aff is lying/wrong.

- I think the alt is the weakest part of the K, so make sure to answer solvency arguments and perms very well.

- If you're aff, and read a policy aff, don't mistake this as a sign that I'm just going to vote for you because I read mostly policy arguments. If you lose on the K, I'll vote neg. Remember, I already said I think your advantage is a lie. Prove me wrong.

Case

-Don't ignore it. Conceding an advantage on the neg is no different than conceding a disad on the aff. You should go to case in the 1NC, even if you just play defense. It will make the rest of the debate so much easier.

- If you plan to extend a K in the 2NR and use that to answer the case, be sure you're winning either a compelling epistemology argument or some sort of different ethical calculus. General indicts will lose to specific explanations of the aff absent either good 2NR analysis or extensions of case defense.

- 2As... I've become increasingly annoyed with 2ACs that pay lip service to the case without responding to specific arguments or extending evidence/warrants. Just reexplaining the advantage and moving on isn't sufficient to answer multiple levels of neg argumentation.

Paperless debate

I don't think you need to take prep time to flash your speech to your opponent, but it's also pretty obvious when you're stealing prep, so don't do it. If you want to use viewing computers, that's fine, but only having one is unacceptable. The neg needs to be able to split up your evidence for the block. It's especially bad if you want to view their speeches on your viewing computer too. Seriously, people need access to your evidence.

Clipping

I've decided enough debates on clipping in the last couple of years that I think it's worth putting a notice in my philosophy. If a tournament has reliable internet, I will insist on an email chain and will want to be on that email chain. I will, at times, follow along with the speech document and, as a result, am likely to catch clipping if it occurs. I'm a pretty non-confrontational person, so I'm unlikely to say anything about a missed short word at some point, but if I am confident that clipping has occurred, I will absolutely stop the debate and decide on it. I'll always give debaters the benefit of the doubt, and provide an opportunity to say where a card was marked, but I'm pretty confident of my ability to distinguish forgetting to say "mark the card" and clipping. I know that there is some difference of opinion on who's responsibility it is to bring about a clipping challenge, but I strongly feel that, if I know for certain that debaters are not reading all of their evidence, I have not only the ability but an obligation to call it out.

Other notes

- Really generic backfile arguments (Ashtar, wipeout, etc) won't lose you the round, but don't expect great speaks. I just think those arguments are really terrible, (I can't describe how much I hate wipeout debates) and bad for debate.

- Impact turn debates are awesome, but can get very messy. If you make the debate impossible to flow, I will not like you. Don't just read cards in the block, make comparisons about evidence quality and uniqueness claims. Impact turn debates are almost always won by the team that controls uniqueness and framing arguments, and that's a debate that should start in the 2AC.

Finally, here is a short list of general biases.

• The status quo should always be an option in the 2NR (Which doesn't necessarily mean that the neg get's infinite flex. If they read 3 contradictory positions, I can be persuaded that it was bad despite my predisposition towards conditionality. It does mean that I will, absent arguments against it, judge kick a counterplan and evaluate the case v the squo if the aff wins the cp is bad/not competitive)
• Warming is real and science is good (same argument, really)
• The aff gets to defend the implementation of the plan as offense against the K, and the neg gets to read the K
• Timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude 
• Predictable limits are key to both fairness and education
• Consult counterplans aren't competitive. Conditions is arguable.
• Rider DA links are not intrinsic
• Utilitarianism is a good way to evaluate impacts
• The aff should defend a topical plan
• Death and extinction are bad
• Uncooperative federalism is one of the worst counterplans I've ever seen

Debated for UWG ’15 – ’17; Coaching: Notre Dame – ’19 – Present; Baylor – ’17 – ’19

email: joshuamichael59@gmail.com

Online Annoyance

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when one card was marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take CX time for it.

Policy

I prefer K v K rounds, but I generally wind up in FW rounds.

K aff’s – 1) Generally have a high threshold for 1ar/2ar consistency. 2) Stop trying to solve stuff you could reasonably never affect. Often, teams want the entirety of X structure’s violence weighed yet resolve only a minimal portion of that violence. 3) v K’s, you are rarely always already a criticism of that same thing. Your articulation of the perm/link defense needs to demonstrate true interaction between literature bases. 4) Stop running from stuff. If you didn’t read the line/word in question, okay. But indicts of the author should be answered with more than “not our Baudrillard.”

K’s – 1) rarely win without substantial case debate. 2) ROJ arguments are generally underutilized. 3) I’m generally persuaded by aff answers that demonstrate certain people shouldn’t read certain lit bases, if warranted by that literature. 4) I have a higher threshold for generic “debate is bad, vote neg.” If debate is bad, how do you change those aspects of debate? 5) 2nr needs to make consistent choices re: FW + Link/Alt combinations. Find myself voting aff frequently, because the 2nr goes for two different strats/too much.

Special Note for Settler Colonialism: I simultaneously love these rounds and experience a lot of frustration when judging this argument. Often, debaters haven’t actually read the full text from which they are cutting cards and lack most of the historical knowledge to responsibly go for this argument. List of annoyances: there are 6 settler moves to innocence – you should know the differences/specifics rather than just reading pages 1-3 of Decol not a Metaphor; la paperson’s A Third University is Possible does not say “State reform good”; Reading “give back land” as an alt and then not defending against the impact turn is just lazy. Additionally, claiming “we don’t have to specify how this happens,” is only a viable answer for Indigenous debaters (the literature makes this fairly clear); Making a land acknowledgement in the first 5 seconds of the speech and then never mentioning it again is essentially worthless; Ethic of Incommensurability is not an alt, it’s an ideological frame for future alternative work (fight me JKS).

FW

General: 1) Fairness is either an impact or an internal link 2) the TVA doesn’t have to solve the entirety of the aff. 3) Your Interp + our aff is just bad.

Aff v FW: 1) can win with just impact turns, though the threshold is higher than when winning a CI with viable NB’s. 2) More persuaded by defenses of education/advocacy skills/movement building. 3) Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere.

Reading FW: 1) Respect teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movement building. 2) “If we can’t test the aff, presume it’s false” – no 3) Have to answer case at some point (more than the 10 seconds after the timer has already gone off) 4) You almost never have time to fully develop the sabotage tva (UGA RS deserves more respect than that). 5) Impact turns to the CI are generally underutilized. You’ll almost always win the internal link to limits, so spending all your time here is a waste. 6) Should defend the TVA in 1nc cx if asked. You don’t have a right to hide it until the block.

Theory - 1) I generally lean neg on questions of Conditionality/Random CP theory. 2) No one ever explains why dispo solves their interp. 3) Won’t judge kick unless instructed to.

T – 1) I’m not your best judge. 2) Seems like no matter how much debating is done over CI v Reasonability, I still have to evaluate most of the offense based on CI’s.

DA/CP – 1) Prefer smart indicts of evidence as opposed to walls of cards (especially on ptx/agenda da's). Neg teams get away with murder re: "dropped ev" that says very little/creatively highlighted. 2) I'm probably more lenient with aff responses (solvency deficits/aff solves impact/intrinsic perm) to Process Cp's/Internal NB's that don't have solvency ev/any relation to aff.

Case - I miss in depth case debates. Re-highlightings don't have to be read. The worse your re-highlighting the lower the threshold for aff to ignore it.

LD

All of my thoughts on policy apply, except for theory. More than 2 condo (or CP’s with different plank combinations) is probably abusive, but I can be convinced otherwise on a technical level.

Not voting on an RVI. I don’t care if it’s dropped.

Most LD theory is terrible Ex: Have to spec a ROB or I don’t know what I can read in the 1nc --- dumb argument.

Phil or Tricks (sp?) debating – I’m not your judge.

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.

Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.

Rishi Mukherjee (he/him)

Lexington High School 20

UMass Amherst 24

rishi.rishi.mukherjee@gmail.com put me on the chain

PF Paradigm
- everything applies from policy paradigm (the top level part mostly)

i consider myself flay funnily enough - but to you i'm probably a flow judge - I do policy - but taught some PF - im ok with speed - ok with theory - ok with k's - plus down for (well executed) trolling

misc things that are weird about me in PF:

• down for paraphrasing - but i believe down with paraphrasing
• i would prefer that people do speech docs than waste time in ev checks
• i flow crossfire
• i actually treat grand cross and the summary as one speech - in my head its the 1ar in policy
• i care about extending 'complete' args into the FF
• i care less than most about terminalization but im lowkey a fan - numbers are cool
• i never understood pf judges deciding based on the number of clashes (see jamie zhang) - i resolve debates based on offense/defense and what seems most important - i dont really go clash by clash to resolve debates - i also default to what i consider judge instruction - (see policy paradigm)

Emory Update - Policy

- i noticed i am regressing speakswise because im not impressed recently

- i know the NATO topic pretty well - i debated a NATO aff for all of alliances and have done some prep on this topic plus i occasionally read the news abt Russia - and im disenchanted with the love of recent ev as a substitute for coherent warrants

- talking to shree a lot has made me care more about a) cards in K debates & b) near-excessive contextualization to the other team in FW v Kaff debates by both the aff and neg

- whimsically down for a condo debate that starts early in the 2ac

LD Paradigm(Updated for Blue Key RR)

If I were preffing myself: 1 for LARP, Ks, Tricks, & T/Theory and 2/3 for Phil

I do CX, but I've done and judged a fair bit of LD. Everything from my policy paradigm applies. Defaults and Bias are my position without explicit argumentation. Defaults: I default to T as a higher layer than the K . I default permissibility and presumption negates. I default dtd on T/Theory.
Ks/Kaffs/T-FW all fine - I've debated on both sides. Far higher tolerance than most for "frivolous" theory, tricks, a priori's. Harder sell but ok for T-Nebel and RVI's but that's because I think plans are good and people are mid at 1ARs - if you win technically you're fine.

Memes aren't an autowin despite what you might hear about me. They still need to be fleshed out arguments. But I will be pleased if you send it and go for memes!

Policy Paradigm (Updated for Emory)

Top Level:

- I believe debate is best when the judge does not favor adjudicating the round based on personal preconceived notions such as "rep" or "truth" among others. I strive to uphold this ideal and evaluate the debate in a technical manner. "If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

- Judge instruction is paramount. Telling me what the consequence of winning a particular argument is on the debate will be formative in determining how I evaluate the debate. Argument resolution wins debates; explaining the interaction between your and your opponent's arguments & competing claims as well as why it favors you will win you close rounds. Absent any instruction from debaters I will make my own judgements on how to evaluate competing arguments. Many "JF's" occur because judges put the puzzle pieces together differently in their own head. Tbh this is more important than "opinions" on arguments. Tell me how to think and why!

Online Debate

- Don't start a speech without me.

- I usually won't say "slow" or "clear" in the middle of a speech. It is in your best interest to have me understand everything you say and I don't want to incentivize debaters spamming args until a judge interrupts. I would rather incentivize teams to over-compensate and debate carefully.

- Record your speeches; people inevitably disconnect in the middle of a speech and recording prevents issues that arise from this. My computer caught on fire one time lol anything can happen.

K v Policy

Kaffs/Framework

- TLDR: I'm very middling. I would pref myself above most clash judges but below judges who lean for you because I'm good for policy-policy and K v K.

- I don't care about what the aff does unless the neg makes it an issue. I read both affs with a plan and planless affs in high-school and continue to read both on the aff in college and I also often read FW on the neg.

- I believe there's no one right way to run FW on the neg i.e. people who say fairness is always better than clash etc. I think that categorizing certain impacts as always strategic or unviable is an L take. Go for whatever option you are most comfortable with/you think is most strategic.

Ks on the neg v Policy Affs

- I'm persuaded by the idea that the aff should get to "weigh" the aff, but what that means is up for debate.

- I find it simpler to vote for K's that disprove the aff and/or have specific links.

K v K

- Framing and judge instruction should be very explicit and debated out.

- Explanation is critical, application and examples win rounds; buzzwords lose rounds.

Policy Stuff

T

- I like the full package: I want a predictable model of debate that also produces good debates. I find it difficult to intrinsically care more about one of these components than the other.

- Reasonability is more persuasive to me when articulated with specific arguments with impacts like substance crowd-out rather than vague pleading that I should believe the affirmative.

DAs

- Comparison of any form including turns case or impact calc wins debates.

- A central question I usually have is evaluating and comparing risk. I find "zero-risk" impossible but often negligible risk is functionally the same. For example I consider the risk of randomly getting struck by lightning negligible so I wouldn't decide against going outside just because the magnitude of taking a walk is outweighed by death by lightning zap.

CPs

- I don't judge kick unless instructed to do so.

- Fine for hella condo, but I always will take condo seriously if properly extended. I also personally care much less abt perf con than most. I've recently been persuaded that topic bias is of utmost importance.

- I have no problem with process CPs that compete off of "arbitrary things" like certainty/immediacy as well as consult CPs, delay CPs or literally any other 'abusive' CPs. I generally find it easiest to vote aff in these debates if you have a process advantage. However, most good aff teams can also handily defeat these positions with proper theory and competition debate.

- I'm not as enchanted with tricky perms as most - I prefer just voting on theory

Misc

- Don't make debate unsafe. I don't have a problem with stuff like the Death K, Spark, Wipeout etc. but use your best judgement.

- Clipping or other ev ethics violations are a loss and 0 speaks, accusations need a recording/proof and will stop the round.

- I give "modern" speaks and modulate based on the tournament "difficulty".

- I often flow CX.

- Meme arguments are an art form - passion and skill are critical!

- While I might not think too highly of debate in the abstract, I definitively respect the passion and effort people put into the activity. Therefore I approach judging and feedback seriously in accordance. The investment is what makes it all worth it.

peninsula fp '21, darinp312@gmail.com

tech > truth, say whatever you want. i have judged a lot of debates about lots of different things so i tend to be generally neutral towards most arguments.

significantly better for impact turns, most process cps, and conditionality than average.

significantly worse for the k and planless affs than average, but if you win you win.

interesting strats/weird stuff = better speaks.

you cannot insert rehighlightings.

feel free to post-round.

Former open debater at GMU from 2018-2022. I ran mostly queer theory, disability, and various forms of cap for the last couple years and am most familiar with those lit bases.

She/they pronouns. Put me on the email chain please, ceili1627 at gmail dot com. Feel free to email me after rounds with questions.

TL;DR: run whatever you want and I'll judge as best I can. I think my role as a judge is to be an educator/facilitator of idea exchanges regardless of whether those ideas are connected to anything from USFG action to interpretive dance performances. Keep in mind that even though debate is a game that you should have fun playing, it has real-world consequences for the real people who play it. As a great woman once said, "At the end of the debate, be sure to tell me why I should vote for you; if you don't, then you can't get big mad when I don't ... periodt" and I live by that <3

Policy:

K Affs: I'm totally down with k affs but I prefer them to have at least a vague link to the topic. It's super easy for the narrative of k affs to get lost during the round so please keep the aff story alive!! In FW/T debates, make sure to explain what debate rounds look like under your counterinterp, and that plus solid impact turns is usually a fairly easy ballot from me.

FW/T: As the same great woman once said, "I have voted against framework, I have voted for framework, but at the end of the day I don't really want to be there when framework is read." Run a caselist. Reasonability isn’t really an argument and fairness definitely isn't an impact. I tend to default to competing interps unless given a good reason otherwise. The neg needs to really spell out why I should err towards them on limits. TVAs are pretty useful for mitigating offense against fw as long as they're explained and contextualized well. Please for the love of god contextualize all your fw blocks to the round & aff in question instead of just reading a transcript of fw blocks from an NDT outround half a decade ago. I'm not persuaded by args that debate doesn't shape subjectivity--if you come out of a round the exact same as you entered it (regardless of if your opinions/beliefs have changed) then you're probably playing the game wrong.

Theory: Trying to convince me to care about potential abuse is an uphill battle. Don’t spread through theory blocks please. For blippy args I generally err towards rejecting the arg but will (extremely) reluctantly vote on it if dropped.

DAs/Case: Impact calc and clear internal link chains are both super important for me to vote on a DA. I tend to think that links determine DA direction but can probably be persuaded that direction is determined by uniqueness. I really enjoy heavy case debates and am disappointed that's increasingly missing from a lot of rounds. Also I think re-highlighting your opponents' ev is a bold move that's cool and often persuasive when it's done right but is pretty cringe if done poorly.

Ks: I was mostly a k debater in college and I'm most familiar with lit bases for queer theory, cap, set col, and debility. Still, you need to clearly explain your theories of power and all that good stuff instead of throwing around a bunch of obscure terms expecting me to know what you’re talking about. Please please please don't read a k just because you think that's what I want to hear--it makes for a bad debate and a grumpy judge. I’d like to think my ballot actually means something so explain to me what it does and I'll be more likely to pull the trigger for you. I feel most comfortable voting on specific links to the aff though I prefer the debate to go beyond the level of you-link-you-lose. Please give me a clear and coherent framework under which I consider the aff vs the alt, but also I think too many policy affs use framework to avoid engaging with the k at all which is both frustrating to judge and not at all strategic.

CPs: 50 state fiat is definitely core neg ground at the high school level. I’m fine with the neg having 2 conditional worlds, 3 makes me lean aff, and the neg shouldn't ever need 4+ conditional worlds. I don't judge kick and I'm likely to entertain most if not all CPs as long as they have a clear net benefit and explanation of how they solve the aff. Super meta CP theory confuses and bores me.

General: Tech > truth (often but not always, e.g. I usually tend to evaluate the debate through tech > truth but can be fairly easily convinced otherwise), debate is a game that you should have fun playing, clarity > speed (especially for zoom debate), I reserve the right to tank speaks if you're being homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, excessively rude, or clipping cards. Please don't make me have to judge something that happened outside the round like authenticity checks or happenings from other tournaments/seasons. I usually have little HS topic knowledge but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't pref me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's good for the neg on T insofar as I don't have a predetermined view of what the topic should look like, but it's also good for the aff because I don’t have much knowledge on the nuances of what affirmatives look like under particular definitions. I'm pretty hit or miss on reading ev after rounds unless explicitly told to, and on that note please highlight your cards in as close to complete and coherent sentences as you can. Violent verb fragments aren't arguments.

PF:

I did 4 years of PF in high school so I'm quite familiar with this format. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 3 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb.

LD:

I never debated this format, though I understand it, and I tend to judge it from a somewhat policy perspective. I'm cool with both traditional and progressive formats--do what you do best/enjoy most and I'll vote off the flow. What bugs me most is the introduction of some kind of framing lens at the beginning of the round (like value/value criteria or another kind of framework) that isn't extended or used throughout the rest of the debate.

The Gamble

If you use One Direction lyrics in your speechI will raise your speaks a max of 0.5. Do with that what you will.

im kailey. igo by any pronouns so call me anything tbh

please add me to the email chain ramlalkailey0@gmail.com

pref black judges

i think to sum up all the specifics just do your best and flesh out your arguments :0

So far, I have judged 10 Debates - I voted neg seven times and have voted aff three times in all my practice debates. The winning 2NR's were:

1: Inflation DA and States CP against Federal Jobs Guarantee Aff with Inequality and Infrastructure Impacts.

2: Interest Rates DA and States CP against Federal Jobs Guarantee Aff with Inequality and Infrastructure Impacts.

3: IRS DA and States CP against Federal Jobs Guarantee Aff with Inequality and Infrastructure Impacts.

4: Farm Bill Politics DA and States CP against Universal Basic Income Soft Left Aff with Poverty and Gender Advantages.

5: Capitalism Critique against Carbon Tax Basic Income Aff with Climate and China REE and Populism Advantages.

6: Colonialism Critique against Carbon Tax Basic Income Aff with Climate and China REE and Populism Advantages.

7: Politics DA and PIC out of "Social Security" against Expand Social Security To Include Medicare Aff.

The PIC was functionally conceded in both the 2AC and 1AR in the final debate, and the aff did not have a "social security key" warrant.

None of the aff teams went for 50 state fiat bad, and they did not point out that the States CP linked to the net benefits.

Neither of the first two aff teams against the critique answered the link correctly (or basically at all) in the 2AR, and the negative teams in both instances won a substantial link to the aff that (actually, surprisingly) engaged the plan alongside winning their framework arguments that functionally mooted the 1AC and lowered the threshold for the negative to win the debates both times.

However, I recently voted twice for the Carbon Tax Basic Income aff against the Cap K. If the neg from the first Cap K v. Carbon Tax debate did not win framework, I would have also voted aff and I think all the Cap K links on this topic are generally ridiculous. I do not find the Azmanov link persuasive at all nor do I think that "philosophical competition" framework arguments are persuasive if the aff can still weigh the aff and they win a link turn. Find substantive arguments and make real links. Affs are not "philosophically invested" in capitalism if they win the link turn, which they are built to do because wealth redistribution is obviously net better than the status quo. If you are planning on reading a critique against the Carbon Tax Basic Income aff, I would make links to the advantages that aren't about climate change and try to pin the aff down to defending imperialism. Many aff teams have asserted that the China REE advantage does not require them to defend "heg good". I understand the sentiment, but I disagree in the sense that it says China is bad and US leadership (albeit in a specific sector) is good, and I think links can certainly be garnered from that. I'm confused why teams are saying that fiscal redistribution "reifies" capitalism because not only are they non-unique, they do not establish any trade-off with the alternative. If this is your strategy, you are better off reading and going for the "Taxation is Coercion" DA (which is equally bad). Either find a material consequence to the aff that trades off with the alt, or just find a link to their Reps and a Research-First Framework.

I also did cast an aff ballot for a Federal Jobs Guarantee aff going for the Infrastructure Advantage against the States CP. I now realize that advantage is quite literally built to beat the States CP. My thoughts after judging five debates on the States CP is that it certainly is overpowered on this topic since we just all decided to agree that neg teams get to fiat states doing Deficit Spending, and I think aff teams need to technically handle all of the links that negative teams generate with critiques. That being said, I am definitely willing to vote on "Uniform 50-State Fiat Bad" theory against the States Counterplan, and I am also willing to vote on smart solvency deficits based on strategic aff "fed key" warrants against the States CP. T-Taxes is winnable on both sides and an interesting debate to watch.

Most people are intensely ideological about Debate opinions regarding minutiae and asserting their own frivolous small gripes onto others when it comes to what they consider to be "good" strategy, which clouds their ability to be an impartial judge. I believe there are a lot different ways to understand what "good" strategy is, and many different ways to view Debate which are all good. Politics DA's have a lot of polarizing takes attached to them. same thing with Process CP's. Same thing with critiques of fiat. Same thing with soft left affs. Same thing with Condo. I'm honestly tired of having opinions and I molded my brain so much over the years that I really don't have any strong opinions. Just debate it out and whoever is better will win. I can be sold on either side in the abstract but it will always come down to the specifics in the particular debate. Truth = Tech are the same because dropped arguments are true and nobody agrees on what the capital T Truth is. I flow well enough to know when something is dropped, but good cross-applications can save you.

Read whatever u want. I can judge any debate. I have no hard and fast opinions on theory or topicality because I have a real life outside debate and I honestly couldn't care less about 99% of it sorry. Otherwise tho, about critiques, i hate when people call it "the K". We're not german. That's really my only personal pet peeve. Debaters are already under enough stress as is at a debate tournament, don't worry about adjusting your strategy in front of me. Just debate well.

I can recognize good debaters regardless of what argument you read and how you present yourself, so actually just be yourself and i can give you tips on how to just unlock your true potential based on what you already do, not based on what i want you to do. i dont get paid enough to police your personal opinions, but I do get paid to give you an RFD which ur gonna hear approximately two and a half hours to three hours after you read this when you see my name on the pairing. My RFD is based on who i think won the Debate based on community consensus across the board. It reflects what I think most judges in the pool would think, not my own hot takes.

I promise I'm chill and actually way less opinionated than most people in debate. I believe the judge should adapt to the debaters and I'm very aware of what community consensus on most things are so dont judge me based on what I personally read (if you do know what arguments in debate i choose). I debate for money because I'm poor and being homeless is not fun and student loans arent fun either soooo yeah. Something something topic link. But anyways, debate scholarships are cool. Speaking of scholarship, anything can count as evidence or research to me including art. & music is cool but you're in high school so i think my music taste is better because i'm older and i listened to things before you listened to things and i still probably listen to most things you listen to unless i don't listen to them in which case i won't like them because i don't listen to them or i don't listen to them because i don't like them, so it'll probs just backfire.

update (9/27/23): added detailed judging record for most accurate data. poached from David McDermott.

update (9/24/23): tried to make my paradigm as short as i could only to realize there is a lot to write, but most of my opinions are highly irrelevant and easily overcome with technical debating. i do not think "evenly debated" ever happens unless both teams decide to never respond to any of their opponent's arguments, and have only had to intervene in one debate where the warrant in a piece of evidence a debate was staked on was interpreted incorrectly by both teams.

must reads:

1. joe, not judge. yes, email chain: joerhee779@gmail.com

email subject should include tournament, round, teams, and codes.
example: 2021 TOC - Round 4 - Mitty AP (Aff) vs Little Rock GR (Neg)

2. have seen a lot of unkind behavior while judging. i used to think being angry was cool, and it's fine to show emotion, but don't push it too far. not trying to police expression, but sometimes its either just cringy or directly making individuals uncomfortable.

3. speech times are non-negotiable. outside help is prohibited. each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal, unless there's a maverick situation that has been pre-approved.

4. i check to see if you clip. it actually happens a lot, and i won't hesitate to vote you down. accidents happen, i get it. this doesn't mean you need to worry if you skipped one word out of your 3000 word 1AC without realizing, but i have voted down two teams who skipped a sentence, several words, or even paragraphs, in more than one card. you may have scrolled past without realizing, but repeated instances are misrepresentation of evidence and i will draw a line in the sand.

5. if a rehighlighting is longer than 3 lines, read it.

6. if i'm judging you:

a. [online] would prefer camera on just because online debate is soulless as is. won't ask or punish you for it though.

b. [in person] i will try to sit at least 10 feet away. don't move closer. don't shake my hand.

7. don't assume i know anything about "community consensus" or the topic.

background

1. little rock central '22, vanderbilt '26. human and organizational development major, minoring in data science and asian studies. i read a lot of philosophy, behavioral journals, cultural studies papers, international relations and economics articles for both debate and college. you can ask me questions about vandy if you want, although preferably after a decision has been made or through email.

2. read basically everything in high school as a 2A and 2N. did one tournament in college that was about the same.

some of my favorite arguments included:

aff: code-switching poetry in korean, wynter, soft left refugees, soko arms sales.

neg: the security K, the allied prolif DA, the onticide K, T-subs, a conditions CP, spark.

3. very data oriented. i think of debate as a time game. my flow is not the number of words you said, but the number of words i could write down. assuming argument quality is the same (it usually isn't), the side with more time spent on the core issues of the debate will win.

4. have voted for many pro-growthers and nationalists although i do not agree with them. wish more teams would say stuff about cards from brookings or cato or one of 10 gazillion other think tanks and more about evidence quality in general.

5. did the toc once. broke there. qualed twice. did about 10 tournaments a year all 4 years, mostly national circuit. aware of most trends in debate, and coach both policy and K teams, though I research more Ks and K answers than anything else.

6. if you don't feel like reading my paradigm, my thoughts on judging are essentially like both of Texas DK, Debnil Sur, Rafael Pierry, and David McDermott, although I am perhaps not as steeply neg biased.

argument evaluation

1. i judge about 50% policy rounds, 40% policy v k rounds, and 10% k v k rounds. read what you're good at.

2. i will flow your speech. i will decide the debate based on said flow. you will not change my mind on this.

3. tech over truth, but arguments must have a claim, warrant, and implication. ok with trolly arguments. your fault if you lose the sky is green, but you do have to say why the sky being green matters. if an argument is bad, beat it.

example of an incomplete argument: condo is a voter for killing straight turns - dispo solves.

example of a complete argument: condo is a voter - kills straight turns by incentivizing least credible offense, which destroys aff research and depth. dispo solves because they can kick if perms or theory.

tech is most important but also entails that a debater uses concessions to illustrate the big picture so that the judge does not intervene on WHAT it entails.

this is the single most important part of my paradigm. way too often, debaters are dissatisfied with a decision, saying "they dropped this thing!" without ever explaining why it matters for the overall debate and instead leaving it to the judge's devices. implication debating of core concessions wins debates far more often than going for dozens of concessions and not explaining implications.

4. similarly, please do impact calculus. why does something matter more? old-school novice-style impact calculus debating is actually helpful for most debates.

5. i have very little strong preferences, but incorporating some of my small ones can help render a decision in your favor. as far as i can tell, my bias is very minimal, and i am open to being proved wrong.

6. i obviously will really hate you if you read something racist, sexist, transphobic, or otherwise, but if the other team doesn't call you out, i may be almost just as mad. if you said something that harms others (i.e. calling someone a slur, misgendering, etc) i will intervene, but if you say something that could be interpreted as such (i.e. drone strikes good, malthus, etc), i won't intervene. the closer you toe the line, the more likely i am to intervene. i will try my absolute hardest to let the debaters debate this out, but participant safety vastly outweighs the educational benefit of just letting personal attacks continue.

i can and will not make a judgment on a debater's behavior out of round because it lacks a verifiable warrant and is thus not a complete argument. i understand there are many objectionable people in debate who have done terrible things to others, but i unfortunately do not have the authority nor resources to conduct an investigation on them. if your opponent says something objectionable in the round and you want to make it a link argument or voting issue, feel free to do so, but i will evaluate it like any other argument.

7. given this, feel free to postround. i will most likely disagree with you, given that i rendered a decision the other way, but i feel like it's an important way for debaters to hold judges accountable for potentially questionable decisions and make them rethink certain parts of their decision. that being said, if you become hostile, i will similarly become hostile. there's a difference between respectfully questioning someone's evaluation and simply being mad because you disagree.

obligatory K section for prefs because no one cares about anything else nowadays

you can read whatever, with some caveats.

1. don't assume i know anything about your authors or what they are saying. explanation is imperative.

2. please be specific. reading a K is not an excuse for not having links. quotes are great, but need to actually prove the link.

3. Ks that are not "plan focus bad" are an uphill battle due to uniqueness issues, the perm double bind, and utopian fiat bad. they are not unwinnable, just usually have warrant problems. if you go for a root cause link without an alt or uniqueness or framework, you will probably lose. because of this, i am usually better for Ks that moot the plan with framework DAs than the "we fiat international revolution" K with "try or die turns aff impacts".

4. framework is not "usually a wash" and determines a lot of offense. i will not vote for a "middle ground" interp i constructed in my mind, although you are free to introduce a middle ground interp. if it doesn't matter, tell me why. if you don't tell me why "fiat racist" outweighs "procedure", or vice versa, you will lose. defense helps as a tiebreaker, but usually impact comparison matters more.

5. aff teams should read less state inevitable cards and more impact turns. solidify strategy by the 2AR and don't shotgun. don't have a preference for extinction/framework strategy over the perm/link turn strategy, but it makes less sense to go for the perm with an aff that talks about heg.

6. K v K: the link matters most for the perm, but impact comparison or turns case matters most overall. framework helps. explaining what the role of debate is helps me evaluate the alt vs the aff a lot better. the more absolutist position you take the better, although PIKs are fine if there's an actual impact to the link.

T

1. T v K affs:

a. explaining what the ballot does for the scope of impacts is most important for both teams:

affs often have big impacts but don't do a lot to solve them. doing risk calculus like you're debating "x-ism outweighs procedure" and doing solvency debating to show you solve some of the impact is most important.

negs often have small impacts that they can solve but lack impact comparison. limiting the scope of what debate/the aff can solve is most beneficial. good 2Ns ask the question: how would either the counter interp or the aff solve this in any capacity?

b. strategy wise, consistency is important.

affs would be better served choosing just a counter interp strategy or just an impact turn strategy. defense helps.

negs would be better served going for a small impact, solvency takeouts to DAs, and switch side.

c. TVAs are meh. if the aff says "free palestine now!" the neg has no obligation to say how this might be solved by a job guarantee. if you can, more power to you.

d. more persuaded by limits than ground for the neg. preparing for tons of affs usually means in depth debates are much harder, even if the neg could pull a K out of their backfiles.

e. i have coached teams to both answer and go for fairness and clash. i have not heard a debate involving topic education/lawyering since 2020, so it will be a bit unfamiliar.

f. fairness is not inherently "just an internal link" OR "an intrinsic good". teams must explain beyond two words why it is or isn't an impact. warrants please!

similarly, i'm not sure why aff teams are only answering fairness with either "just an internal link" or "structural unfairness". usually neg teams are good at just no linking both. aff DAs about how the neg has weaponized fairness are much more persuasive than answers 2Ns are all too ready for.

2. T vs plan affs:

a. i think some judges have an unreasonably high burden for T. that being said, you have to not spread your T blocks at an incomprehensible pace.

b. T evidence quality is on life support.

c. don't have a preference for limits or precision. just do comparison.

d. reasonability should be framed as offense. it doesn't make sense without a counter interp.

e. no idea why T has to be 5 minutes of the 2NR if substance is also bad for the aff (example: they dropped presumption).

CPs

1. solvency deficits need impacts. if you don't have any, find a better aff.

2. i do not share disdain for a general enemy known as "process junk". every counterplan has a process.

i am open to affirmative theory objections about why some processes do not meet the burden of rejoinder, but i am not biased for or against them.

DAs

1. i am fine with rider DAs, "a logical policymaker could do both", "winners win", or any silly disadvantage arguments you might like to make on either side as long as they are warranted.

2. bad DAs can be reduced to zero risk if well debated. same with bad advantages. this is not because i dislike disadvantages or cases, but because the strength of warrants are often made up.

3. affs don't straight turn enough.

Case

1. case debating is a lost art.

the state of 2AC line by line is abysmal, resulting in incomprehensible sound bytes that do not resemble even half of an argument, making me want to abandon technical evaluation to scold every 2A for not saying full sentences. conversely, neg teams usually just spam cards instead of actually reading the affs terrible cards and pointing out how terrible they are.

if you don't do these things, your speaks will certainly improve.

2. i love impact turns. this includes death good, spark, wipeout, and pretty much anything else. would much rather judge a debate like this than a competition 2AR.

Theory

1. condo is the only (obvious) reason to reject the team. i could be convinced otherwise, but i haven't heard a warrant (yet) for why international fiat or the like made the entire 2AC undebatable.

2. much less biased for the neg than i used to be. i actually enjoy theory debates, but a lot of times, both sides just assert truisms about how debate works without explaining why or questioning the other sides warrants (example: why is aff or neg side bias actually true?)

pretty even on the few theory debates I've judged.

Speaks

1. last year everyone was around 29, so i've started to start at 28.5 instead. i'll adjust based on tournament pool.

2. your speaks will go down if you yell or insult each other. conversely, speaks will go up with jokes and humor.

3. last year's median was around 28.7. if you reach below 27.3, you almost assuredly did an ethics violation. if you reach above 29.7, you are the best speaker i have ever seen.

4. reading better ev, doing line by line with warrants, and actually comparing impacts will make me less grumpy and correlate with higher speaks.

5. i will not give you a 30 just because your opponent technically conceded you should get one, since i am not bound to technical concessions even if your opponent is.

Misc

1. if i look confused, this just means i don't get it. if i nod, it just means i get what you mean, not necessarily that i think it's the best/winning argument.

2. if you say your evidence is great and its not, i will be annoyed.

3. emailing is not prep, but if you take obnoxiously long, i will tell you to start prep.

4. deleting analytics is definitely prep.

5. "tag team" cx is fine, but if one debater is taking every question, speaks will suffer.

Tristan Rios (they/them)

BTW looking for teams to coach, feel free to reach out via email

Email - Trisrios6955@gmail.com - plz put me on the email chain

for organizational reasons please make the subject of the email chain "Tournament - Round # - Aff team v Neg team" or something similar

who on hell is Tristan?

I am currently debating at UT Dallas (2022-Present), I have been debating for 6 years prior - 2 years at Lopez Middle school (2016-2018) , and 4 years at Ronald Reagan High school (2018-2022)

last year i was an assistant coach at Coppell as well as a coach for a few individual cx and ld teams

I have done it all, from occult horror storytelling to trans theory to baudrillard, to the all foreboding framework makes the gamework, the kids i coach also go for a very wide variety of arguments from exclusive k teams to policy fascists. Both me and the kids I coach have gotten bids and been to the toc. I state this not as a flex but more so to state that even though I may seem very k leaning (and I admit it is the literature i read the most in my freetime) but I have successfully coached and am aware of a wide variety of argumentative styles which means you will do best if you do you, dont try to adapt. if I think an argument is bad that doesn't mean i dont evaluate it, it just means i have a higher expectation for the other team to answer it well.

Non-negotiables

- misgendering

- trigger warnings

- anysort of interpersonal "-isms" that is done from debater to debater

General Thoughts/Preferences

• generic links are fine as long as they are contextualized to the aff
• I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).
• I default to viewing every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact IF not told otherwise. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.
• I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

Speaks

if u send blocks during the debate +0.3 speaks

if u open source + 0.1 speaks

Note for LD:

i know alot of tech judges have a strange amount of distaste for evaluating traditional debate, but dont worry about that with me, i will happily judge the round regardless of your stylistic preferences

Hi, I'm Jeremy. I did policy debate in high school and now in college..

Some thoughts, not necessarily in any order:

--the 2nr/2ar should write my ballot. that requires judge instruction surrounding key framing questions and how those framing questions implicate my evaluation of the rest of the debate. the best rebuttal probably wins a framing arg at the top and then goes down the flow to apply it. Recently i've been persuaded by role of the judge arguments because they provide me with a epistemic/ethical position from which to adjudicate arguments on the flow. If you want me to do work for you in my decision, this is how, you just need to implicate it.

--If ur a 2n, probably don’t drop case. if you’re a 2a, punish the 2n for dropping case.

--hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical

--The same logic folds true for other impact analysis. I tend to think that institutions/systems/entities, etc. have historical existence (for instance, "historical capitalism") which binds their coming-into-Being (past) to their Being (present). That is to say that violence isn't just an ethical choice in a vacuum, but something that accumulates through the reproduction of its existence over time and through space. that means that hypothetical impacts are probably less important than real-existing impacts since the future existence of hypothetical impacts is not certain and/or necessary. That being said, if you win your internal link chain is true, that the hypothetical impact outweighs, and that you solve it, i probably will vote for you absent some tricky framing argument you drop.

Topicality

• I like these debates. i don't judge a ton of them though, especially not on this topic.
• Fairness is probably the best impact if you're reading T, but you should have inroads/internal link turns on clash/edu because i'm willing to be persuaded that the inclusion of debatably (un)topical aff into the activity is good because it provides a unique type of education not accessed by existing affirmatives
• the current college topic has made me believe in subsets (do with that what you will)

Framework vs K affs

• hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical
• I tend to think that FW is chosen ground vs many k affs unless its a new aff because many teams get by fine without reading fw
• Fairness is probably an impact, but its not necessarily the most important impact and is often just an internal link to other things (clash/education/etc.)
• The biggest issues that i have with 2nrs that go for fw is a) the lack of an external impact (people quit, debate dies - participation has decreased over the years, explain that impact flows ur way and how you solve it) and b) not explaining why debate is a valuable activity that should be preserved (this is where things like education, skills, and fun often become terminal impacts to the internal link of education) c) lack of defense (SSD or TVA) that absorbs the educational net benefits of the aff
• The biggest issue that i have with 2ars responding to fw is insufficient impact calculus - i will probably let you weigh ur aff's theory of power/understanding of the world vs fw, but you have to explain you impacts on the level of the activity and contextualize that as offense vs their reading of fw - does FW, particularly the invocation of procedural norms, insulate debate from a critique of its ideology? Are the content-neutral education/skills produced by their content agnostic model good?
• I don't really care whether you go for a C/I or an impact turn, but a mix of the two can be good i.e. a straight impact turn might leave you without defense, whereas a C/I means your vulnerable to the normative impacts of theory debates. I think that if you isolate a critique of the outcomes of their model, then provide an alternative model, you're probably in a good place.

K v K Debates

• Affs probably get a perm, theoretically (if the 1nr is 5 min of perm theory that would be pretty devastating) but whether the perm solves the links is up for debate.
• A good 2ar either goes for the perm with case, link turns, and alt DAs as Net benefits OR goes for case outweighs with a disad to the alternative
• A good 2nr has an impact which outweighs the aff with either an alt that resolves the aff impacts OR presumption
• you can probably win presumption with me in the back. I used to go for baudrillard a lot

DA/CP

I don't judge these debates very often and thus don't have any specific thoughts that aren't captured by stuff i said above. just win the flow.

Email chain: zahir.shaikh112@gmail.com

I have read and voted for many different styles of arguments. I appreciate thorough, technical debating, regardless of the content of your argument. Try to understand what issues you're winning, which ones you're behind on, and how that shapes the debate. Explain why winning certain issues frames the debate.

Being confidently wrong isn't a good thing. Debaters who exhibit general lack of awareness of the world or the topic will lose speaker points. I am far more likely to vote for the team that knows what they are talking about.

Put me on the email chain (WayneTang@aol.com).  (my debaters made me do this, I generally don't read evidence in round)

General Background:
Former HS debater in the stone ages (1980s) HS coach for over many years at Maine East (1992-2016) and now at Northside College Prep (2016 to present). I coach on the north shore of Chicago. I typically attend and judge around 15-18 tournaments a season and generally see a decent percentage of high level debates. However, I am not a professional teacher/debate coach, I am a patent attorney in my real (non-debate) life and thus do not learn anything about the topic (other than institutes are overpriced) over the summer. I like to think I make up for that by being a quick study and through coaching and judging past topics, knowing many recycled arguments.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
Intelligent story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). It is a hard road, but I think it is possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it based on defensive arguments.

TOPICALITY
I vote on T relatively frequently over the years. I believe it is the negative burden to establish the plan is not topical. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. I have found that the limits/predictability/ground debate has been more persuasive to me, although I will consider other standards debates. Obviously, it is also important how such standards operate once a team convinces me of their standard. I will also look at why T should be voting issue. I will not automatically vote negative if there is no counter-interpretation extended, although usually this is a pretty deep hole for the aff. to dig out of. For example, if the aff. has no counter-interpretation but the neg interpretation is proven to be unworkable i.e. no cases are topical then I would probably vote aff. As with most issues, in depth analysis and explanation on a few arguments will outweigh many 3 word tag lines.

COUNTERPLANS
Case specific CPs are preferable that integrate well (i.e. do not flatly contradict) with other negative positions. Clever wording of CPs to solve the Aff and use Aff solvency sources are also something I give the neg. credit for. It is an uphill battle for the Aff on theory unless the CP/strategy centered around the CP does something really abusive. The aff has the burden of telling me how a permutation proves the CP non-competitive.

KRITIKS
Not a fan, but I have voted on them numerous times (despite what many in the high school community may believe). I will never be better than mediocre at evaluating these arguments because unlike law, politics, history and trashy novels, I don’t read philosophy for entertainment nor have any interest in it. Further (sorry to my past assistants who have chosen this as their academic career), I consider most of the writers in this field to be sorely needing a dose of the real world (I was an engineer in undergrad, I guess I have been brainwashed in techno-strategic discourse/liking solutions that actually accomplish something). In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique Disad in the policy realm. As such it will probably receive very little weight if challenged by the aff. You must be able to distill long boring philosophical cards read at hyperspeed to an explanation that I can comprehend. I have no fear of saying I don’t understand what the heck you are saying and I will absolutely not vote for issues I don’t understand. (I don’t have to impress anyone with my intelligence or lack thereof and in any case am probably incapable of it) If you make me read said cards with no explanation, I will almost guarantee that I will not understand the five syllable (often foreign) philosophical words in the card and you will go down in flames. I do appreciate, if not require specific analysis on the link and impact to either the aff. plan, rhetoric, evidence or assumptions depending on what floats your boat. In other words, if you can make specific applications (in contrast to they use the state vote negative), or better yet, read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you.

PERFORMANCE BASED ARGUMENTS
Also not a fan, but I have voted on these arguments in the past. I am generally not highly preferred by teams that run such arguments, so I don't see enough of these types of debates to be an expert. However, for whatever reason, I get to judge some high level performance teams each year and have some background in such arguments from these rounds. I will try to evaluate the arguments in such rounds and will not hesitate to vote against framework if the team advocating non-traditional debate wins sufficient warrants why I should reject the policy/topic framework. However, if a team engages the non-traditional positions, the team advocating such positions need to answer any such arguments in order to win. In other words, I will evaluate these debates like I try to evaluate any other issues, I will see what arguments clash and evaluate that clash, rewarding a team that can frame issues, compare and explain impacts. I have spent 20 plus years coaching a relatively resource deprived school trying to compete against very well resourced debate schools, so I am not unsympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debates. On the other hand I have also spent 20 plus years involved in non-debate activities and am not entirely convinced that the strategies urged by non-traditional debates work. Take both points for whatever you think they are worth in such debates.

POINTS

In varsity debate, I believe you have to minimally be able to clash with the other teams arguments, if you can’t do this, you won’t get over a 27.5. Anything between 28.8 and 29.2 means you are probably among the top 5% of debaters I have seen. I will check my points periodically against tournament averages and have adjusted upward in the past to stay within community norms. I think that if you are in the middle my points are pretty consistent. Unfortunately for those who are consistently in the top 5% of many tournaments, I have judged a lot of the best high school debaters over the years and it is difficult to impress me (e.g., above a 29). Michael Klinger, Stephen Weil, Ellis Allen, Matt Fisher and Stephanie Spies didn’t get 30s from me (and they were among my favorites of all time), so don’t feel bad if you don’t either.

OTHER STUFF
I dislike evaluating theory debates but if you make me I will do it and complain a lot about it later. No real predispositions on theory other than I would prefer to avoid dealing with it.

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.

I do not count general tech screw ups as prep time and quite frankly am not really a fascist about this kind of thing as some other judges, just don’t abuse my leniency on this.

Speed is fine (this is of course a danger sign because no one would admit that they can’t handle speed). If you are going too fast or are unclear, I will let you know. Ignore such warnings at your own peril, like with Kritiks, I am singularly unafraid to admit I didn’t get an answer and therefore will not vote on it.

I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I probably won’t call for it and assume it says X. However, in the unfortunate (but fairly frequent) occurrence where both teams just read cards, I will call for cards and use my arbitrary and capricious analytical skills to piece together what I, in my paranoid delusional (and probably medicated) state, perceive is going on.

I generally will vote on anything that is set forth on the round. Don’t be deterred from going for an argument because I am laughing at it, reading the newspaper, checking espn.com on my laptop, throwing something at you etc. Debate is a game and judges must often vote for arguments they find ludicrous, however, I can and will still make fun of the argument. I will, and have, voted on many arguments I think are squarely in the realm of lunacy i.e. [INSERT LETTER] spec, rights malthus, Sun-Ra, the quotations and acronyms counterplan (OK I didn’t vote on either, even I have my limits), scaler collapse (twice), world government etc. (the likelihood of winning such arguments, however, is a separate matter). I will not hesitate to vote against teams for socially unacceptable behavior i.e. evidence fabrication, racist or sexist slurs etc., thankfully I have had to do that less than double digits time in my 35+ years of judging.

wake 24 | law magnet 20

call me asya, like asia.

pls add me to the chain - asyadebates@gmail.com

be fun/funny/interesting, unless you’re not, then don’t be.

i’d rather watch debates i’m normally in (clash, k debates). i’d also rather be doing things that aren’t judging debates so don’t feel like it’s adapt or die if you wanna do plan things, just know i need more handholding on argument interaction.

defend what you say, hold people responsible for what they say. i’m not here to resolve your personal beef with someone, but i do find myself responsible for making sure this space is maximally safe.

“with high risk comes high reward, etc, etc” -- you win more the more you’re willing to try things you wouldn’t go for, and you can persuade me of most things (not ethnic genocide good, never ethnic genocide good).

i flow, but sometimes not very fast or well. if i’m judging you, assume that i’m in the camp of people who are literally writing down what you’re saying and not always the argument you’re making. i don’t suck at debate, i just have short term memory loss and don’t want to literally miss arguments you’re making.

i can’t flow when people are atrociously unclear, which is like saying “i can’t flow when the debaters are completely silent” because you are effectively saying nothing. i get being nervous though so i try as much as possible to not punish debaters for stuttering or anything else that people traditionally suggest makes someone a "bad speaker"

i’m unclear on why people try to resolve debates in their paradigm - if i could resolve a debate on my own, then i would ask you to send speech docs for the 1ac/1nc and get back to you in thirty.

argument specifics:

-convincing me fairness matters as anything more than an internal link will be difficult.

-if debated equally, i tend to err aff on framework.

-default offense-defense, technical concessions matter - unless someone says they don’t or another frame of evaluation

-won’t judge kick unless told to

-unless the negative is crushing framework, at best i default to weighing the non-idealized version of the plan in most aff v k debates (i.e. i’m unlikely to ‘moot’ the aff)

-don’t really follow docs to be honest, if i’m sus about clipping i certainly will (will dock speaks, won’t drop team unless the other team suggests it)

ask me questions about my paradigm, wake debate/the rks, or my rfd. disagreeing with me is fine, insulting me is not.

LD STUFF:

I evaluate debate like a policy debater that reads k's and read 'larp' or more traditional arguments in high school. I value really good thought out strategies over obfuscating the debate. Debate should be about substantive issues so it's easier to get me to reject the argument and not the team for theory.

please don't ask me for your speaks (uncomfortable), please set up an email chain (not fileshare)

if you need help preffing me, nate kruger gave me this guide:

k - 1

larp - 1

theory (topicality) - 1

phil - 4

tricks/theory - 5

top level predispositions (Update 2023 TOC):

I don't like generic neg strategies, if you're going to do this don't pref me please - - this means nonspecific process counterplans, disads, CPs with only internal net benefits, etc.

No, CX can't be used for prep lol.

I'm not going to judge kick. You make a decision about the world you'll defend in the 2nr and I'll follow accordingly.

For many of you reading this, speaker point inflation is the probably norm. I think the standard for what makes a good speech is a. too low and b. disconnected from strategy. My average speaker point range is 27.9-28.5, average meaning you're not doing any work between flows, not making the debate smaller for the sake of comparative analysis, not reading especially responsive strategies, not punishing generic strategies with pointed responses. On the other hand, I reward teams that have ostensibly done the reading and research to give me concrete analysis.

Plan texts nowadays aren't really descriptive of what the aff will defend and I think negative teams don't take advantage of that enough.

Given the above (and oodles of macrohistorical reasons), we probably are already in the world that the PRL warned us about. I'm more persuaded by empirical analysis of models of debate than the abstract nowadays.

I won't be reading along with you, and won't spot either team args from pieces of evidence that weren't made in speeches. I'll resolve comparative evidentiary claims, if necessary, after the round.

Longer meditations below:

I've found that the integrity in which some high school debaters are interacting with evidence is declining. Two things:

1. Critical affirmatives that misrepresent critical theory literature or misrepresent their affirmative in the 1ac. I'm very inclined to vote against a team that does this on either side of the debate, with the latter only being limited to the affirmative side. Especially in terms of the affirmative side, I believe that a floor level minimum prep for critical affs should be that the affirmative clearly has a statement of what they will defend in the 1ac and also that they stick to that stasis point throughout the debate. If a critical aff shifts drastically between speeches I will be *very* inclined toward to any procedural/case neg arguments.

2. Policy affs that have weak internal links. I understand that a nuclear war scenario is the most far fetched portion of any advantage, but I've been seeing a lot of international relations scenarios that don't really take into account the politics of really any other countries. If your international conflict, spillover, modeling, etc. scenario doesn't have a semblance of the inner workings of another party to the conflict, I'll be *very* inclined to solvency presses and presumption arguments by the negative in that scenario.

I don't want to be on the email chain. If I want to, I'll ask. You should debate as if I'm not reading a speech doc.

I almost exclusively view debate as an educational / democratic training activity. I think rules are important to that end, however. This is to say that I ground much of what I think is important in debate in terms of how skills critical thinking in debate rounds adds into a larger goal of pursuing knowledge and external decisionmaking.

i've been in debate since 2008. at this point i'm simultaneously more invested and less invested in the activity. i'm more invested in what students get out of debate, and how I can be more useful in my post-round criticism. I'm less invested in personalities/teams/rep/ideological battles in debate. it's entirely possible that I have never heard of you before, and that's fine.

you should run what will win you the round. you should run what makes you happy.

Impact scenarios are where I vote - Even if you win uniqueness/link questions, if I don't know who's going to initiate a war, how an instance of oppression would occur, etc. by the end of the round, I'll probably go looking elsewhere to decide the round. The same thing goes for the aff - if I can't say what the aff solves and why that's important, I am easily persuaded by marginal negative offense.

Prep time ends when you email the file to the other team. It's 2023, you've likely got years of experience using a computer for academic/personal work, my expectations of your email prowess are very high.

Competing methods debates don't mean no permutation, for me at least. probably means that we should rethink how permutations function. people/activists/organizers combine methods all the time.

I've found myself especially unwilling to vote on theory that's on face not true - for example: if you say floating PICs bad, and the alternative isn't articulated as a floating PIC in the debate, I won't vote on it. I don't care if it's conceded.

I think fairness is an independent impact, but also that non-topical affs can be fair. A concession doesn't mean an argument is made. your only job is to make arguments, i don't care if the other team has conceded anything, you still have to make the argument in the last speech.

Affs I don't like:

I've found myself increasingly frustrated with non-topical affs that run philosophically/critically negative stances on the aff side. The same is true for non-topical affs that just say that propose a framework for analysis without praxis. I'm super open to presumption/switch-side arguments against these kinds of affs.

I'm frustrated by non-topical affs that do not have any sort of advocacy statement/plan text. If you're going to read a bunch of evidence and I have to wait until CX or the 2AC to know what I'm voting for, I'll have a lower threshold to vote on fw/t/the other team.

Finally, I have limited belief in the transformative power of speech/performance. Especially beyond the round. I tend to think that power/violence is materially structured and that the best advocacies can tell me how to change the status quo in those terms.

Negs I don't like:

Framework 2nr's that act as if the affirmative isn't dynamic and did not develop between the 2ac and the 1ar. Most affs that you're inclined to run framework against will prove "abuse" for you in the course of the debate.

Stale politics disadvantages. Change your shells between tournaments if necessary, please.

Theoretically inconsistent/conflicting K strats.

I don't believe in judge kicking. Your job is to make the strategic decisions as the debate continues, not mine.

if you have questions about me or my judge philosophy, ask them before the round!

he/him/his

Last Updated: March 11 2023

Spencer ("SkyCat") – never "judge" – he/him

Was the Assistant Coach at Edgemont

OES 2020 (3 years of HS Policy, 8 bids)

Yes email chain, please include an informational title – spencersunwilliams@gmail.com

Important: I am currently on chemotherapy. This means I am very tired and will likely give short RFDs. I debated on the treaties topic 3 years ago for Harvard Debate and I read a NATO aff. I have been out of college and debate and college since to pursue cancer treatments.

Short Version:

1) Do what you do best, be smart and passionate, and you'll be fine.

2) Tech determines truth unless your argument is offensive or an insult to obvious reality. The content of my paradigm only states my predisposed beliefs, but you can convince me of anything if you debate well.

3) As a debater, I am most frustrated with RFDs that are removed from the reality of the round. Whether that be allowing new rebuttal answers, voting based on predetermined personal beliefs, or not flowing, I will try to correct against those things as much as possible as a judge.

4) Clarity over speed. I will stop flowing if I have to "slow" or "clear" you more than 3 times.

5) I am increasingly frustrated by teams that ask for massive flow clarifications. This includes: "Before cross begins, did you read X card?" and "Can you send out a version of the speech doc that excludes the cards you didn't read?" If you do this, then it is clear you aren't flowing, and I will dock your speaks. :(

K Debates:

On K's in general:

I do not hack for any argument. This means "big if true" claims such as people of color already live in a state of extinction that outweighs biological extinction, Blackness is ontological, subjectivity is shaped by debate, the aff causes queer genocide, etc., require substantive proof just like any other argument.

In terms of running a K on the neg, if you do not extend an alt, you need to explain to me what that means for the rest of the K. No big overviews please, just do line by line. Also, links of omission are silly.

On K affs:

These are my favorite affs to judge! I love judging good K affs, but I believe that the affirmative needs to have a sustainable interpretation of what the topic looks like to win. What that looks like is up to you, but I am not persuaded by interpretations of the topic that do not leave a role for the negative to adequately engage with the affirmative.

Topicality arguments are not prescriptively violent. I am more persuaded by affirmatives that respond to framework by introducing a more effective model for political or institutional engagement than affirmatives that argue all politics or institutions are irredeemable. Affirmatives that prescribe homogeneity based on one identifying factor for an otherwise diverse group of people will have difficulty convincing me.

Most out of my element in K v K debates. Explain your position thoroughly and have clear reasons why your theories of power are incompatible.

T Debates:

The quality of evidence matters when it comes to T. A good T card should have intent to define, intent to exclude, and compelling author qualifications. It isn't impossible to win without those three qualities in front of me, but the T argument is significantly more convincing with them. If your opponent's card is lacking, point out specifically what the piece of evidence needs to be persuasive.

Impact and caselist comparisons are essential to winning my ballot; I probably value them more than the average judge does. In T debates, argument interaction and clash are especially critical to prevent running circles around arguments.

Unpack and compare, do not rely on buzzwords. Your T blocks should be specific to the argument you're running. "Vote neg because our interp sets a limit on the topic" or "vote neg for limits and ground" are neither warranted nor complete arguments unless you explain why and how the topic established by the negative's interpretation is net better than the affirmative's for reasons of better education, deeper clashing debates, etc.

Non-Negotiables:

Rehighlightings must be read and not inserted unless they were read in CX.

Speech times are not flexible. I will not flow your partner if they interrupt during your speech unless they are speaking as part of a rehearsed 1AC/1NC.

I will not explicitly intervene in any debate round unless a debater makes it clear that they do not want the round to continue. I believe in the educational value of allowing a debate to happen. If there is clipping in a round, however, I will dock your speaks and email your coach(es) with the evidence/recording.

I will drop you if you misgender anyone.

Speaker Points:

Stolen from Zidao. <3

If you opensource everything, let me know before the RFD and I'll add .3 to your speaks.

29.5+: One of the top speakers of the tournament. Should be in deep elims.

29-29.5: Good debater that I expect to break and get a speaker award.

28.5-28.9: Competent debater with good grasp of fundamentals. Not at the level of clearing yet.

Good luck at the tournament and take care!

Top Level

He/Him/His

sri pronounced "sh-ree"

Westside '22 | UH debate '26 | TFA out rounds, been to some bid rounds, but more recently ndt qualifier

I was coached by Patrick Fox and Eric Schwerdtfeger -- look to these paradigms for... ideological lineage I guess? also UH coaches rob glass, michael wimsatt, richard garner, james allan, etc.

Note for Lakeland: I have judged very few rounds on this topic but coached it during the summer --- don't know how these args developed over a year of debates the onus will be on y'all to level down the jargon and do a bit more explanation. This likely means increased scrutiny of your evidence so that I can best understand what you are trying to say --- so make sure you put your best cards out there.

send a card doc please --- if you aren't sure what this means/how to do this let me know. I use the doc at the end of the round to check evidence quality and compare evidence. Update: evidence rocks. I will have a higher standard of ev quality (that's obviously secondary to the content of the speeches, but the evidence that actually says the thing will be rewarded in terms of speaker points and my confidence in a risk of your offense) In incidents I hope to avoid, I will use it to evaluate an evidence ethics argument.

quickest overview of what follows: do what you want and do it well, don’t be evil, I was mostly a k person in high school but made a 180 p recently

ask questions before start time --- i'll try to reach room asap so when I am there get questions to me, especially if anything below is insufficent

add me to the email chain or email me with any specific questions or gaps in my paradigm -- please do this to ensure pre-round preparation is (sufficiently) contextual to my judging --- yadagirisripad@gmail.com --- yes to being on the email chain

I mostly read critical arguments, but am confident in my ability to evaluate policy, theory and topicality arguments. a little bit more confident evaluating phil arguments (LD), still a risky choice however. Update: I go for the politics disad now, so do whatever.

I will start speaks at 28.5 and go up and down from there (down likely means you have done something terrible)

I need a full claim warrant and impact for every argument -- i wont vote on assertions absent warrants --- the burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder

I will not flow off of the doc --- but will prolly follow along to check clippling

To win your debate explain why you win and/or why your opponents lose if i think what you say is true or truer than what your opponents say then it is likely how I will decide who wins.

eDebate

cameras dont need to be on, mine will be on if I am ready, you should still ask if I am ready once my camera is on, record only with the consent of everyone in the room//virtual space [even if it is your own speech], but i am fine with it unless I say otherwise

Dont's

1. Endangering students in this space through your behavior or arguments you read enforced by an L25

2. Ask what was read in the speech after it is over -- use CX or prep time for this --- this will affect speaker points. Also lol just flow better, this isnt just a skill issue but indicates that you dont respect your opponents enough to seriously process what they are saying. It's also just a bad look. The exception is in situations with tech issues or unclear portions of a speech

Do's

1. judge instruction

2. clash

3. line by line

4. read arguments on the case page, impact d is cool but solvency takeouts, case turns, or impact turns, are where the fun debates happen. Update: the 3rd and 4th parts of this list might be too big of a burden but please try your best to start solvency arguments in the 1NC.

4. not do the dont's

Evidence Ethics

Here is what i think is an issue: clipping, articles inside articles, cards ending in the middle of the paragraph, but usually misrepresenting evidence through heavy bracketing, paraphrasing and rehighlighting can do this. This is not something I want to end the round on but to ensure the perpetrating debater recuts the evidence into something usable you can stake the round on it.

some more things

It is difficult for me to evaluate someone's character from the parameters of a debate round, however, a serious issue with the behavior of a debater will result in me contacting an outside entity. I will intervene if necessary

Insert rehighlightings -- read the rehighlighting if the tag doesnt communicate what the rehighlighting says --- to clarify I dont need you to read the exact wording of the rehighlighting but at a surface level tell me what the rehighlighting says and it's impact --- if that's done, feel free to just insert the rehighlighting

Locals

I will likely be judging at a lot of these and if you are reading this, we are off to a good start. Please read the section that applies to your event below and the type of argument you may be reading

Traditional Debate is good, If you are a traditional debater here is what you need to know

CX -- read your affirmative and look at most of the things below it probably applies to you

LD/PF -- read your cases and engage your opponents; at the end of the debate give your voters and ensure that they are contextualized to the debate that occured

CX//I am hoping to be in this pool

Topicality

I default to comepting interps. I'll hold the line against the aff as long as your speeches have a clear explanation of what each model looks like, which is better. and why. Please, define the right words in the 2AC dont make the mistake of reading the wrog counterinterp

Theory

I default to reasonability (but less of a default the more I speak to former LDers)

I have preconceptions that can be changed

a. disclosure is good: unchanging, steadfast opinion with few exceptions

b. condo is good: will vote on it if dropped, atp you just have to implicate it as a reason they should lose and why they shouldnt get new 1AR answers

c. judge kick is bad, good --- update: just found out what this actually meant

d. If there are any other preconceptions you need to know feel free to ask me at any point before the round

Disadvantages

win a link, an internal link chain, and preferably one impact scenario + also uniqueness, every part of the story is necessary to make it a coherent 2NR

if this is the 2nr I will decide by testing if the above burden is met and by weighing impacts -- please do this for me

mitigating aff offense will help me here

weighing the aff against the disad will help me here

if the disad turns case that would be awesome and severely mitigates the 2ARs weighing of case against the DA

Counterplans

Dense counterplan theory is difficult for me to understand so clear explanation would be appreciated. Update: I think i get it now

Impact out the solvency deficits on this page clear explanation of the net benefit

the 1nc only needs the text but i expect the block if its going for the counterplan to prove competition plus a net benefit otherwise it's a nonstarter for the 2NR

I am ok with 20 condo planks and you can kick out of individual planks

2NC planks and counterplans obviously allowed

dont drop condo, 50 state fiat, etc. will hang my hat on it absent a 1AR that doesnt extend theory sufficiently

Kritikal Affirmatives

understand what your evidence says

your 1AC should have theoretical consistency that means don't double turn yourself but feel free to read whatever critical niche you'd like

Don't lose to presumption -- your aff should do something, refuse to do something, or impact turn doing something --- if you cannot beat back the presumption push I will vote negative on a risk of offense but evision a ballot onjust presumption. Please take this argument seriously

Impact overviews are just as necessary as in a topical aff, I will not fill in any gaps for you

framing is important -- how should i view your argument against your opponents or vice versa.

Look at the framework sections

Framework

Look at the K aff section

please weigh impacts

good framework teams will make their blocks interact with aff offense on the framework and case page (clash turns case) I enjoy framework now

clash and education are impacts

fairness is an internal link but if it is just a game maybe nothing else matters? If you win that its just a game that shifts my preconceptions

what should debate rounds look like or what should they not look like?

what is the case list and neg ground?

compare models please -- framework is how you frame your work so your job is to tell me which frame is better

The truth testing framework presumption argument thing is persuasive as well as impact defense to aff impact turns

SSD and TVA are also v strategic

limits DA best internal link to clash imo because predictability is significantly hedged against on a truth level by disclosure checks + K Affs have been around for a while

The Kritik

I am ok with overviews but like any judge I would prefer work done on the line by line, but I understand the necessity of the overview --- efficiency here would be appreciated

the framework 2nr against a policy aff needs to win a reason why their model of debate is bad or why yours is better and win a link to their assumptions, justification, etc. whatever your interp is. I think its strategic with most K's and i am familiar with the way this 2NR works so please go for this if it's what you are ready to do.

The links should have an external impact that means they can turn case or implicate themselves in something like extinction or even subject formation -- this should be parsed out on the framework page

An alternative isn't necessary for the 2nr i'd like to see it in the 1NC though. it should solve the link(s)

If the floating pik isn't clear by the end of the block it's not a floating pik

any familiarity I have with xyz should not implicate your argument choices because I won't fill in any gaps for you --- explain the K better. This is not an onus I only put on teams going for the K however if you do not know what gordon says a surface level 1ar extension will be punished equally

perms are legitimate but usually cowardice, lmk if the negative deserves it, If their is no explanation as to what it looks like i will assume it means nothing

LD//I am less happy that i am in this pool

I did LD my senior and sophomore years

the closer this debate is to CX the better

refer to my CX paradigm where topcality, theory, K, framework, and policy stuff apply

Speaking with former LDers means I think i can better evaluate things like skep or the resolved a priori, but obviously risky considering my cx experience

RVI's -- maybe, why do you get it?

1AR theory -- yes

these change with the debate on the underview lmk why i might be wrong

PF//I am sad that i am in this pool

I debated in PF for a couple of tournaments

The closer this debate is to traditional LD the better

Do not read the kritik in PF -- it's usually really poorly explained and underdeveloped in such a short event -- I think this is an enormous disservice. If you plan on reading the kritik be conscious of these time constraints and ensure that you know what you are saying

I am good with theory stuff I think this is strategic and valuable in an event like PF where paraphrasing and refusing to share evidence is still common practice.

Please disclose -- If you disclose on the PF Wiki I will grant the team 1 extra speaker point that is .5 on both speakers -- Use an email chain or speechdrop.net if necessary, not sure if flash drives are still in use but that would be a great alternative if none of the above work.

If you read the above progressive arguments disingenuously I will notice and dock speaker points.

Traditional Arguments are the way to win this event.

The affirmative and negative case must have evidence that all debaters can access i.e. author name, qualifications, publication date, article title, if its from a book, chapter number or name//title, and if its a website a url.

Read arguments you understand and ensure you explain your offense when extending the case page

Defense is not sticky (I get nauseous whenever someone says it is) I will flow each speech and I need to see the argument clearly extended in the necessary speeches for me to vote on it

Anything else PF specific please email me using the email above if i dont respond please make sure to ask before the round starts.

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.