Hey all! I’ve been judging and coaching many different styles of debate for years and years. I have 2 paradigms below, one for LD and one for NPDA. They're pretty similar, but there's some specifics that may only apply to one or the other...and I didn't want to integrate them, so I just put both.

LD PARADIGM

General
My goal is to be as open to what you want to run, but also try and be helpful here with how I tend to view and weigh things.
I approach debate primarily as an educational activity with interwoven game elements. Our in-round discourse has critical, real world rhetorical implications and the debate space functions best when critiquing ideas and power structures, whether through policy implementation or critical framework. While I am very receptive to advocacies of violence against the state or other power structures, I am very opposed to violence targeting individuals in the debate space. This doesn’t refer to a counterplan or procedural run against you that you don’t like, but that our praxis, even in competition, should be kindness towards each other, directing violence towards oppression, power structures and discourses of power and domination.

I evaluate arguments in whatever framework I am presented with, as long as it's warranted (don't just tell me something is important, tell me why it's important). I usually do not vote on defense alone, and prefer offensive arguments on positions rather than just defensive. When weighing arguments, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe, but I will weigh them differently if you explain why I should.

Kritiks
I really like specific, well run critical debates. They are my favorite, but I'm also totally good with non-critical arguments. So, if critical arguments are not your thing, don't feel like you have to run them in front of me or I won't vote for you. I vote for plenty of non-critical arguments. Likewise, just because you run a critical argument doesn't mean I'm automatically going to vote for you.
I definitely prefer critical arguments that are “grounded in the specificity” of the resolution, over generic, over-run kritiks (if your criticism is as important as you say, you can certainly link to and specifically engage with any res/arguments the other team runs). I will vote on permutations and theoretical objections. I also give weight to performative contradiction arguments as deficits to solvency (or however else you would like to use them). I tend to get bored with highly generic kritiks. Failure to apply your criticism to the topic can put the kiritik at a rhetorical disadvantage and opens the Affirmative up for methodological criticism by the Neg. I also prefer methodological challenges to non-topical Aff K’s rather than topicality procedurals, as the method debate tends to engage more with the substance of the kritik and doesn’t link into replications of structural oppression as readily.
Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know what you mean by them and how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction a criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism. Also, don’t give blanket blips of “alt solves all” because, no, it doesn’t. I understand that argument as a game piece, but if your advocacy is worth voting for you need to have more substantial analysis than that. Use solvency as a way to justify the need for the criticism through analysis of what it actually does.

Procedurals
I can easily find procedural debates boring, but enjoy them when they’re good. I prefer specific in/out of round impacts over generic ones. I tend to weigh through competing interpretations (make them clear what they are), but am open to consider any strategy you want to pursue with this. I’m probably more inclined to vote elsewhere on the flow, but if they’re run, I’ll look to procedurals first.
I think running disclosure theory is lazy, it annoys me and I will rarely vote on it. I find disclosure theory to be incredibly boring and a waste of time better spent engaging with the arguments in-round or running some more interesting theory. It wouldn’t hurt you to engage in some critical thinking on the spot. Big thumbs down on that one, eh.

Speaker points
25-30. 27-30 is my typical range, 24 and below is typically for abusive individuals. Yep, that’s about it.
Oh! Also, go at whatever speed you want. Personally, I enjoy fast...but actually say words, not just the impressions of words. Also, speed should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I do not enjoy that. Access to the activity only helps us learn and grow.

Counterplans
I tend to view most counterplans as theoretically legitimate and like to leave it up to the debaters to determine what is or is not legitimate in the given round. I will vote for pretty much any kind of counterplan as long as you win any relevant theory. I don’t prefer running multiple advocacies or kicking multiple advocacies. Counterplans and perms can be either textual or functionally competitive, as long as there is a net-benefit or demonstration of non-competition.

I think that’s most of the specific things. I’m always willing to add and modify my paradigm as needed. Always let me know if you have any questions.

NPDA PARADIGM

I approach debate primarily as an educational activity with interwoven game elements. Our in-round discourse has critical, real world rhetorical implications and the debate space functions best when critiquing ideas and power structures, whether through policy implementation or critical framework. While I am very receptive to advocacies of violence against the state or other power structures, I am very opposed to violence targeting individuals in the debate space. This doesn’t refer to a counterplan or procedural run against you that you don’t like, but that our praxis, even in competition, should be kindness towards each other, directing violence towards oppression, power structures and discourses of power and domination.

I really like specific, well run critical debates. They are my favorite, but I'm also totally good with non-critical arguments. So, if critical arguments are not your thing, don't feel like you have to run them in front of me or I won't vote for you. I vote for plenty of non-critical arguments. Likewise, just because you run a critical argument doesn't mean I'm automatically going to vote for you.

I evaluate arguments in whatever framework I am presented with, as long as it's warranted (don't just tell me something is important, tell me why it's important). I usually do not vote on defense alone, and prefer offensive arguments on positions rather than just defensive. When weighing arguments, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe, but I will weigh them differently if you explain why I should.

I have a rather high threshold for spec arguments and need to see clearly articulated in-round abuse, or I will not vote on them. This usually manifests itself as obvious underspecified, groundshift-ready plan situations. Spec arguments generally function best for me as link insurance for other positions. Asking questions are a must when running spec arguments. I tend to think conditionality, and PICs are bad, but a procedural needs to be run and won to get my vote. However, even if an argument is kicked, the rhetoric of the position has already been introduced into the round and I still consider valid link access to that rhetoric.

I tend to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but like POOs called when whoever's giving the rebuttal thinks they're getting away with sneaking new arguments in. I tend to grant the PMR access to new articulations to existing arguments from the MO, and the opposition from arguments suddenly blown up in the PMR.

I definitely prefer critical arguments that are grounded in the specificity of the resolution, over generic, over-run kritiks (if your criticism is as important as you say, you can certainly link to and specifically engage with any res/arguments the other team runs). I will vote on permutations and theoretical objections. I also give weight to performative contradiction arguments as deficits to solvency (or however else you would like to use them). I tend to get bored with highly generic kritiks. I do not prefer non-topical Affirmative kritiks, because they unnecessarily exclude the Negative and if the issue is as important as you claim, it definitely has specific topical application that can allow for equitable engagement by the Negative. Failure to apply your criticism to the topic puts the kiritik at a rhetorical disadvantage and opens the Affirmative up for methodological criticism by the Neg. I also prefer methodological challenges to non-topical Aff Ks rather than topicality procedurals, as the method debate tends to engage more with the substance of the kritik and doesn't link into replications of structural oppression as readily.

Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know what you mean by them and how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it's important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction a criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don't drop or omit solvency of the criticism. Also, don't give blanket blips of alt solves all because, no, it doesn't. I understand that argument as a game piece, but if your advocacy is worth voting for you need to have more substantial analysis than that. Use solvency as a way to justify the need for the criticism through analysis of what it actually does.

Judy Butler: Hired Gun

Affiliations: Too numerous to list

Experience: High School: 29 years; College: 27 years

I will not attempt to characterize what the purpose or value of debate is in this missive; merely how I tend to evaluate the debates I get to judge. I think of myself as a teacher and the debaters as students and strive to treat them with the respect that relationship deserves. I thoroughly enjoy judging debates from almost any theoretical perspective. I also strive to support new ideas, sources of evidence, academic fields and literature entering debate that have traditionally been undervalued.

I like judging debates where the debaters directly address each other's arguments from the jump as opposed to waiting until rebuttals to compare arguments.

I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve in relation to one another as opposed to simply in vacuums - I will totally listen to debates about conditionality and don't have attitude about multiple advocacies.

I like judging debates when the debaters show respect for each other, including their partners - contempt for an argument or position is different than contempt for a person.

I like judging theory debates that have depth as opposed to breadth - five or seven words are really not arguments, nor are they flowable. I ten to shy away from voting on theory arguments that require that I "punish" debaters. I prefer theory arguments that are grounded in the effect on the debate process and the value of including or excluding certain argumentative perspectives and practices.

I like judging debaters that focus on comparison and argument evolution rather than repetition and tend to reward both content and style when apportioning speaker points. Specifically, winning your argument is different than answering theirs: saying why you are right AND why they are wrong is the minimum necessary to answer/extend an argument and put yourself in a position to win that argument in the last rebuttals. Ideally, this level of extension could begin in the 1NC and could continue throughout the debate by all the following speeches.

I promise to be riveted to your speeches, your cross-exes, and my flow. I flow what the evidence says, not just your label. I hope that softens the blow when I say that I don't want to be on the email chain - the debate I'm judging is the one I heard and flowed, not the one I read. If I need/want to see something I will ask - but I need you to be clear in the first place. If you want to understand and comprehend the quality extensions I am asking for in real time, clarity when you originally read your evidence is critical.

PS: Your prep time stops running when you have sent the speech - not before

Happy Debating!

Background: I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University. I have been involved in debate since 2001. I was awarded the 2020-2021 Fulbright Award to coach debate in Taiwan.

DISCLOSURE THEORY IS LAZY DEBATE AND I WILL GIVE YOU NO HIGHER THAN 15 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU RUN THIS POSITION (this means at best you will get a low point win). I will also NOT evaluate it OR flow it.

I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know:

1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence.

2. I CANNOT flow speed due to an issue with my dominant hand. I will give you two verbal "speed" if you are going too fast. After that I quit flowing and if I do not flow it I do not evaluate it. Additionally, I do believe that the speed at which you go should be accessible to everyone in the round, this means your competitor, other judges on a panel, AND audience members. I am very open to voting on accessibility and/or clarity kritiks. SPEED SHOULD NOT BE A TOOL OF EXCLUSION!!!!!!

3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not evaluate moral obligations in the round (if you say "Moral Obligation" in college LD Debate I stop flowing, take a selfie, and mock you on social media). This does not mean I will not vote for dehumanization is bad, but I need a warrant outside of just telling me I am morally obligated to do something. Moral obligations are lazy debate, warrant out your arguments. HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS- IGNORE THIS, I will vote for moral obligations if they are explained and well warranted.

4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm told to by the debaters--if you don't give me the tools I default to policy maker/net benefits, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote and why to vote.

5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence, snarkiness, and rudeness.

6. When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like. I'm very easily persuaded by arguments about the post-alt world not being possible if the debater running the K does not explain the post-alt world to me.

7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow. I do not like operating in multiple worlds as I believe that is abusive to the affirmative, especially given the speech times in NFA-LD. I am easily persuaded to vote against a debater that does this if their opposition makes it a voting issue.

8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.

9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" or "And" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.

10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision. I do reserve the right to intervene when any -ist argument is made or advocated for.

11. If you advocate for a double win I automatically vote for the other person, issue you 1 speaker point, and leave the room. This is a debate, not a conversation. We are here to compete, so don't try to do something else.

12. Wilderson has stated that he does not want his writings used in debate by white individuals. He believes that the use of his writings is contradictory to what he overall stands for because he feels like you are using his arguments and black individuals as a tool to win (functionally monetizing black individuals). So for the love of all that is good please stop running these cards and respect the author's wishes. If you are white and you run his evidence I will not evaluate it out of respect for the author.

13. I will give you auto 30 speaker points if you read your 1AC/1NC out of a black book with page turns. (this is still offered for digital debates)

Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :) I also believe this activity should be a learning experience for everyone, so if after a round you have any questions please feel free to approach me and talk to me! I truly mean this because I love talking about debate and the more each debater gains from a round will provide for better rounds in the future for me to judge. If you ever have questions about a comment or RFD please ask. My email is sjcarl3@ilstu.edu

I'm mainly a policy stock issues judge and to me the team that can follow that the best/ most wins. I do listen to everything but I don't really like K's. If your K has an alt that is something other than reject the aff than I'll weigh it more than the typical reject the aff alt.

I need people to start to carrying across their arguments more now or I won't vote for them. If we're in the 2AR and you're just now talking about points from the 1AC I'm not gonna vote for them.

K affs: Personally as a general rule if your aff calls for direct action I'll like it way more than the the whole "we should reevaluate our relationship with X"

Tl;Dr: I will listen to everything however if your K/ K Aff calls for use to just think about something or re-evaluate our relationship with X I will weigh it a lot less against other things.

P.S I make spelling mistakes a lot so please forgive me, my mind goes way faster then my typing ability.

Background: I've been involved in every area of debate for around 8 years now. I did four years of debate in high school (Parkersburg South HS, WV) and three semesters of collegiate debate (Marshall University). I am currently a masters student in chemistry at Marshall University. My HS experience was mostly lay debate (some exceptions to this), but my collegiate experience is in NFA-LD (single-person policy). I coached high school debate for four years during my undergraduate years in Huntington, WV (PF, LD, and Congress). Also broke LD at NSDA (senior, HS), NCFL (Junior, HS), and NFA nationals (Freshman, College).

NFA-LD

I'm fine with speechdrop or an email chain (brndn3379@gmail.com).

High level things for you to know about me: I'm out of the loop on the topic, so don't assume that I know topic specifics (except for the chemistry/physics behind nuclear weapons..). I can keep up with whatever pace you want to go at, but I don't flow off the doc (especially important for T shells and long analytics; if I can't hear it, I'm not flowing it). Default competing interps on T/theory, default util, default layering for me is Theory/T > K > plan/CP. Conditionality is good (you can still run condo bad), multi-condo is probably less good. I find myself to be very tech > truth, but also find myself increasingly skeptical of bad arguments that are executed well (this hasn't changed my decisions as of yet). NFA-LD rules is a bad voter generally, but if you are going to use it, then please justify why I should care about the rules. I am probably going to be more tolerant of less serious arguments than most judges, but I'm not going to be happy if those arguments aren't at least executed well.

Disclosure is good, I ran disclosure theory, I will vote on disclosure theory, but a note from me is that I prefer disclosure shells to include in-round resolvability. Basically, if you include something like "if they agree to start posting starting with this round, I'll drop the shell" is what I like to see because I tend to think that 1 - it is the best way to get people on board with disclosure and 2 - there are small school debaters that genuinely may not have known about the norm or how to do it (I was one of them at the start of my collegiate career). It isn't a must (if you make arguments that the lack of disclosure skewed this particular round, that's sufficient for me to vote on disclosure anyways), but it is my general preference.

On T, I typically err on the side that potential abuse is sufficient to vote on T. Proven abuse is always more compelling, but I view T broadly as a test of what the topic should look like, not what it does look like. TVAs are also not essential, but can help for particular AFFs (ones that very much seem to be in the realm of the topic, but your interp seemingly excludes).

Most of the stuff in the below section for HS LD applies to NFA-LD for me, but feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

LD (HS, Circuit) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR: If you read anything in my paradigm during the age of online debate, let it be the section on speed please. Extend tags and authors, but if you only want one then do tags. Collapse collapse collapse. Probably don't go for skep or permissibility unless you intend on explaining it (same goes for metaethics in general).

Ranking of what I'll be most comfortable evaluating:

Policy (Plan/CP/DA debates) > T > K > Deep Phil > Performance > skep/permissibility

Speed: 2020 Update Debaters really need to go slower on analytics and do a lot more signposting with this online format. Clarity simply isn't the best. Feel free to top speed cards in the doc, but if it isn’t there then please go slower (I’ve had a ton of CXs full of people asking for arguments they missed). Calling speed and clear is not really feasible when you are reading through analytics because I have to tab over and unmute myself, call clear, and then tab back to my flow. Connection issues on any end in the round would be devestating. If I can't hear what you said, then I can't flow it.

Speech docs: I would like to be given the speech docs. I'm fine with speechdrop, email chains, or flashing evidence (2020 update: RIP to flashing evidence). My email is brndn3379@gmail.com

General paradigm: I'm pretty tab; the round is yours and the less work that I have to do the better. There are very few circumstances where I intervene in the flow of the round, and you will see those instances in the rest of my paradigm. I default to offense/defense in most cases if you don't give me an alternative framework. I will judge the round on whatever framework is given to me and is won in the round. If there are competing frameworks, I really need to hear clear reasons to prefer one framework over the other, I don't want to hear you just repeat your cards from your constructive; give me a clear reason why your framework is better for evaluating the round in comparison to your opponent's framework. Also, please link arguments to both frameworks when possible, otherwise it becomes difficult for me to justify evaluating your argument in the event you lose framework (hopefully you already know this, but I've seen too many rounds where the competitors don't). In general, I'm not as familiar with the high school K lit nor the super deep theory debates. I like theory and k's, just don't assume that I already know what you are talking about. Explanation is key. I never debated skep/permissibility, so if you want to run those then just make sure you explain it to me like I'm dumb (which I probably am).

ROTB/FW: Just give me warrants for the FW, reasons to prefer, and link your args to it and I'll be fine.

Theory/Topicality: Yea, I lump them together. They are constructed in the same way and really function in a similar way so I always have considered them pretty much the same thing. I default competing interps unless I'm told otherwise. It is really to your advantage to read a counter-interp, but if you don't have one or the argument is just a time suck then I am totally okay with you just going for "I meet" and reasonability. Overall, I don't prefer T debates, but if that is your strat I won't stop you from going for it (and of course you should go for it against an Abusive AFF/NEG). I'm probably biased towards disclosure being good if you feel you need to know that, but don't expect to just win disclosure theory because you run it. 2020/21/and 22 update: Please disclose. Just do it. C'mon.

RVIs: More than fine for me. Probably read "AFF gets RVIs" in the AC if you expect to be going for it. Not necessary in front of me, but probably more strategic.

K: Valid arguments. I won't be familiar with a lot of the topic lit on Ks, especially the ones run on the high school circuit, so just lean on the side of over-explaining your kritik if you really want me to vote on it. You also will want to clearly explain the ALT to me so that I can evaluate the ALT/plan/perm debate effectively. If you can't explain your K to your opponent in cross-x, then it is going to be really hard for me to justify voting on it. Conditional Ks often feel like perfcons, but I'm not going to say anything if the AFF doesn't.

CP: Pretty much the same thing as the K paradigm here. I need to understand what your advocacy is. The only large difference is that I am more than happy to vote on a conditional CP in comparison to a conditional K.

Tricks: I don't particularly like tricks that are like "RESOLVED means vote aff" or something silly like that. I do, however, enjoy "tricks" where a voter is hidden in an advantage or where there is a double link on an argument that baits the other debater to only respond to one of the links. Just try to make what you are doing somewhat reasonable and I'll still vote on it. Skep and permissibility are okay I guess, but probably not something I'd love to see in most rounds.

Profanity: I don't personally care. The college circuit uses profanity all the time and I think it makes people more comfortable speaking if they are one who generally uses profanity outside of the round. Just make sure that your opponent is okay with it before the round.

Arguments that I don't want to hear: Racism good, sexism good. In general, oppression isn't good and the risk of emotional harm to other debaters outweighs any 'educational value' of allowing those kinds of arguments. I'm generally fine with extinction good as long as you don't violate the above sentiments and the warrants are sensible.

Speaks;

Speaks are based on where I think you will land at the specific tournament. This isn't perfect, but speaks never are.

30: You are taking the gold without a doubt. Literal perfection with no critiques for me to give you.

29.5-29.9: Late elims (definition of this depends on the tournament)

29-29.5: Much more likely to break than to not

28.5-29: On cusp. Maybe break, maybe not.

27.5-28.5: Middle of the pack for the tournament.

26.5-27.5: I can clearly point out numerous errors in your performance.

<26.5: You messed up somehow. Usually cheating, being disrespectful.

LD (HS, Traditional) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you scrolled to this section, you pretty much know what should be in a traditional LD round. Give me a solid value/criterion setup and good contentions. I'm fine with speed of course, but if your opponent isn't then do not go for it, especially in a traditional LD round. I'd prefer to not see you run progressive arguments against a traditional debater if that is the pairing in the round, I've always felt it is easier for a circuit debater to go traditional than vice versa. Any other questions you have for this area, just ask me in the round please (it shouldn't be too complex given the nature of traditional LD).

PF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All speeches must respond to the previous speech (except for the 2nd constructive, duh). Defense is not sticky, so respond to it. I'm fine with smaller responses and then blowing them up if your opponents go for that defense in summary/FF. Most specifically, FF should only extend from summary. If it wasn't in summary, it is not going to be on my FF flow. With all this being said, it should be obvious that it is best to collapse early in front of me (you realistically should be doing this in front of any judge, but whatever).

Speed: I can keep up with any speed the debaters are comfortable with. I will not be the limiting factor; your opponents determine how fast you can speak in a given round. Don't spread against opponents that cannot keep up with it. That being said, don't spread over paraphrased evidence. You can't expect me to get both the citation and the implication when they are read in four seconds.

Weighing: I need extremely clear weighing at the end of the round. Weighing arguments introduced in final focus are new arguments. I prefer weighing to be introduced as early as possible, but summary at the latest. Weighing must have warranting. Just saying "prefer on scope" doesn't tell me why scope is the weighing mech I should use. Weighing is also important on T/theory, so if you choose to run those, I need a clear idea of why I should care about predictability/limits/ground/etc.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is OK in PF (but not preferred at all, I am willing to vote on paraphrasing bad). Slow down on the citations though so I can get them down as well as what you are paraphrasing (since I have less time to type than I would in a circuit LD format). All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round unless you tell me to, but there are some exceptions that I won't go into detail on here.

Post-Round: If the tournament allows it, I will disclose so that you know what to be doing in your next rounds. I do this in hopes that it makes your round more educational and my adjudication of it more beneficial for you. Do not post-round me (by this, I mean being hostile about your questioning of my RFD. I am totally fine having a discussion about the round because that can be incredibly valuable, but I don't want an aggressive environment). I understand that losing a round is frustrating (I've been there too, ya'll), but I made my decision as best I could and cannot change it after I disclose. If you think I missed an argument that should have won you the round, then you should take that as an indication that maybe there is a way you can improve how you delivered that argument. Nobody likes post-round debates, just don't do it.

Progressive Arguments: Any of these arguments are fine in front of me when done well (you can read my circuit LD paradigm to see my thoughts on them in general). The caveat here is that you should tailor the arguments to allow your opponents to engage with them. Reading progressive arguments because you know your opponents aren't experienced with them is abusive. You can run them, but explain the tech clearly so that they have an opportunity to engage with them please. I liken this to how you probably shouldn't be super techy in front of novices for the sole purpose of an easy win.

Anything else: Just ask me before the round and I'll let ya know.

Hey y'all, my name is Porter. This is my 7th year being involved in debate. Octafinalist at 2021 NFA-LD National Championship. Pronouns are he/him.

I would HIGHLY encourage the debaters to set up a speech drop (speechdrop.net), especially if the debate is occurring online/hybrid. If for any reason that does not work, please include me on any email chain at porter.giles@gmail.com.

----------

BIO: I am currently a senior at Illinois State University, where I now help coach and judge. I did 4 years of Lincoln-Douglas in high school, and I competed at nationals my senior year. I competed in NFA-LD my freshman and sophomore years of college, and spent my junior year abroad in Japan. I am a political science major with a minor in East Asian studies. I worked as the assistant debate coach for the LD team at Lincoln Southwest HS from 2020-2022, and University High School from 2021-2022.

----------

Case:

When evaluating rounds I will look to the framework , but I do a lot of the decision-making based on the impact level (for HSLD). I'm not a huge fan of traditional debates in HS-LD these days, so make sure you are doing it very well if you want to go for that. I like to see a lot of clear extensions of arguments that either go dropped or are under-responded to by your opponent, as well as good impact calculus. If you can make turns on your opponent's arguments go for it, I love to see that. PLEASE for the love of all things good give me some in-round clash rather than 45 minutes of unresponsive arguments that don't link to each other.

Side note: I will not vote for debaters who run arguments that speak over others' voices. Ex: white debaters running blackness.

----------

Speed: 8/10

In terms of speed, I can keep up with most spreading although in an online format you are running the risk of poor connection interfering with your speeches. SLOW DOWN FOR TAGLINES!! Clarity is more important to me than whether or not you can go Mach-5 and read 12 off-case positions. If your opponent is clearly new to the activity I will dock your speaks if you spread them out of the round. If you do this on top of being exceptionally rude to your opponent, I will most likely drop you.

----------

K:

I'm fine with the K debate, so long as you explain the alt and the links in a clear manner. Warrant analysis is a MUST on the K debate. I am most comfortable with critical arguments surrounding capitalism, consumption, necropolitics/biopower, and migration, although I will listen to anything if you explain the literature well. If you are reading a K aff I have a high threshold to vote against you on theory.

----------

Topicality/Theory:

Go for it. I enjoy the T debate at this point in my debate career and I am comfortable evaluating it. Slow down for your shell so that I don't miss anything you might want me to hear.

I probably need at least some instance of proven abuse, otherwise, give me a very compelling reason as to why I should vote on potential abuse. I generally have a very high threshold to voting on T against K affs.

Side note: I will NEVER under ANY circumstance, vote for disclosure theory. If you do choose to run disclosure in front of me, I will give you no higher than 26 speaker points.

----------

TL;dr Prefs:

tech > truth

phil - 3

Theory - 2

CP - 1

DA - 1

K - 1

tricks - Just don't do it.

Predispositions regarding policy debate: The affirmative has the burden of proof, and the negative has presumption. Both sides carry a rejoinder burden when their opponent has offered a fully formed argument. Speeches should be well organized with clear line-by-line clash and/or indications when arguments are being grouped for a response. Dropped arguments are conceded arguments, but not necessarily voting issues. Impacts should be elaborated, not assumed. Debaters should articulate the voting issues in the round and explain how specific exchanges on the flow speak to those issues.

Topicality: Topicality arguments should contextualize the preferred definition in terms of ground and fairness. Effective topicality arguments explain how the Aff’s interpretation is abusive. Topicality can interact with other positions on the flow.

Kritiks: Critical arguments carry the most weight when they implicate the policy question of the affirmative. K’s can interact with other positions on the flow as well as the respective burdens and the prioritization of voting issues in the round.

Counterplans: Counterplans are a test of the desirability of the affirmative plan. They should, therefore, be competitive with plan through some mechanism. I don’t know what the NFA-LD rules mean by “dealing with form of government, economic system, or need for further study,” as even normal means would necessarily deal with each to some extent. Arguments based on the sanction’s limitations on counter plans should offer an interpretation of how such rules are best understood and applied to the round (especially in terms of fairness and ground).

Speed: The NFA-LD rules stipulate that “speech delivery and quantity of evidence should not be excessive.” What constitutes “excessive,” or runs afoul of the “pleasant, comprehensible, and persuasive” standards offered in the rulebook, remains subject to debate in the round. Some judges can flow faster than others and some debaters can speak articulately at different speeds. It may be reasonable, for the benefit of one’s competitor and the judge, to vary rates of speech based on whether one is reading evidence into the round, stating taglines, or elaborating analysis. If I am not able to flow your arguments I will let you know by saying “clear.”

Other things: If there’s substantive debate in the round over how to interpret specific pieces of evidence, I may call for them. I won’t backflow your blocks, it’s your job to get it on my flow using your words. I flow on paper and appreciate a brief roadmap before you start your timer so I can put my pages in order. This is administrative time and should not include arguments.

My name's Emily Jackson but I'd prefer you just called me Emily. I graduated from Plano Senior High School in 2016. I did two years of LD there, PF at Clark High School (Plano) before that, and NFA-LD and parli for the University of North Texas after. Currently associated with Marcus HS and DFW S&D.

FOR NFA - MY LD PARADIGM BELOW IS ABOUT HIGH SCHOOL. In general, refer to my policy paradigm. Here are some key differences:

• NFA-LD is short and I have a lot less tolerance for exploding blippy arguments than you'd probably hope. Keep in mind that the neg only gets two speeches- make your arguments have warrants in both of them. This is true in HS too but I'm also a lot less sympathetic to affs that rely on blip extensions.
• No I do not vote on RVIs in NFA-LD
• No RVIs means I'm more interested in procedural debates

At some point I will add a NFA-LD section but for now if you've got a specific question just ask me.

Short, reading on your phone as you're walking to the room version: Speed is fine, my limit is your opponent. Read whatever arguments you're good at, don't pull out something you don't like running just for me. I like well warranted frameworks, engagement on the framing level, and clear voting issues. I dislike rounds that collapse down to theory/T, but I'm more likely to just be annoyed with those than I am to dock anyone points for it unless you do it badly. Don't run racism/sexism/homophobia/etc good. If you have doubts, don't do it. If you have any specific questions, check below or just ask me before the round.

Fileshare and Speechdrop (speechdrop.net) are my preferred evidence sharing platforms. For evidence sharing and any out of round questions, email me at emilujackson@gmail.com

GENERAL/ALL
General: Too many debaters under-organize. Number responses to things, be clear where you are on the flow, refer to cards by name where you can. For some reason people keep not signposting which sheet they're on, so I'd really really like if you took the extra second to do that. This makes me more likely to put arguments where you want them, and generally makes it much easier for me to make a decision.

Speed: I like speed, but there are many valid reasons that your opponent might object and you should check with them first. Slow down on tags, cites, plan/counterplan texts, interpretations on T/theory, values/criterions, and generally anything you want to make sure I have down. If your opponent asks you not to go fast, don't. I will say "clear" if you're not understandable (but this is normally a clarity issue rather than a speed one.) Make sure you're loud enough when you're going quickly (not sure why some people seem to get quieter the faster they get)

Evidence: Know the evidence rules for whatever tournament you're participating in. Normally this is the NSDA. I take evidence violations seriously, but I don't like acting on them, so just follow them and we'll be fine. If you're sharing speeches (flashing, speechdrop, email chains,) I'd like to be a part of it. It's not that I don't trust you, but I know that debaters have a tendency to blow cards out of proportion/extend warrants that don't exist/powertag, so I'd like to be able to see the cards in round if your opponent can.

Speaks: Generally I give speaks based on strategy and organization, relative to where I feel you probably stand in the tournament. This generally means that I tend to give higher speaks on average at locals than larger tournaments. Low speaks likely mean that you were hard to flow due to organizational issues or you made bad decisions.

LD PARADIGM

Framework: High-school me would best be categorized as a phil debater, so it's safe to say that I love a meaty framework. It's probably my favorite thing about LD. I can follow complex philosophical arguments well, but it's probably best to assume that I don't know the lit for everyone's benefit. Frameworks that stray from the util/generic structural violence FW norms of LD are my favorite, but make sure you actually know how it works before you do that. I've also come to like well-run deontological frameworks, but I tend to not see those as often as I like. I generally see who won the framing debate and then make the decision under that framework, but I can be convinced otherwise. Non-traditional structures are fine. As a side note, this applies to role of the ballot args as well, and I'm not going to accept a lower standard just because you call it a role of the ballot instead of a standard or a criterion. The manifestation is often different, but we still need justifications folks. Framework is not a voter.

I have a low threshold for answers on TJFs- I generally don't like them and I think they're a bit of a cop-out.

Ks: I like Ks when they're done well, but badly done Ks make me sad. Make sure you do the necessary work on the link and alt level. I want to know exactly what the link is and how it applies to the aff (where applicable) and I want to know exactly what the alt does and what it looks like. Like on framework, don't assume I know the lit. I might know it, I might have run it, but I still want you to explain the theory anyway in a way that someone who is less acquainted can understand. When done well, K debates are one of my favorite kind of debates.

On non-T K affs - I do very much like judging K v K debates and K affs. I coach non-T K affs now and I think that they can be incredibly educational if done well. I used to run T FW/the cap K a lot, but I feel like that has mostly led to me feeling like I need T FW/cap run well to vote on it as opposed to run at all.

Theory/T: Not a fan, but mostly because the format of LD normally necessitates a collapse to theory if you engage in it. I'm sympathetic to aff RVIs, and I default to reasonability simply because I don't like debates that collapse to this and would like to discourage it. Keep a good line-by-line and you should be fine.

Plans/Counterplans: Go for it. Make sure counterplans are competitive. Perms are a test of competition. I don't really have much to say here.

Some general theory thoughts: Doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen alternative arguments, but here's where my sympathies lie.

Fairness is an internal link to education

AFC and TJFs are silly and mostly a way to deflect engaging in phil debate

Disclosure is good

1 condo advocacy fine

Nebel T is also silly

POLICY PARADIGM:

Ks: I think winning framing arguments are critical here, as they tend to determine how impacts should be weighed for the rest of the round. That being said, most rounds I've judged tend to be more vague about what exactly the alternative is than what I'd like. Clear K teams tend to be the best ones, imo. Kritical affs are fine provided they win a framework question. Do not assume that I know your literature.

T/Theory: Mostly included this section to note that my paradigm differs most strongly from LD here- I don't have a problem with procedurals being run and I can follow the debate well. I have never granted an RVI in policy and I don't see myself doing it any time in the near future- I default to competing interps without any argument otherwise.

Misc: If I don't say something here, ask me- I've never quite known what to put in this section. Open CX is fine but if one partner dominates all of the CXs speaks will reflect that. Flex prep is also fine, verbal prompting is acceptable but shouldn't be overused. I have a ridiculously low threshold on answers against white people reading Wilderson.

PF PARADIGM:

I don't have anything specific here except for the love of all that is good you need to have warrants. Please have warrants. Collapsing and having warrants is like 90% of my ballots here.

Misc, or, the "Why Did I Have To Put That In My Paradigm" Section:

- No, seriously, I will vote on evidence violations if I need to. They're not that hard to follow, so just like, do that.

- "Don't be offensive" also means "don't defend eugenics"

- Misgendering is also a paradigmatic issue. ESPECIALLY if you double down

Howdy folks.

I participated in four years of Parliamentary Debate and a year in Social Justice Debates. I am now three years post-grad and have been out of the debate circuit during that time. I am going to offer some general positions I hold as a judge in hopes it provides some use to you in round.

First, I want a clear weighing mechanism for how I will be evaluating the round. I am a flow judge and will be voting in the scope of the best articulated role of my ballot. Do not just say how I should be viewing the round, tell me why it is I should be viewing the round that way. Winning this and bringing it through in your rebuttal makes it quite likely I will vote for you.

Second, well delivered rebuttals are crucial. I will not weigh new arguments but also would like debaters to point out if the other team makes one. I've been out of the game a while and would hate to miss one, so please do not assume I will automatically catch everything. Along with rebuttals, tell me exactly why you won the round and pull across your arguments. I spent a lot of my debate career trying to perfect my rebuttals and appreciate a well delivered and articulated last speech. Narrow the round for me and explain clearly why you are the winner. I do not want to do work for you.

Third, I don't LOVE spec arguments. Obviously run one if there is clear in round abuse, but these kinds of arguments were never my specialty, so if you're going for it, explain to me in clear detail why the argument is necessary.

Lastly, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, be kind y'all. This is a really small community where we get to come together and discuss ways we could positively change the world. Nothing irks me more than teams that walk into the room like they are better than anyone else. This is an activity we elect to participate in so be sure to make it inclusive and encouraging. Nothing will make me vote against you faster than seeing rude or abusive behavior. So do not talk over people in cross ex, do not make rude remarks about the other team in your speeches, and win your arguments simply because they are better arguments. It's pretty simple but I have seen too many teams make it pretty hard.

Talk clearly, talk logically, talk kindly, and you will do well. (:

Toni Nielson

Co-Director of Debate, Fullerton College (2017 - forever I suspect)

Executive Director - Bay Area Urban Debate League (2013-2017)
Co-Director of Debate at CSU, Fullerton for 7 years (2005-2012)
Debated in College for 5 years
Debated in High School for 3 years
Rounds on the Topic: less than 5

Email Chain: commftownnielson@gmail.com

I just want to see you do what you are good at. I like any debater who convinces me the know what they are talking about.

Here’s what I think helps make a debater successful –

1. Details: evidence and analytics, aff and neg – the threshold for being as specific as humanly possible about your arg and opponent's arg remains the same; details demonstrate knowledge
2. Direct organized refutation: Answer the other team and don’t make me guess about it – I hate guessing because it feels like intervention. I'm trying to let the debaters have the debate.
3. Debating at a reasonable pace: I ain’t the quickest flow in the west, even when I was at my best which was a while ago. I intend on voting for arguments which draw considerable debates and not on voting for arguments that were a 15 seconds of a speech. If one team concedes an argument, it still has to be an important and relevant argument to be a round winner.
4. Framing: tell me how you want me to see the round and why I shouldn’t see it your opponents way
5. Comparison: you aren’t debating in a vacuum – see your weakness & strengths in the debate and compare those to your opponent. I love when debaters know what they are losing and deal with it in a sophisticated way.

Some style notes - I like to hear the internals of evidence so either slow down a little or be clear. I flow CX, but I do this for my own edification so if you want an arg you still have to make it in a speech. I often don't get the authors name the first time you read the ev. I figure if the card is an important extension you will say the name again (in the block or rebuttals) so I know what ev you are talking about. I rarely read a bunch of cards at the end of the debate.

Now you are asking,
Can I read an aff without a plan? I lean rather in the direction of a topical plan, instrumentally implemented these days. This is a big change in my previous thoughts and the result of years of working with young, beginning debate. I appreciate policy discussion and believe the ground it provides is a preferable locus for debate. So I am somewhat prone to vote neg on framework must implement a plan.

Can I go for politics/CP or is this a K judge? Yes to both; I don't care for this distinction ideologically anymore. As far as literature, I lean slightly more in the K direction. My history of politics and CP debate are more basic than my history of K debate.

Theory - lean negative in most instances. Topicality - lean affirmative (if they have a plan) in most instances. I lean neg on K framework which strikes me as fair negative ground of a topical plan of action.

Truth v Tech - lean in the direction of tech. Debate, the skill, requires refuting arguments. So my lean in the direction of the tech is not a declaration to abandon reality. I will and do vote on unanswered arguments, particularly ones that are at the core of the debate. Gigantic caveat, I will struggle to vote on an argument just because it is dropped. The concession must be relevant and compelling to the debate. I will also be hesitant to vote on arguments that fly in the face of reality.

Here's what I like: I like what you know things about. And if you don't know anything, but get through rounds cause you say a bunch and then the other team drops stuff - then I don't think you have a great strategy. Upside for you, I truly believe you do know something after working and prepping the debate on the topic. Do us both a favor: If what you know applies in this round, then debate that.

Good luck!.

Background: I competed in policy debate for four years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I coached policy debate for seven years, public forum for one year, and LD debate for five years.

Despite my policy background I am committed to the spirit of LD. This means that while you can speak quickly, you should be comprehensible and both debaters should be ok with going fast. I have seen too many debates where a varsity debater unnecessarily spreads out a novice debater.

Topicality is a voting issue. I am unlikely to vote on a reverse voting issue on topicality even if it is dropped. Arguments about why topicality is problematic may be reasons to include your affirmative, but are rarely reasons for you to win the debate. It is probably best in front of me to frame these as expanding the interpretation of what the topic can be, rather than rejecting a topic all together.

The citation rules are so widely disregarded that I would feel uncomfortable enforcing them, especially if there is no conversation between the debaters about reading them prior to the first speech.

Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate. This is not code for I do not vote on theory. I will vote on theory.

Negatives should narrow the debate in their second speech. Pick the arguments you are winning and go in-depth. I will give affirmative’s wide latitude in debate where the negative goes for everything in a messy way. Going for T and substance is usually a mistake, unless one or both are such a clear win that you have extra time (this happens rarely).

Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterplan presumption is up for debate). A negative can sometimes make a persuasive case that the affirmative has to prove solvency, which is a separate issue from presumption.

Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments. I wish I saw more of these types of arguments.

I don’t subscribe to an offense defense paradigm; good defense is in many cases enough, especially with theory debates.

I am increasingly willing to intervene in theory debates. Two speeches does not allow for proper theory development and gives both sides the ability to simply block out every speech. Counterplans like consultation and 50 state fiat require a very low threshold to defeat on theory. I am not a fan of conditional counterproposals in LD. Negative arguments like the affirmative doesn’t get permutations are generally nonstarters.

I will vote on kritiks but prefer them specific to the topic and with a hardy dose of explanation about why it relates to the specific claims of the 1AC. I am not a good judge for generic backfile checks with one card that is semi relevant to the topic area. Some additional clarification. Changes to how the round should be evaluated (moving from the question of the desirability of the policy) need to be made explicitly and early and should include substantive justification about why the change excludes or makes undesirable the aff.

Final speeches need to make choices and clearly identify their path to the ballot. One part of this is the order you present ideas in your speech.

Things that will get you lower speaker points/make it hard for you to win.

1. Be rude to the other team.
2. Not answer or be evasive when answering cross ex questions.
3. Be unclear in CX about the status of counter plans
4. Being unable or unwilling to explain your arguments in CX
5. Read unwarranted/unqualified evidence.

One way to get (perhaps unfairly) good speaker points from me is to be entertaining. Many debaters, who were not the best at debate, but nevertheless were pleasant to watch debate, (being funny, speaking passionately, being nice to their opponents) have received speaker points that would typically fall outside of their skill range.

Debate is a game.

My preference is debate centered around a plan focus style of debate. This is not say that other debate styles should or do not exist, but it is to say, I prefer policy debates, and I enjoy judging policy debate rounds. I will not rule out or prohibit other styles of debate, but I want to be clear, my preference is debates about the plan and competitive policy alternatives.

Counterplans

Well, for starters, they kick ass. I lean heavily neg on counterplan theory questions. Conditionally is generally good, but I think the format and speech times of parli and NFA-LD debate begs the "generally good" question.

If both teams are silent on the question, my presumption will be that counterplans identified as “conditional” mean that status quo is always an option for the judge to consider, even if the counterplan is extended by the 2nr. This presumption can easily be changed if debated by either side.

Counterplans which result in the affirmative, probably, not competitive. I’ve written many of these counterplans, and voted on many of these counterplans many times, so do not think they are off limits

The K

First, see above.

Second, if you are going for the K, please have well developed link args to the plan and an alternative that is competitive. Also, it is a very good idea to explain what the alternative does and how it interacts with the AFF.

Topicality

All about which interp is best for debate.

Email: shirzadian@marshall.edu

I’m a professor of English at Marshall University, where I also coach the MU debate team. My academic background is in rhetorical and critical theory--with a special emphasis on Disability Studies. I was a parli debater in college (2006-2010) at Cedarville University. Have coached IPDA since beginning at MU last year. I have a moderate amount of college LD experience.

I strive to be a tabula rasa absolutist. I’m a pretty meticulous flow judge. I like smart, meaningful policy debate clash, but I also vote on smart kritics so long as the links stand. I’m open to critical AFFs, though I feel like the bar is a bit higher than NEG K’s. I’m a politics nerd, and so love a smart, specific politics DA (get specific about the congresspeople and bills that will be put in play post-fiat).

I’m okay with a bit of speed, though I’ll also expect you to moderate if I sense your speed has rendered the round inaccessible to your opponent. I'm not keen on supporting the gasping-for-air level of speed. I'd advise you avoid it in our round together.

Link turns most frequently win my ballot. Nothing wrong with impact turns (just don’t double turn!).

Love impact calc args. I'm finding I often weigh probability more heavily that magnitude. The more specific / unique the impact, the better.

On T, Standards and Violation debates determine my ballot.

27.5 feels like the middle for speaks. If you’re a jerk, I’ll weigh that pretty heavily against your speaks.

Updated November 2022

Dan Stanfield

2 Years at Los Rios Community College

1 Year at CSU Fullerton

1 Year at UNLV

2 Years Coaching at UWG

2 years @ Baylor

Iowa 2019 - 2020

IC 2022

Coached for CKM on TI topic

Coached for Juan Diego on Surveillance

Coach for SLC West Education

Coached for CKM Immigration - CJR

Coached for Nevada Union Immigration - CJR

Add me to your email chain stanfield.dan@gmail.com

Michigan 2023 Update:

Pronouns: they/them

Please don't over adjust your content to me, I am a lover of debate in all its forms. Make the arguments you want to make and I'll evaluate the debate.

I have had very few rounds on this topic so if there is any topic specific jargon err toward a higher degree of explanation.

October 2022 Update:

Taylor Swift lyrics cleverly incorporated will result in a speaker point boost. Jokes in poor taste will result in a speaker point drop. Buyer beware.

"I am a firm believer that debate is for debaters. I had my time to make others listen to whatever (and I do mean absolutely whatever) I wanted to say, and its my turn to listen to and evaluate your arguments, whatever they may be. While I'm sure I have my limitations make me adapt to you instead of the other way around" -- Lindsay VanLuvanee

I will attempt to limit the amount my predispositions will influence how I evaluate a debate round. Don't feel as if you need to change your strategy to debate in front of me, do what you do best, because the alternative is usually subpar debate. The final two rebuttals should write my ballot for me, teams that accurately break the round down and are reasonable about what they are and are not winning will usually be rewarded with increased speaker points.I enjoy a high level of specificity and nuance broad sweeping claims will get you nowhere. I place importance on how pieces of evidence get debated, as opposed to simply constructing debates based on the pieces of evidence that have been introduced. While I also place a premium on quality evidence (which, I would like to be able to hear during your speech), I believe that a smart analytic argument has the potential to gain equal traction to a solid piece of evidence. Quality always trumps quantity.

I find cross ex to be the most important part of debate its one of the few times I feel I get to connect with the individual debaters, while I don't flow it I pay very close attention to it, and what happens here will inform how I see large portions of the round.

Theory:
Theory needs to be well executed. Debates in which theory blocks do the arguing almost always favor the neg.

I don’t like cheap shots.(This does not mean I won't vote on them, I'll just be cranky about it) I like arguments to be well developed. Most cheap shots are not reasons to reject the team and significant time would need to be spent in order to convince me otherwise. However, it is your burden to point out how irrelevant many theory arguments that are advanced in debates are, as a concession may force my hand.

Nearly all theory questions I end up siding in favor of the negative, I think conditionality is fine, any potentially abusive CP is checked by quality of evidence. 50 States Fiat is one arg where an affirmative could convince me this is a reason to reject the team it is likely to still be an uphill battle.

Judge Kick: I think this deserves its own section, when the 2nr goes for a CP I believe the debate is solely a question of plan versus the CP. While a 2nr can instruct me to to kick the cp for them if the 2r wins offense against the counterplan an affirmative can respond that I shouldn't kick the counterplan for the negative and I am likely to side with the affirmative. If the 2nr contains a counterplan I have a very strong predisposition that if the affirmative wins substantive solvency deficits to the counterplan or other offense against it that outweighs the net benefit than I should be voting aff. And that I then shouldn't decide to then evaluate the status quo (i..e the net-benefit) vs. the plan.


T:
Separate from the framework section, I really enjoy evidentiary T debates that aren't clash of civ debates. I find these are some of the most nuanced debates about what the resolution means which is always compelling to me. I evaluate topicality like a DA offense v defense. For affirmatives here do not place all your eggs in the basket of reasonability, I think only reasonability is only a question of the interpretation and not the aff or plan itself. Any other interpretation of reasonability I don't think constitutes an actual argument.

FW

First contrary to popular belief I do not hack for framework, however this year I have noticed myself voting for framework more often than I don't vote for framework. For me there are a few ways the framework debates break down in terms of impact, primarily between procedural and education based impacts. By procedural I mean those impact arguments that result from things such as limits, or grounds internal links to impacts like clash, fairness, debatability. The second form of framework are those arguments about decision making skills, topic education, deliberative democracy.

If you are negative reading framework I cannot stress how much I would rather see the version of framework that couches its arguments in terms of the procedural side, ie. limits , ground, etc. I believe this is the most strategic form of the argument. I believe debate is a game and impacts that make the game unable to be played by one side or the other constitute a reason to vote negative. Explanations of the impact that have been compelling to me is that I strongly believe there should be a negative path to victory, a negative that couches their impacts like this will have greatly increased my likelihood to vote for framework. For affirmatives debating this style of framework if you win a counter interpretation that provides a limit on the topic and can explain why that limit on the topic mitigates some portion of the negative offense regards to limits or debateability, then that is the best route for getting me to vote affirmative. I will also say YOU NEED OFFENSE, playing the middle ground will not get my ballot I need impact turns big disads to their interpretation of the topic with well explained impacts. If affirmative I do not need 5-10 barely explained disads to FWI need 1-4 well explained and warranted DA's to the negative interpretation.

Conversely it is much harder to win my ballot exclusively going for arguments about topic education, decision making skills, or deliberative democracy. I believe any affirmative that is even close to knowing what they are doing will be able to easily impact turn these arguments. This isn't to say you shouldn't read these arguments at all they can be excellent external impacts to your interpretation, but instead you should use these arguments as a supplement to the more game-playing/ procedural versions of the argument.

For negatives who have framework as their go to strat THE CASE STILL MATTERS , the reason for this is the case determines the weight I give to affirmative impact turns / disadvantages to framework. If the affirmative solves 100% of their aff then I gave 100% of the weight of their impact turns to framework, conversely if the aff solves maybe 1% of their aff then the strength of the disadvantages or impact turns will be drastically reduced.

Topical version of the aff: You don't have to have one to win but it can help. They also don't have to solve the entire aff instead they are a test to show that the content of the aff is not precluded by the resolutional prompt. For affirmatives the topical version of the aff doesn't solve our aff not very persuasive to me. However, an argument that the topical version of the aff is not in fact topical under the negative's interpretation of the topic is persuasive. Similarly an argument that the topical version of the aff in fact does not allow for the content of the aff to exist. Form based arguments from affirmatives are also compelling to me in response to topical versions of the aff, how the content may exist but the form of it would not be, can be an extremely persuasive argument against both the topical version, as well as also acting as offense against the negatives interpretation.

Beyond counter interpretations it can be incredibly helpful for an affirmative to have a counter model of what debate looks like, which can act as a filter for a variety of the negatives arguments as well as acting as a type of uniqueness for your own impact turns to a negatives interpretation of the topic.

Something I've told to a few debaters this year may help further contextualize what I've said here -- "If both affirmative and neg execute absolutely perfectly I probably lean slightly negative" -- however it should be noted that I have never seen this perfect execution take place.

The K:
I will do my best to limit my predispositions from giving explanation or advancing arguments for the other team. Specificity and spin are important for both sides of the debate. I don’t like generic explanations of meta theory with no tie to the affirmative. Similarly, I don’t like generic responses to critical theory outside of the context of the aff. Generic evidence does not force generic explanation.

Disability k's -- Due to how I spent my last two years in debate , this is obviously a body of literature that I am extremely familiar with however if you are not familiar with it trying to pick it up just because I am in the back of the room is a terrible decision, and one you will almost certainly regret. Secondarily I thought I should include my thoughts on the various ableist language arguments. Essentially most of the time I believe these arguments in and of themselves don't constitute a great argument unless its an especially violent piece of language this doesn't mean what you say doesn't matter what it does mean is that the negative needs to explain to me why the language warrants a negative ballot and not just punitive measures like maybe lower speaker points or not evaluating certain pieces of evidence. I'm happy to explain this further if there are questions.

Recent years I have found I have a tendency to enjoy arguments described as "high-theory" IF THEY ARE EXECUTED WELL. I have coached teams to read all variety or arguments from the cap k to baudrillard, so if the death K is your jam then you should go for it. A lot of my current academic work revolves around disability and psychoanalysis so take that as you will.

If you ask anyone at Baylor they will tell you (and are correct) in that I really enjoy hearing arguments about psychoanalysis I find this to be an incredibly interesting area of argumentation and always enjoy when the affirmative or negative has to do with these questions of psychoanalysis.

CPs/Das:
I love a good, well-researched, specific strategy. The more generic your strategy becomes, the greater the chance of me assigning an extremely low risk to these arguments. Sometimes there is simply no link. Absolute defense does exist.

The last thing I will say is that debates that I have fun in will be rewarded by higher speaker points. I have fun when I see well thought out and deployed strategy.. Make me laugh and you will be rewarded. Be nice.

Also, I adore good puns (well maybe bad ones even more) make some clever puns in your speeches and you will be rewarded with speaker points.

Change in 2014

excessive / intentional use of racial slurs, jokes in bad tase, misgendering, ableist slurs will result in much lower speaker points. Note: an ableist slur is the R word , or derogatorily referring to someone as a cripple. It is not saying the word stand in your plan text/advocacy statement.

I have judged debate events off and on for 35+ years.

For my first 15 years, I primarily judged high school Policy Debate and only occasionally high school Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

More recently, I have judged rounds of COLLEGE IPDA Debate (most), Lincoln-Douglas Debate, and NPDA Debate (least) andHIGH SCHOOL Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, and SPAR/Extemp Debate.

Although my initial experience was in high school Policy Debate, I do not like high speed. If I am leaning forward to catch everything you are saying or you are gasping for air between utterances, you are talking too fast. If that is the case or you're overwhelming my ability to process information, I will say SPEED. By the same token, if you're speaking is not clear, I will say CLEAR. Please adjust accordingly if I say SPEED or CLEAR.

Ultimately, I judge holistically - the better debater or debate team wins the round. This almost always is the debater or debate team that carried the debate on my flow. In that very rare case when it is not, it is because I consider effective communication in deciding which debater or debate team won (and in assigning speaker points).

In a policy debate, I look to stock issues; in value debate, I look to which side best upholds the value(s) presented; in a fact debate, I ordinarily look to which side persuaded me by a preponderance of the evidence or similar standard offered by the debaters.

I do try to come in with an open mind. As a result, I will listen to and potentially "vote" any issue you raise. But I prefer for debaters on both sides to address the topic and clash thoughtfully with the other side's arguments.

If you run a kritik or counterplan, I expect you to explain it clearly (especially the kritik) and establish a clear link to the topic/case you're debating. I'm not an expert on every critical lens that challenges status quo thinking.

I dislike spreading. Identify major weaknesses in your opponents' arguments and flesh them out for me. Presenting a lot of one-sentence arguments in the hope your opponent can't respond to all of them will not help you win my ballot.

I judge on what I hear. I expect debaters to both make arguments and use evidence (even in IPDA/extemp debate - even though I understand there will be less evidence there). I also expect debaters to summarize why they won; don't spend so much time refuting arguments that you leave no time to tell me clearly why you won.

Background: Debated NFA-LD for 4 years at Central Michigan University. Currently a graduate student at Clemson University.

Contact Info: TylerNicholas008@gmail.com // Please feel free to email me with any questions or additional thoughts/comments/clarifications following your round, or regarding any conversations you'd like to have about my paradigm or debate, in general.

TLDR: Do your thing, and have fun with it.Just as much as judge adaptation is a skill for competitors, I think judges should also adapt to the debaters. Run what you want to the best of your ability, and I'll do my best to evaluate the debate that you, as the debaters, choose to have. I will vote on anything if the justification for doing so is well-warranted/articulated and sufficiently argued (though, my threshold for some things is higher/lower than others). I should be fine with your speed if you want to go fast, but please go slow on tags and analytics if you want to make sure I get everything. I like cohesive neg. strategies that gel well together (i.e. that are not contradictory/conflicting). Make choices in the rebuttals, and collapse cleanly. Going for everything is usually not the wave. Tell me where/how I should vote and why. Be kind to your opponent.

Overview:

I came into debate as a true novice, which I feel has a few implications for how I view debate: (1) It means that, probably compared to other people in the community, I have very few deeply ingrained notions about what debate "should" look like, based on its past/evolution, and (2) it means that, in many ways, I'm still learning debate and may not be as up on some debate-specific things as other judges (particularly lingo/norms that are transplanted from other forms of debate, like HS policy).

LD Rules:

Because debate, in my experience, is such a heavily norms-based activity, I'll probably feel uncomfortable voting against something *just* because it's a rules violation, particularly in cases where the community norm/consensus is significantly skewed from the rules (such as "full cites"). However, that doesn't mean I won't vote on these kinds of arguments or that I don't think "rules" can operate as their own voter (such as with T). But, in most cases, if you want me to vote on anything rules-based, you'll probably need to tell me it's a rule AND why that matters (i.e. what are the implications of the rule for debate and why is debate better if we follow this rule). It should also go without saying that I won't vote on a rule if you, yourself, also break that rule. On the flip side, I'm open to "rules bad" arguments too, but they need to be similarly well-warranted.

On speed, I'm fine with it as long as your opponents is also, but I think debate should be accessible. Speed should never be used as a tool of exclusion, and you should always prioritize clarity over speed. If your opponent says "speed" or "clears" you and you fail to adjust, it will probably reflect poorly in your speaker points. I saw someone once say something along the lines of "a debate in which two debaters are reading well-warranted arguments and citing well-qualified sources -- and spreading -- is the most educational activity in the world", and I agree with that sentiment. However, I do tend to think that speed is probably doing more harm than good for the growth of the activity as a whole, particularly in terms of recruitment and retention of novices. I also think debate, as a communication-oriented activity, benefits greatly from competitors speaking "conversationally" (though, this is obviously a somewhat arbitrary term) and persuasively. Take that as whatever you'd like; that's just my two-cents.

Stock Issues:

If you're reading a policy/resolutional advocacy, you should probably have them, and my threshold is probably lower to win these sorts of arguments than other rules-based arguments -- especially if the aff can't clearly articulate how they meet the stock issues paradigm.

On T/Top-level Theory:

In the interest of full transparency, adjudicating T debates is not my favorite. This should, by no means, prohibit you from running and or going for T if you think it's a viable strategy, but it will be much more compelling to me if you genuinely think and have a good argument for why your opponent isn't T. If you are going for T, a clean flow and choice-making will go a long way towards the ballot. Impact out standards/arguments and tell me why they mean you win the sheet. I'm probably one of the few judges you'll get that default reasonability, proven abuse, and truth>tech, but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate in a "competing interps" framework if you win that I should, or that there needs to be proven abuse for you to win the sheet.

Regarding other types of top-level theory, such as vagueness, if you think you have a legitimate argument, go for it. I think a lot of what I said for T goes for these arguments too. I'm not a huge fan of random, weird top-level theory that's clearly just about throwing off your opponent, but I will vote for it.

CPs/CP theory:

Personally, I think PICs are dope. As a debater, I ran a lot of PICs and think more debaters should, particularly when they're specific and contextual to the aff. With that being said, however, I will definitely vote for PICs bad if it is argued well. On CPs, I'm cool with condo, but the threshold for your opponent winning "condo bad" is significantly lower if you read multiple conditional counter-advocacies, *especially* if they conflict (which they probably do). I have a very low threshold for beating conflicting/contradictory arguments.

In answering CPs, I'm also not a big fan of blippy, one-line perms and am likely to treat 2AR extrapolations of them as new.

Rebuttal theory:

I honestly don't think I've seen this a lot in LD, but just to touch on it, if you have a valid reason to run it, go for it; however, if you want to win it, you probably have to go all in on it, given the LD speech order and time constraints. I probably have a high-threshold for voting on it, to be honest, unless the violation is obvious/egregious.

As a last note on all theory, I need a clearly articulated reason why I should reject the team and not just the argument.

Kritikal debate:

I love critical debates, especially those oriented around the resolution and debates about debate. I'm down with Ks and K affs, including language/rhetoric Ks. With Ks, give me clear, specific links and clearly explained alternatives, preferably with an in-round function, and tell my role as a judge -- how, why, and where to vote. With K affs, I'd prefer you have a defensible advocacy text, and if you're not defending the topic, I'd prefer your advocacy still have a clear connection to the topic or very clear reasons as to why we should reject the topic altogether.

The last thing I'll stress about Ks is that I think clarity about and understanding your position are extremely important -- both to critical theory, in general, and in-round accessibility and debate. I need to understand your position to vote on it.

Final thoughts/General Stuff:

I love debate. My favorite rounds to watch are ones where debaters are having fun, competing at a high level, and being kind to one another. Attack arguments, not your opponent. There is a threshold for rudeness, over which you risk losing the round and or get very low speaker points. Any overt racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of explicit discrimination/violence toward your opponent automatically loses you the round and gets reported to the tournament organizers and your coach. Additionally, if your arguments reference sensitive materials or topics, a trigger warning before you read them is highly encouraged.

[This paradigm is a living document and is still a work in progress. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to voice them before or after the round -- or through email.]

I debated throughout high school and then at Idaho State University for 5 years. I then coached at Idaho State University for 2 years, Weber for 1, USC for 1, and am currently with Houston.

I am a firm believer that debate is for debaters. I've had my time to make others listen to whatever (and I mean absolutely whatever) I wanted to say, and it's my turn to listen to and evaluate your arguments, whatever they may be. While I'm sure I have my limitations, make me adapt to you instead of the other way around.

I try my damnedest to line up all the arguments on my flow. I am, however, open to alternate flowing styles. I really do prefer when debaters make specific reference of which argument(s) they are answering at a given time regardless of flowing style. I also flow the text of cards.

I prefer not to call for evidence (although I would like to be on your email chain... misslindsayv@gmail.com). This means explain, explain, explain! Tell me what the card says; tell me why I should care and how I should apply it. That being said, I do not think that cards are always better than analytics.

Be prepared to defend all aspects of your argument.

Everything is open to (re)interpretation. For example, some questions that may be relevant to my ballot include: What is the purpose of debate? How does this affect the way that impacts are evaluated? These kinds of top-level framing issues are the most important to me.

This means things like framework and T (fun little-known fact: I've always found topicality in general super interesting--I love the nit-picky semantics of language) can be viable options against K affs. However, you are better off if you have a substantive response to the aff included as well.

I'm still kind of deciding how I feel about how competition functions in method debates. I think the most accurate depiction of what I think about it now is this (and it all obviously depends on what's happening in the debate/on the flow, but in general): I'll probably err that the affirmative on-face gets a permutation to determine if the methods are mutually exclusive, and so that means the best strategy for the negative in this world is to generate their links to the aff's method itself to prove that mutual exclusivity.

I'd really appreciate it if you could warn me in advance if there will be graphic descriptions of sexual violence.

I've rewritten my paradigm now that I've graduated and I've shifted to primarily judging NFA LD. I am also a little bit of a hoarder so if you want to see my old paradigm, it's at the bottom of this one. I still believe most/all of those things about debate, I am just endeavoring to make it more concise and NFA specific going forward.

A Little about me:

I debated at University of Nebraska-Lincoln for 4 years (2019-2023). I won the NFA-LD grand prix and nationals my last year (imo largely because of judge/opponent adaptation) but that does not necessarily qualify me as a good/bad judge. I competed at 3 policy tournaments with UNL.

I also coached high school LD for three years at Lincoln North Star High School in Nebraska (2020-2023).

Before that I was a policy debater at Shawnee Mission West in Kansas (2016-2019).

My topic knowledge is probably a 4/10. I am now in law school which means I don't cut cards right now because I don't have time, but I am planning to judge NFA pretty regularly for UNL.

My senior year I primarily read affs that were either squarely topical with large impacts or affirmatives with non-USFG advocacy statements instead of plan texts. On the negative I went for T (60%) or the K (30%) in 90% of my rounds. This doesn't mean you have to debate that way, that's just where I am coming from.

I like speechdrop, but I don't care enough to make you use it. If we do an email chain use wallenburg.debate@gmail.com.

TLDR:

I flow, which comes before almost all my other preferences. I like fast (but accessible) debate. I think the time limits in NFA are broken which changes how I would like to evaluate certain arguments. I will vote for nearly anything that has warrants. If you read a plan text, it should be topical, if you don't read a plan text, I think your aff should be at least tangentially related to the topic. I like when negative debaters lay their cards on the table in the NC to prioritize explanation over shock value in the NR.

General Things:

Speed: Sure. Go probably 90% of full speed and slow down on analytics. I flow on paper because I don't type very fast. Clear and slow is better than fast and non-understandable. If your opponent asks you to slow down for accessibility reasons you should. If you ask for someone to slow down for accessibility reasons and then in another debate go really fast, I will not be very forgiving. Those who do this create a poor perception of all requests for slowing down which harms people who actually need to have conversational debates.

Style: Frame my ballot. Tell me which arguments matter the most, why they matter, and why you are winning them. Fewer arguments that are well explained are almost always better than trying to make as many bad arguments as possible. Don't be afraid to "kick" me if you're in front of a more traditional panel. I will still flow and vote off that flow, so if you can win both the technical and ethos debate it will be better for you.

NFA Specific Opinions: 2ARs need to do pick their two or three best arguments and then do line by line on the negative's answers to those arguments from the 1AR. NCs should be less afraid of reading only 1 or 2 off. NRs (generally) shouldn't read cards except to answer cards that the aff read in the 1AR. I think generally more than 1 Conditional advocacy breaks the game, but you should probably get to read that one advocacy conditionally. When the Negative goes for multiple off case arguments that aren't part of the same route to the ballot (i.e. DA + K or T instead of CP + DA), I think the aff gets a ton of leeway in answering them all. The 6-3 time tradeoff just necessitates it and neg debaters will find their time is better spent in the NR really explaining 1 route to the ballot instead of shadow extending it all. I am frustrated with NFA judges that have really ideological oppositions to certain arguments and styles, I think it is just as much my (our) job to adapt to you as it is your job to adapt to me (us) and as such I will endeavor to listen to all of your (non-bigoted) arguments with an open mind.

Disclosure Theory: I am at a crossroads with how I evaluate disclosure right now. We can talk about this more, and I'm open to opinions or suggestions. Generally, I think everybody should be disclosing arguments they have read before on the Wiki. I also tend to evaluate theory arguments very technically. In the spirit of transparency, however, here are a couple thoughts I'm still working through in these debates (and I think they deviate pretty substantially from what people assume about me, hence the relative length):

(1) I am more likely to vote for disclosure theory against someone who knows better. In practice, this means I give more credence to potential abuse arguments against debaters who have been doing this for awhile and/or respond to disclosure with a really big "disclosure bad" shell. On the flip side, I have found myself defaulting to proven abuse/functional application when disclosure is run against new debaters or those that are losing the "tech" simply because they have never had a deep theory debate before.

(2) Often, people think "Nick will vote on disclosure theory" and so they jettison what would otherwise be a clean cut win on a different position. This makes me sad. 100% I would rather vote on the DA/Aff/K/etc. and tell your opponent after the debate "also you should really disclose or answer theory better." It allows me to give better feedback and will likely help you in speaker points, which I think are both good things for you.

(3) I find it hard to establish a discernible difference between "full text on the wiki" "Tags on the wiki" and telling someone what the aff is 15 minutes before the round (a) when asked and (b) with the willingness to send them a copy if they want it. If you don't ask for disclosure so that you can read disclosure, I think you should evaluate whether you actually wanted a fair debate in the first place.

(4) The more you are reading blocks for disclosure theory in the NR/1AR, the less likely I will be to vote for you. I don't want to weigh a novice's reading of their Top 10 teammate's blocks if I can say with substantive certainty that they would not be able to explain the arguments absent those blocks. I know this is the practice with all arguments, but it just makes me feel especially weird with disclosure theory and Idk why (probably an offshoot of my opinion in point (1)).

Arguments:

Affs: Should have an advocacy and an impact. I think if you're going to claim to be Topical you should be topical. If you aren't trying to be topical I prefer you just impact turn T instead of going for defense (I never much cared for "the people are the USFG" arguments). Don't read cards you don't need in the 1AR, you don't have time.

Disadvantages: Sure, I think you should read your best link card in the NC. I (generally) don't think you get add on scenarios in the NR. Specific links are always better than non-specific links.

Counterplans: Yes. Explain how they solve the aff, how they avoid the net benefits, and why they are theoretically legitimate. Do what you can justify, but I tend to fall pretty in line with (policy) established convention as to whether a certain type of CP is cheating or not. I will say I do like PICs and I think that judges that auto reject PICs are actively inhibiting creative negative debaters and rewarding affirmatives for lazy plan writing.

Kritiks: I lived here for the longest in College. Stylistically I think the NC should read less cards and spend more time articulating the links on the case. Why wait until the NR to make link arguments when you can have two shots at explaining it to me to understand it? Framework arguments should be in the NC/1AR. I don't think the NR needs to go for the alt, but it does need to explain why it doesn't need the alt. I think affirmative debaters get too generic answering kritiks, and should make more specific analytical arguments instead of just asserting "perm double bind." 2ARs should collapse more on these - if you're winning the no link debate, go for the perm. If you're winning the impact turn debate, who cares about the perm?

Topicality: (Against the aff with a USFG plan text) I love a good T debate. I think that topicality informs how we write plans in the future which means competing interpretations and potential abuse are (generally) truer arguments. Define words in the resolution, put any TVAs/ExtraT/FXT/impact framing issues in the NC shell. The NR should go between overviewing/explaining disadvantages to the affirmatives interpretation and line by lining the 1AR responses. Here, again, the aff should pick their battle in the 2AR.

(Against the aff with a non-USFG advocacy) I think this is a viable strategy. You should do more establishment of impacts in the NC then you might against a topical aff. Think of this as more a disad to their method than a prior question, which means you should be making arguments on the case about why topicality harms the aff's ability to solve itself in the NC. You will be hard pressed to win this debate if you do not put some amount of argumentation on the aff. You can win fairness alone but I think it's better explained as an impact to clash/education. Affirmatives should read 2-3 good 1AR impact turns based in AC evidence and explain them in the 1AR instead of 10 blippy, generic arguments. The 2AR should pick the best one and explain it against every macro impact the NR extends.

**********OLD PARADIGM***********

Last Edited in April of 2023.

TLDR:

Do whatever you want. I typically default to offense/defense paradigm and I think judge adaptation should be a two-way street: yes you should probably do what your judges prefer because its strategic, but judges should also make every effort to understand and evaluate your arguments fairly. I am very frustrated by judges that give RFDs like "I don't evaluate this kind of argument" or "You were going too fast so I didn't even try to flow you." I prefer affs are at least based in literature about the resolution. I started with more exposure to Policy style arguments but have since become somewhat of a "K hack." I love impact turns, T debates, tricky DA's, and well thought out Critical debates, not necessarily in that order.

Style Preferences:

Speed - Yes I can handle speed, but please don't go full out. I can flow pretty well, but going too fast will likely hurt you more than it will help you. I would say the 1AC/1NC should be like 90% of top speed, and warrants/rebuttals should be 75%, I'm not a very fast typist so I will likely flow on paper.

Frame my Ballot - Please. The 2NR/2AR should almost always start out with an overview of "You vote Aff/Neg Because..." if you fall into the nasty habit of just going straight into line by line without telling me where to look first in the debate, but your opponent gives a clear, concise overview of how I should evaluate the round and which arguments matter the most, you may not like my decision.

Round Vision - Keep an eye out for technical mistakes and cross flow applications. My partner and I came back from a lot of debates that we were very clearly losing by correctly analyzing bad 2NR kick outs or 1AR mistakes. Making strategic concessions and cross applications will be rewarded.

Adapt - If you're debating in front of a panel don't be afraid to kick me and cater to the other judges interests. I get it, no hard feelings. I will still make my decision based on a technical analysis of the flow unless explicitly instructed otherwise.

Argumentative Things:

Affs - I would prefer that Affirmatives are in the direction of the resolution, and have a stable advocacy, otherwise I will likely find a parametrics argument pretty persuasive. I have read planless affirmatives and I think they have lots of merit, but where teams go wrong is shadow extending aff cards but not explaining their method or solvency mechanism. What does the advocacy do? How do you resolve violence? Do you need to resolve violence? I think these are questions that need to be answered early in the debate. That being said, I think impact turns to FW should use the aff. I am not a big fan of copy and pasting your generic K aff blocks to every aff you read when your evidence justifies much more nuanced answers to framework. As for Affs with Plan Texts, I'm down for whatever. My senior year Alex and I mostly read soft left affs with a framing page, but we also occasionally went for a big stick economy aff with a lot of preempts to Cap and Dedev, so read what you want and I should be able to handle it.

Impact Turns - Yes. Please. Dedev and prolif good were my favorite. Focus your attention on the Sustainability debate, impact analysis, and Impact defense. Read any impact turn you want. Although hearing something like death good or wipeout will probably make me sad.

Topicality - I love a good T debate, but the key word there is good. I default to competing interpretations and I don't think you need to win in round abuse to win T. I typically view T as a Disadvantage to the Affirmative through an offense/defense paradigm and I think fairness is just an internal link to education. 2NC/1NR should have a case list and hopefully have a TVA. The biggest problems teams have when going for Topicality in front of me is warranting out their DAs. Why does the aff explode limits? What do they justify? Why is the ground they take core neg ground and why is that bad? Answering the why question will make topicality debates more persuasive for me. When answering T make sure you have offense or a very clear we meet. ***Pet Peeve: Reasonability is an interpretation level argument, not a violation level argument. "We are reasonably topical" makes absolutely no sense. You are either topical or you aren't, and whoever wins the interpretations debate decides that.

Disadvantages - Yes. There was always a Politics DA in my 1NC's in high school and I love them. The best 2NC's/1NR on DA's will have an overview of some form on top. Brink DAs are much more persuasive than linear DAs. Be sure to make turns case arguments and really flesh out your links in the block. Conversely, dropped turns case arguments in the 1AR typically make a neg presumption ballot significantly easier. Read whatever DA's you like and I can jive.

Counterplans - Also yes. The Bread to the Disad's butter. I think that judge kick is implied in condo and if you want to make a more in depth argument about why I shouldn't judge kick the cp for the neg then that debate should start in the 2AC. Conversely, if the aff wins no judge kick I am sympathetic to arguments about presumption flowing aff if a counterplan is in the 2NR. When reading counterplans sufficiency framing is your friend. Make your net benefits clear and your solvency warrants clearer. Carded counterplans are always better than non-carded counterplans, but pointing out that the aff evidence advocates for your generic CP is also pretty cool. I am always telling teams to do more framing in these rounds. What does the counterplan solve and why does it matter? I will draw the lines, but I will be hesitant.

I would say my opinions about counterplan legitimacy are pretty mainstream. If it's typically thought of as a "cheating" counterplan, I probably think its cheating too. That doesn't mean don't read it, just spend enough time to actually win the theory debate. Nuanced interpretations and fewer, better arguments are preferable to your 9 point "yes delay CPs" blocks.

Kritiks (When You are Neg) - Yes. I will listen to K's but I am probably not very familiar with your literature. I am probably a little bit more sympathetic to framework arguments about ontology/epistemology/pedagogy/etc. than some other judges, and I think the most effective way to win the framework debate is to get impacts external to fairness alongside all of your typical clash impact turns. I don't think you need to go for the alt if you can win framework and impact calc. If you do go for the alt, I think the most persuasive debaters describe it more as a process and less as a singular event. The link debate is the most important part, and an analytical extrapolation of generic links and how they interact with the case in the 2NC is more persuasive than reading 10 new cards that don't say much about the aff. My senior year when I went for the K, I mostly went for a Zizek Cap K with a really buff 2NC Framework (I look back and feel silly saying that). I also read Agamben and Security. In college I have focused my research on Ecological Pessimism (A Climate oriented spin off of OOO), Managerialism, Necropolitics as it is theorized by Achille Mbembe, Militarism, China Threat Construction (Pan), and critical pedagogy. The teams I coach read a lot of Warren/Wilderson, Puar, Munoz, and Edelman so I'm being exposed to that lit too. Everything outside of those I probably have a working knowledge of, but you will probably have to do more explaining to me than you might have to with another judge. If I don't understand the core thesis by the end of the round, it will be very hard to win my ballot.

Case Debate - Is a lost art. The more you can attack the internal links of the aff, the more likely you can pick up my ballot. I will vote on presumption if a significant amount of case answers are mishandled or good DA turns the Aff arguments are won. If you are debating against a plan-less aff do what you do - I could listen to a methods debate or a FW debate - I think often teams that read plan-less affs are really only ready for the latter, so you might consider using that to your advantage.

Theory - SLOW DOWN ON YOUR THEORY BLOCKS. The key to a good theory debate is a nuanced interpretation. The more tailored you can make your interpretation to the debate that is happening to subsume the other team's offense, the better off you will be. Theory is almost always a reason to reject the Argument and not the team, but I think the best aff theory is used to justify abusive permutations like Perm do the counterplan. Condo is a different beast, and a reason to reject the team if won. I would prefer the 2AR not devolve to condo, but I also understand that sometimes you get spread out or there are egregious performative contradictions that warrant a complete throw to theory. In these situations outline the in-round abuse and make your impacts clear - ensure that you can explain why your interp is not regressive.

**********************************************HIGH SCHOOL LD****************************************

Because I live in Nebraska I guess I have to include this stuff too...

Top Level: SHARE CASES. I don't understand this permissibility with not seeing your opponents evidence, not for flowing purposes but for checking reliability of the evidence, but it seems more prevalent in HS LD than other places. Pet peeve is debaters who don't share the AC/NC until after they give it or ask which evidence to send instead of just sending the whole doc :)

I have now been coaching/judging LD for the better part of 3 years and more often than not I find myself evaluating these rounds very similarly to how I would evaluate a policy round. With that being said, see above for my policy preferences if you want to have a progressive round, with a few caveats below. If you find yourself more of a traditional or phil debater, that's cool too, read on...

TRAD: This is the LD type I did when I went to high school in Kansas City. If you want me to just evaluate value v value with degrees of solvency, tell me why that's the best method for debate. I prefer arguments steeped in argument quality and structural fairness as opposed to arguments that appeal to "the spirit of LD" or "Morality is useful for everyday life." I find the first to be arbitrary and the second to be just silly. If you are debating against a Traditional case with a progressive case, focus on similar aspects of the framing debate. Tell me why it is pedagogically/competitively valuable to abandon pure value v value debate. I think there is a litany of reasons on both sides of this question and it is up to you to parse out.

PHIL: These are the concepts that are most foreign to me. I enjoy philosophy in my everyday life, but I don't often read a whole lot of books/papers through the philosophical lens of Kant or Locke or what have you. With that being said, I can often understand phil arguments, they just need more explaining in front of me. Explain how your philosophy better explains the world and moral action, and why it specifically takes out the competing method. Don't just say "act omission distinction," tell me what that is and why it's good/bad. Phil cases that I've coached and have begun to understand, but am by no means well versed in are Kant, MacIntyre, and Locke.

PROGRESSIVE: If you're actually reading paradigms this is likely why you're here. I try to be tabula rasa (don't we all?) but I do have preconceived biases that are not hard to overcome with well-developed argumentation. I tend to think that the round should be some flavor of hypo testing where the aff defends the whole rez and the neg defends the status quo or a counter advocacy that is not related to the resolution to resolve aff offense. If the aff reads a plan text, that's fine, justify it and parse it out. I think that gives the negative more leeway for Counterplan or PIC offense, as well as Topicality or Theory. On condo, I think that anything more than 1 or 2 condo in LD is abusive but can be persuaded to think less or more is permissible. I consider myself to be a connoisseur of theory debates, but I hate having 3 or 4 theory arguments flying around from the get-go. I would much rather you focus on one theory argument and really developed and debate it, instead of relying on your opponent dropping standard 3 subsection C.

A CAVEAT ON T WHOLE REZ: If you think this is your best option for the NR go for it, but I want to be very clear on how I often find myself adjudicating these arguments: 1. Grammar over pragmatics is silly to me, I likely won't be as persuaded by a grammar argument about what kind of plural the word "states" is but I would be much more persuaded by a Limits DA. 2. I don't think an interp card is necessary for this argument. I think it's just as viable as a theory argument like solvency advocate theory or Condo - affirmative teams that rely on "You don't have a card for that" will receive much less sympathy from me than teams that make their own counter interp and have the standards debate.

For the most part, everything above about policy debate applies, if you have any specific questions please ask me before the round and I will be happy to answer them. GLHF!

2 quick caveats about how I time debates before I get to my paradigm.

1. I try to keep a running clock. The moment your speech ends cross ex begins. The moment cross ex ends, either your prep begins or the roadmap for the following speech begins.

2. If you are paperless, your prep times ends as soon as you send or share your speech doc.

With that said...

I believe that debate is an activity where the boundaries are defined its participants. This means that I am open to hear whatever kind of debate you want. If you wish to innovate new radical approaches to debate, I am open to hear them. If you wish to have a more traditional debate I am open to hear that as well. It is important for me that you situate my space in the debate. This means that if you want me to decide the debate by comparing the size of your impacts you should say it, and if you wish for me to take a different approach you should make that explicit. Despite my attempt to allow the debaters to control the direction of the debate no one is a truly blank slate, I do have some debate dogmas. I will try hard to make them obvious here, and if there is any confusion feel free to ask me.

You only get credit for arguments that I have on my flow. If you are difficult to understand because you are too fast or unclear, and as a result I miss something, that is YOUR fault. I will try to let you know (with both verbal and non-verbal cues) if I'm missing what you're saying, but its on you to adapt. 

I prefer debates where there are a smaller number of well developed arguments as opposed to debates with 10 off. This does not mean that you have to read slowly, it just means develop your arguments, and in general the team with the better explained, better developed arguments will win the debate.

While I encourage debaters to find new, innovative ways to affirm the topic, this is not carte blanche to say anything you want. The topic is important, and as intellectuals, competitors, and activists we have an obligation to find something related to it to affirm. This does not mean that I am excited about hearing T debates. In general I lean aff on T and will let the Aff do their thing as long as it is germane to the topic, and debatable. In sum, feel free to read your non traditional Aff, but be prepared to explain why it is relevant to the topic, and why it is a debatable issue.

Also related to this discussion- I believe that voting Aff is an affirmation of the resolution. You can affirm the resolution in any way that you choose (as long as you can defend it, and it is debateable), but in the end of the day, voting Aff means that I am saying yes to some version/interpretation of the resolution. While I am open to all sorts of Affs, the one kind of Aff that will make me lean Neg on Framework/T questions is an Aff that says that the resolution is bad, or totally eschews any semblance of a connection to the resolution. This doesn’t mean that you have to fiat anything, or pretend to be the federal government, but if you don’t want to defend those things you should explain what you think the resolution means, and defend it. Be prepared to debate the framework. I generally don’t like debates that are entirely about this, but in debates with countervailing approaches to form and content, framework is an unquestionably important element of a debate. It’s alright to kritik someone’s approach to the debate, but be prepared to describe what your alternative approach is and why it is better.

Slow down on theory. If I miss something because you are blazing through a block with reckless abandon, you won't get credit for it. I tend to lean negative on CP theory, and if a theory issue can be resolved by rejecting the argument instead of deciding the entire debate on it, I will generally try to do so. 

Don’t just assume that I have read the critical theory that you are debating. YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENTS! This applies to kritiks as well as other policy based arguments. I won’t vote on an argument that you win but I don’t understand, and I won't be embarrassed or feel any regret about telling you that I don't understand your argument, as this is evidence of your failure to clearly explain your argument, and not evidence of my inability to comprehend sensible arguments.

I love a healthy dose of competition as much as the next person, but don’t be a jerk. Humor is good and will be rewarded, emotion and power are great as well, just don’t let the debate turn into a pissing contest over something not at all important to the debate.

With that said, Have fun, respect each other, and good luck!

I would like to be on the email chain if there is one carleigh.l.west@gmail.com

I have my masters in communication studies and bachelor’s in political science from West Virginia University. While at WVU, I competed for their policy team for about two years, and I have a year of competing in parliamentary and IPDA debate while at Shepherd University. I am currently a research and evaluation coordinator for a non-profit

I will listen to just about any argument but I enjoy debates with a clear framework to weigh the round. I think debate is an educational activity and creates a lot of great opportunities for learning, so my openness to many arguments really stems from wanting to sus out the ideas that debaters want to bring to the table. Most importantly, though, have fun! Get into it! I appreciate humor in a round as well!

General (And also some framework stuff):

• I love educational impacts, we are doing an educational activity, so we see grounded impacts when we can impact education. That doesn't mean I won't vote on non-educational impacts, just that I have a fondness for education.
• Have fun with this! You're likely up early on a Saturday to be here! Have fun!

AFF/Case: Please be clear about your impacts and your framing. As I had mentioned, I will vote on just about anything, but being clear about where your impacts lie and how I should be viewing the round is really important and will make it easier for me to vote for you. Also love a good case turn or impact turn.

T: I mean, I’ll vote on it, I just might be sad. If you’re going to read T, please just make it clear and uphold your standards. Please be clear about where the violation is and why the limits are necessary.

Theory: like T. My threshold for dropping the debater is going to be pretty high.

CP: Pretty much weighing like how I would weigh the plan.

K: I love a good K. A kritik done well can really lead to great discussions in round. I do think you need to have a good link story to the AFF and a clear alternative. I’ll vote on generic Ks since I think generic Ks help for getting folks into critical literature if it’s done well and is weighed well against the aff. I may know the literature, I may not. Regardless, you should be able to give a good, simple explanation of your K.

Perms: Whether it is a CP or a K if you are going for the perm, please explain how it functions. What does doing both look like? Sequencing can be super important!

DA: DAs are cool with me. Give me a good story of how the DA happens, do your impact calc and I’ll vote on it