hi! im addis (she/her)!. i competed in policy debate for all four years of hs and was co-captain of my team. made it to ncfl all 4 yrs, debated on nat circut but also at the local level. i currently coach for svudl.

affiliations:

silicon valley urban debate league

downtown college prep

yerba buena hs

tldr:

- im okay with any argument as long as it's not any of the -isms!

- yes put me on the email chain addisarcdebate@gmail.com

- debating may be a game but don't be rude, disrespectful, or ignorant!

- if u spread its up to you to be clear! if my pen is clearly down it means i am not flowing

update after cal: content warnings for talks about violence or trauma should come with an opt-out form! disclose in front of your judge and be kind to each other. i was in the hallway while i listened to a team belittle their opponent saying stuff like "look at his smug face" and "I'll give you $5 if you forfeit the round." I DONT CARE IF ITS A JOKE never make someone feel uncomfortable.

general preferences:

policy affs: i am experienced in these affs to a certain extent. i believe a majority of the work needs to be put into why the plan matters! why does the squo need to be changed! a lot of people get lost in the negatives arguments that solvency is out of the picture. continuously remind me as to why your plan needs to happen! i will vote on presumption if u forget abt! thats rlly the only big opinion i have on policy affs!

method/performance affs: these were my forte when i was a debater. i know a majority of the literature behind your k but that doesn't mean u wont have to put in the work. a majority of people dont use the key warrants your authors are giving you and let other people change what ur author is saying. framing is also really important when it comes to these affs.

CPs and DAs: i rarely see these being run nowadays! i think these are still as powerful as a k or any other argument would be. you should use that to your advantage! the link debate is most crucial here as i need to see where everything connects and why thats important. in no world would i vote for a CP without a DA or any sort of net benefit to your CP.

kritiques: a k on the neg has more burden in my book compared to anything else. you should be able to explain why its so unique and necessary for me not to vote for the squo or something that could potentially better the squo. a lot of impact calculus is needed as well when it comes to Ks as they are usually net more impactful in any scenario but a lot of people dont take advantage of that! explain your alt to the max!! tell me every small detail about it because i need to completely understand it to vote on it.

truth or tech?: tech > truth! i prefer if your arguments had cards to warrant them but i also dont want 25 cards on one argument. but that also doesn't mean i wont vote for analytic arguments as long as they are well executed.

spreading/accessibility: as a judge my job is to make sure this round is accessible and fair for both teams. i believe spreading is very elitist and inaccessible for smaller schools who dont have the resources to learn these techniques. i have a low tolerance for spreading. i wont vote you down for spreading unless i clear you twice or my pen is down which means i wont be flowing your arguments at all. if your opponent asks for you not to spread i hope you will respect their request and not spread. debating may be a game but that doesn't mean you should disrespect each other. that being said if your opponent has content warnings, pronouns, accommodations, etc on their wiki please be mindful and respectful of them going into the round. i have been sitting in too many rounds recently where someone will bring up a topic without a content warning which i believe is inconsiderate to those in the round who dont want to speak up about these things. i urge you to use content warnings whenever possible.

speaks: i usually start at a 28 and will fluctuate from there. saying anything misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, rude, ableist, etc your speaks will drop to a 25.

miscellaneous: i flow with pen and paper. signposting and roadmaps are very helpful to me as a judge. open cross is fine.

how i debated: i debated primarily reading anti-black, mestizaje, and warren ks in my time. i’ve seen almost any creative argument out there. i was primarily coached by Dr. Robert Burns, Janet Escobedo, and Santalucia Hernandez and competed alongside Chris McGinnis. https://tinyurl.com/debatedcp

please take my paradigm with a grain of salt and run what u feel most comfortable running!

Aisha Bah

Former (MS + HS) debater. Current frequent judge/coach with Washington Urban Debate League.

I currently attend Wesleyan University! Woo!

aishadoesdebate@gmail.com

TLDR:

I am a strong proponent of tabula rasa. I’ll vote on anything that is reasonably argued as a voting issue. I’m good on Theory, T, K, CP, DA, whatever. I’ve run or went against pretty much any and everything. Pls send analytics. Just be kind to one another and have fun! Feel free to ask questions if you have them. I’m here to help you.

Email Chains:

I want to be on it. Email: aishadoesdebate@gmail.com. I'd like it if you sent the analytics.

Feedback:

I will give it. I’ll tell you who won (unless I’m specifically told not to by tab), and I’ll disclose speaks, if requested. It’ll typically be pretty detailed, so most times, I just send out my feedback doc.

Speed:

I’m good with speed of any kind. Just be clear. If you’re unclear on analytics, they may not get flowed, so be sure I can hear what you’re saying.

Cross:

Closed if there’s a maverick in the round. Otherwise, I don’t care. Decide amongst yourselves.

Spreading K:

9 times out of 10 I don’t buy it. Unless someone in the round has expressed the need for an accommodation and the other team ignored it, it’s incredibly difficult to prove in-round abuse. Spreading is simply the name of the game in policy. It’s okay if you don’t spread, but it’s hard to win my ballot simply because the other team did spread.

Tech v Truth:

I default to tech unless you explain to me why it should be otherwise.

Policy v Kritik:

I don’t have a particular preference either way. I do believe that both extremes can be harmful for debate. Running 15 off and case just because you can, then going for the most undercovered argument in the 2NR is definitely cheap. I also think running the most obscure K you can and then winning off of raw confusion is cheap. Being somewhere in the middle is your best bet. Explain your Ks well and format good-faith arguments, and you’ll be perfectly fine.

Framework/ROB:

You’ve got to be comparative when giving me these. If one team reads extinction first and the other team reads structural violence first, without any explanation for why I should prefer one over the other (clash) or contextualization for why this round calls for something specific, it often ends up being a wash. I do enjoy being given a role of the ballot; it makes my life easier. I love good clashy framework debates that go beyond the 1AC and talk about what the debate space should look like. I will award very high speaks for debaters that can justify and contextualize their framework well.

Frameworks should be tailored to your advocacy. Nothing is more useless than vague framework. For example, your framework against the K should not be consequences first/weigh aff against the alt. That gives neg spaces to accept your framework and then weigh oppression vs your low-risk nuke war impact. Your framework should contextualize the role of the ballot to be something that even if the neg wins on the K, they can't access. Another example is that it's pointless to read extinction first in a round where both advantages and all the disads have extinction impacts.

Theory:

I love a good theory debate. However, there needs to be very specific clash because these debates fragment very easily. I'll definitely vote on it if you win it and prove it to be a voter. Have strong standards. When answering theory, explain why the counterinterp accesses the standards better.

Ks:

I was a flex debater. I’m more than willing to vote on the K. I generally believe vague alts are bad, and it’ll be crushingly clear that it was stolen from open evidence or never-updated camp files. I will still vote on the alt if the other team never negates it, but if you can’t defend your alt, your speaks will suffer. I also typically don’t buy links of omission unless you can give me a good reason why I should. Again, without response, I’ll assume it’s true, but you can do better, I assure you. Explain your K well. Chances are if you were banking on confusing the other team, you’ve confused me, and I can’t vote for a K that you can hardly articulate.

For the aff, if your framework is exclusively “weigh the aff,” chances are you’re cooked. Don’t just rely on the perm. Sometimes you simply can’t fight the link, but you can defend the perm and dissect the alt.

I'm super familiar with the scholarship of Black fem (Audre Lorde, Frances Beal, and the like), straight-up fem, anti-Blackness (wilderson, Gordon, Fanon), anarchy, and Marxism. Only familiar with everything else to a loose degree.

K Affs:

I love them. I find them interesting. I need a firm role of the ballot to not just simply roll over into the negative’s framework. I also believe they need a strong solvency mechanism. I need more from the neg than just “state good” and I need more from the aff than “state bad.” Prove specifically why your world of debate is better. I will likely buy your argument that T/framework against K affs is net worse for the debate space, but you have to give me warrants from your authors that BEYOND mere overviews and extend this into the 2AR if they go for T.

T:

You have to prove that T is a voting issue. I buy a “it’s not what they do, it’s what they justify” argument. I really like well-explained standards and block extensions that indict in-round conduct by the aff. I’ll vote on T, no problem.

Signposting:

Do it. If you hop back and forth between flows without warning, you’re not going to get all of what you want me to hear flowed. I’ll be trying to figure out what you’re talking about.

Extending:

When you extend evidence, give me warrants as well as the author’s name. When it comes to varsity rounds, too many cards and authors are thrown around for you to expect me to remember exactly what Smith 2020 said and what flow it’s on.

Using Artificial Intelligence:

It’s cheating. Don’t do it.

Hard No:

Don’t post-round me (students and coaches both), I’ll nuke your speaks. Don’t read structural violence good/racism good/extinction good/death good. Don’t send thirty cards on the email chain and then only read 3.

Strong Yes:

I love a strong case debate. Clash: it’s necessary. Be polite to one another. Make sure you have a way to share your files with the other team if they debate on paper, even if that way is handing over one of your computers.

Overall, try your best and have fun. I’m more than happy to answer any questions.

Katie Baxter-Kauf (she/her pronouns)
2023-2024 Notes
St. Paul Central Volunteer
Chain emails: katebaxterkauf@gmail.com, stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

Past useful info: I debated in high school in Kansas (Shawnee Mission East, 1995-1998), and in college for Macalester (1998-2001) (all policy save a semester of HS LD and rogue college parli tournaments). I coached at Blaine High School (2000-2002), then the Blake School (2002-2003), some freelancing for Mankato West, Shawnee Mission East, and others (2003-2007), then for Como Park briefly when I came back to work for the UDL (2007-2008) and some side helping as needed at St. Paul Central. I coached college at the University at Buffalo and the University of Rochester (2003-2007). I ran logistics for the MNUDL from 2007-2011, when I graduated from law school and became a lawyer. I have judged 5-10 middle school or high school debates a year since 2011, and judged 25 policy debates last year (2022-2023).

General notes: (1) don't be a jerk; (2) I don't care about tag-team cross-ex, just don't yell at each other; (3) don't steal prep; (4) debate is fun and I'm so glad you get to experience doing it, and I'm honored to get to participate with you.

Argument notes after judging a semester of policy debates, including TOC-qualifying tournaments, after a dozen years off: debates are fundamentally the same as the way they were when I stopped judging a while back. I have no problem keeping up with you all. I at least sort of read along with speech docs. I find the practice of interspersing theory arguments with substantive arguments a little hard to follow at times, especially when you put the substance parts in your speech docs but not the fast theory parts. If you want me to actually vote on these arguments or use them as direction on how to evaluate other arguments, like a permutation or a CP (instead of just using them for the time tradeoff or to make sure you don't drop something) you would be well served to make sure I can understand you. I have a fairly expressive face.

If someone who knew me a long time ago is giving you advice on how to debate in front of me, I will say that I am fundamentally the same person I have been since my very first day of debate practice but that the main way that I have noticed that it feels like I think about debates differently now is that I am less inclined and a harder sell on arguments that are either blippy theory or fundamentally stupid (and recognized by all parties as such). I am a hard sell, for example, on the concept that the cap kritik that people read when I was in high school is still cheating 25+ years later, or that dumb unexplained voters mean that teams should lose absent some compelling justification. I also think that framework debates are, at their core, boring, though I understand both the necessity and utility.

BUT, and MOST CRITICALLY: Fundamentally, I don't care what arguments you read. I want you to do what you think you do best and have a good time doing it. I would DRAMATICALLY prefer to watch a good debate on your preferred argument than a bad one on stuff you think I'd like. I am generally very well read and aware of stuff going on in the world, but have a humanities/literature/law school and not a realist foreign policy/science/economics background. I have read a lot more of the critical literature than you think I have. I have general proclivities and stuff I know better than other stuff or literature I've actually read (and I have a fairly low threshold for gendered/racist/hate-filled/exclusionary behavior and/or language), but it's your debate, and I will do my absolute best only to evaluate the arguments that get made in the debate round. If you have questions about specific arguments, I'm happy to answer them.

ETA February 2024: I know my points are too low. I'm trying to fix this. Sorry about that - please don't take it personally.

liv (pronounced "leave") birnstad – livbirnstaddebate@gmail.com

any pronouns

washington (DC) urban debate league '23

harvard '27

'23 National Urban Debater of the Year

For LD

I have now judged one LD tournament (Newark '24), im a policy judge who is good for your Ks or more trad LD Strats, but I won't be able to get the tricks debate.

For college policy

I didn't/don't do college debate so I am not familiar with the college topic at all. it's your burden to explain acronyms or any other norms I might miss becuase of that!

TL;DR

debaters stop stealing prep challenge. level: impossible. ☹

i coach the boston debate league's nat circuit team + some WUDL folks

i'll happily evaluate anything, i just care about you having fun and being kind to your opponents. debate isn't always a safe space so anything you do that legitimately harms the safety of the space will deck your speaks and make you lose.

read my face, im very expressive lol

if there is something I see in your speech that appears to be legitimately harmful/violent language, or justifies violence, my ballot is not yours.

I wouldn't consider myself to be too tech-heavy. speed is fine but make sure arguments are warranted out -- I want everything on my flow.

speed? – sure

open cx? – sure

theory? – sure but i wouldn't say im a theory hack

can i read __? – yes, just read it well

tech > truth? – i’ll reward good debate and i encourage you to just make fully warranted arguments above all else.

tell me how to evaluate the round.

Full Version

bio

i debated all of highschool in the washington urban debate league so accessibility is really important to me (see below). i coach multiple HS teams and some middle schoolers which means I will hold you to higher threshold for tolerable nonsense since youre likely not eleven.

i read policy affs all four years but was much more flex on the neg. my entire senior year i only went for a K. did all the nat circuit things and generally care a lot about the activity so feel free to do what you want and do best.

stealing prep

dont do it. if it seems like you are close to stealing prep (i.e. maybe you're not outright stealing prep, but you're using send time very liberally, or anything else sketch. i.e. typing while the other team is in the bathroom and you're not running prep) and i have to remind you more than once, you're losing .2 speaker points each time.

accessibility…

comes before everything else. if youre debating a paper team w/o a computer – make sure there is a way they can access your ev. if you fail to do this i’ll deck your speaks and give the other team much more leniency.

accessibility also means not reading arguments drenched in violence (in any sense) without checking if that is ok for the other teams. this is especially true for teams that read arguments about sexual violence.

speaker points

while policy isnt always seen as one, it IS a speech act, your speaking matters. being technical will help you get speaks but its not enough if youre trying to get 29s or higher. fyi, if you can’t already tell by the way i type, i love, love, LOVE good use of emphasis lol

BE NICE. debaters that are mean in round are not gonna be getting good speaks. being mean shouldnt help you and i won’t reward it.

the k

do whatever you want. win fw. when EVERYTHING, inevitably, become a link in the block, distill it down to like two by the 2NR to make me happy! be warned that i hate psychoanalysis and think that a lot of high-theory ks are annoying as hell. going for high-theory ks is a risk in front of me, dont assume i know the lit or your jargon.

K affs

i never read them but i think theyre super interesting and am happy to evaluate one!

the kritik should be a space of advocacy – not speaking for others. teams taking the literature specific to an identity that they do not hold and completely misinterpreting it is weird. (not saying its bad to explore literature... just don’t do it poorly)

if you read an aff that uses things like songs, poetry, etc, you're good to do that in front of me.

cross x…

Is my FAVORITE part of debate so please, please, PLEASE utilize it well!

6,7,8+ off

I generally believe these kinds of debates are shallow and don't actually give teams as much leverage as they think apart from a time skew. while theory is not my bread and butter (see below) ill be a lil more lenient with condo with 6+ off.

theory

i'm admittedly not a great judge for theory, especially the "specs." if you wanna go for this, you have to GO FOR IT. actually articulate the impacts and the warrants to how they are implicated by whatever your violation is. get off your blocks.

card clipping/evidence ethics

if someone makes a card clipping accusation in the round (or another evidence ethics violation) i will stop the round after the speech in which it occurs, explain the stakes to the team that makes the accusation, and if they decide to continue with the accusation i'll evaluate the argument. if it gets to that point, i'll see if the cards were clipped. if so, the team that makes the accusation wins, if not, they lose.

silly/fun args?

please! debate is supposed to be enjoyable and i love silly little arguments just know the time and place.

misc

I don't see myself voting on things that happened before the reading of the 1ac. if you’re gonna make args about the other team from before the round, it's gonna be hard to get my vote on these args so make them with caution.

if the round doesn’t go the way you want, i would be happy to listen to a redo + give feedback just send it to me within a week.

I'm Sandy! I use they/them (ENG) or elle (ESP) pronouns. Please add me onto your email chains! My email is: boltonbarrientosdebate@gmail.com

2024 will be my twelfth year in the MNUDL :O

Talk to me about Spanish Debate!!!!!!!

• 1st year as the Spanish debate coach for Minneapolis South
• 4th year as the novice policy debate coach for Minneapolis South
• Debated for Roosevelt H.S. for 4 years
• Debated for Keewaydin M.S. for 3 years

Tag team is fine but I would love it if you high fived your partner when you do it. I won't enforce this preference in any way other than telling you at the beginning of the debate and it won’t have any speaker point consequences. I just think it's a great way to navigate cross-ex with your partner in a way that's balanced, equitable, and fun!

I highly value story-telling and big picture analysis in your speeches. I love a 1AC that's narrative (i.e. internal link chain) is easy to understand. I love a 2AR overview that tells me in enough detail the story of the AFF and why its impacts matter in the debate. I love a K 2NR that flips the script of the 1AC to tell me why the links actually do matter in the greater context of liberation and structural violence.

What does this mean for you practically?

• When listening to the impact debate (on any flow-- framework, T, theory, kritikal or policy strategies), I'm looking for you to strategically and persuasively tell me why the impact is the most important thing in the round. Exaggerate! Tell me it's "try or die" for the AFF/NEG! Minimize your opponents' impact any chance you get! Abandon phrases like "might happen" or "could solve" and replace it with "will happen" and "absolutely solves". Don't be afraid to use impact calculus. Of course, these framing tools require warrants just like any other argument, but they really make a difference in if I will confidently vote for you or not.

• Speaking of warrants for your impacts, you need coherent internal link chains. Telling me "vote AFF to avoid nuclear war" in your rebuttals isn't enough. It's important to answer questions like: War with who? When? And of course, what's the connection to the AFF's solvency? Telling me the "AFF makes capitalism worse" isn't enough; What part of capitalism? Over-consumption? Labor exploitation? Extractive logic? Wealth hoarding?

• Advocacy statements and solvency should be clearly and consistently explained and extended for both AFF and NEG (if applicable). If you're AFF, that's obviously the whole thing, but just please do make sure to consistently compare the efficacy of the AFF to any alternative NEG advocacies.

(I know alternatives are tricky to explain and defend, and I'm pretty sympathetic to K debaters as a former K debater myself. I do think the Alternative is a pretty cool part of the debate. I'm really interested in radical movement building and how communities organize to make change, if that's a helpful frame to consider when thinking about how you would explain your alternative to me. Feel free to email me with questions!)

• Compare your arguments with your opponents -- clash is king!
• Communicate effectively -- if you're so fast you're unintelligible, or if your Kritik blocks are so dense nobody in the round understands what's going on, that is on you.
• Evidence is really important, but I have a pretty expansive understanding of evidence: storytelling, anecdotes, poetry, dance, journals, zines, prose, scientific journals, history, accounts, common sense thinking, etc. are all forms of evidence that can generate knowledge and prove your arguments.

• For the sake of being honest about my implicit biases, I will admit this: I do not have the brain for theory debates. I find things like aspec, condo, intrinsic perms bad, etc. really challenging to flow and follow and as a result, I don't typically include them on my ballots. Sometimes theory happens because it must or because it's Rosebowl, and I get it. But if you're wondering if you should include your A-Z spec blocks in front of me, maybe wait for a different judge lol.

• I was a K debater in high school. I'm definitely still really interested in Kritikal literature as a person involved in community organizing and who is an Indigenous Studies major. If you're curious about Kritiks, want feedback on strategies, or just to talk through ideas -- please talk to me! I can definitely provide more specific comments and ideas on: abolition, settler colonialism and coloniality, indigenous and Chicanx feminisms, and queer theory. This is not to say I'll vote for Kritiks all the time or that I won't get your policy strategy. Run whatever you want.

• Please define your acronyms before you use them!

• As opposed to Abbie "Big A" Amundsen (<3), I am a big fan of overviews!

Have fun! Be nice! Stay organized! That's all it takes.

Please Note: ADD me to the Email Chain [dbraswell@chicagodebates.org]

My Paradigm is as follows,

I am a stickler for structured organized debate. As a previous high school and college debater; I stress the importance of the AFF team hitting all stock issues (Inherency, Harms, Solvency, Plan, and T), signposting, line by line clash, Impact Cal, poise during cross ex, and leaving no argument unaddressed. For the NEG Team, I welcome off case and on case arguments, they must be clearly signposted (If DA- Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact. ETC for T/K/CP/Theory arguments), use line by line, Impact Cal, and politeness as well during cross ex (Keep It Cute). I am a firm believer of strategy as well, so go for whatever strategy you feel works best for you IN the debate round. I can flow spreading however IF you are spreading, IT MUST BE CLEAR AND CONCISE. Actual spreading doesn't sound like gibberish and run-on sentences. If it is a digital debate with files online, PLEASE set up Email Chains and Flash Drives before the round, it takes away from actual debate time. I do signal how much time you have as time goes down and you can finish your sentence when the timer goes off. In the event someone has to go to the restroom, it would be counted as prep time. I have judged the following debate/speech events: CX, PF, LD, Congress, College Parli, OO, and other speech events. As I have been a debater, debate team captain, coach, and program assistant; My goal is to educate and build upon your knowledge of debate as well as help you grow as an aware and autonomous being. Debate has played a tremendous role in my growth and development; I hope it does the same for you. I do not disclose unless instructed to by the league however I do believe in giving meaningful feedback at the end of the round.

Respectfully,

Derrick Braswell

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Name: Jamelle Brown

Current Affiliation: Sumner Academy of Arts & Science High School - Kansas City, KS

Debate Experience: 20+ years as a Head HS Coach, Debated 4 yrs in High School and 1 semester during college

List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.

1. I appreciate real world impacts.

2. I love the kritical arguments/AFF’s with this year’s resolution. Make the debate real and connect to the real social issues in the SQ.

3. For T, neg if you want to prove that the AFF is untopical, provide valid standards and voters. AFF, then correctly answer these standards and voters. However, don't expect to win a ballot off T alone.

4. Know and understand what you are reading and debating. Be able to explain your card’s claims.

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. Every impact should not equal nuclear war. I want to hear realistic/real world impacts.

2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.

List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.

1. I prefer medium-speed speaking. Completely not a fan of spreading.

2. Label and signpost for me. I like to keep a very organized flow!

3. Let me see your personalities in CX.

4. Impact Calc – I want to know why you want me to vote for you and weigh the round.

5. I am excited about performance teams!

List stylistics items you do not like to watch.

1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.

2. I am a Communications teacher, please allow me to see valuable communication skills. (Pre-2020 comment) For example, don’t just stare at your laptops for 8 minutes. Hello, I'm your judge – engage me!

In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.

Debate is a slice of life. I appreciate seeing a variety of styles and “risk takers.” Debate is also an educational venue. I enjoy K debate and appreciate high schoolers tackling K lit. There are so many important social justice issues that debaters can explore. As your judge, engage me into the round. I will not tolerate rude debaters or disrespectful personal attacks. I am a current high school Speech & Debate coach – please don’t forget about the value of communication skills! I coach all of the speech and debate events, so I love to see kids fully engaged in this activity by utilizing the real-world value it brings.

Walking into the room, I am a traditional stock issues judge. I will vote independently for the Negative on harms, inherency, topicality or solvency. Even an old-school significance argument will work. (I was a high school debater in 1978-1981). The Affirmative must fulfill its stock issues burden in the 1AC. I will vote on Negative presumption if the Neg can prove that the Affirmative did not meet its stock issues burden. Because I believe that the 1AC must contain the Affirmative's entire case, I also believe, reciprocally, that the 1NC must present the Negative's entire strategy: in other words, "no new in the two."

Having said that, I can be moved off stock issues if an alternative framework is successfully entered into the round. Merely presenting a framework contention or an 'off the cuff' Voter is probably not enough, especially if the opposing team emphasizes stock issues throughout the entire round. Instead, I would be listening for evidence-based framework and verbal reasoning for why this new framework should be preferred over stock issues in the round. [To be clear, I use the word 'paradigm' as a decision rule the judge has committed to, whereas the word 'framework' is a synonym, but is brought into the room by the debaters.]

Over the years, I have listened to and voted for many kritikal arguments that I have enjoyed very much, and I have even encouraged the students on my team to run them. For example, my debaters ran 'change the name of the planet' under the ocean development topic and 'slave reparations' under the immigration topic.

I am a stickler for proper labeling and organization of arguments. For example, counterplans should have clear text, their own solvency, and an explanation for why they are net beneficial and mutually exclusive. Run your Disads correctly. Run your T arguments correctly. Don't cut corners, please.

Preferences: outstanding etiquette and good sportsmanship; clarity of speech (I hate excessive and non-understandable speed); brilliant clash; extension of your own arguments; calling out (and impacting) your opponents' drops; and comprehensive rebuttals that make my decision-making easy.

I was a high school debater and married a high school debater. I qualified for NFL Nationals in 1981 under the consumer product safety topic. I was an assistant coach with Frank Sferra from J.K. Mullen High School in the 1990s. I have coached and judged in the Denver Urban Debate League for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Early College in Denver, Colorado since 2011.

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

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

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

Short version:

-I lean K, and I will know your K's lit base. This increases your burden to explain your theory well, and I will not do theoretical work for you in my RFD

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

-Evidence comparison will get you much farther than 15 new 1nr cards

-Solid development on the case pages gets great results

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

-I'm not the judge for your condo 2AR, though i'm sure it's great, no really

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

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

As of the 2024 Urban Debate National Championship, I have judged 8 tournaments on the fiscal redistribution topic including outrounds on the national circuit. I actively coach and write arguments of all styles on the fiscal redistribution topic.

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

Full paradigm:

***I follow NSDA guidelines for evidence violations, including card clipping and misrepresentation of evidence, in the absence of guidance from tournament admin***

Style:

Speed is fine. Card-speed and non-card-speed should be different. If you blast through 8 arguments in 15 seconds, I won't get them all, it won't be my fault, and I don’t want to get post-rounded because I didn’t catch that they dropped the 6th of 8 2AC permutations. Don't bury your best arguments!

Strong, direct CX is great! (However:)

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

K (and K affs):

I am well-versed in a bunch of K literature (and you should ask if you'd like to know about my familiarity with your specific K author), but that doesn't mean you don't have to explain things. Pedagogically, it's important to communicate the theoretical nuances you're using to make your arguments. “Ontology means we win” isn’t a complete argument, even though I know how to connect those dots.

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

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

T:

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

Compare interp evidence! This comparison can win you debates. 90% of interpretation evidence sucks enough to give the aff the edge on reasonability.

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

Theory:

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

I am rarely a judge where the 2AR should go for theory, and I’m a particularly hard sell on conditionality bad.

I think the neg gets to run multiple conditional advocacies with the exception of abusive cross-application of offense between contradictory positions.

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

FW vs K Affs:

Run it well. You should have good reasons why your interpretation matters. Fairness is an impact.

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

DAs:

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

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

CPs:

I was not a counterplan debater and I’m probably a little behind the times on whatever tricky counterplan strategies have made their way into the meta, so give me the more detailed versions of why those arguments solve. Give me warranted sufficiency framing starting in the Block, please.

The likelihood of a PIC 2NR winning is proportional to the scale of the link to the net benefit.

Please slow down on the warrants and impact debate for counterplan theory debates.

Alt cause arguments on case > re-cutting aff solvency evidence to make a PIC to solve alt causes

Case:

Yes please. I don’t need lengthy overviews or underviews. Strive to put more on the case debate against K affs than state good.

My highest commitment as a judge is making this activity accessible and inclusive. I am committed to developing novices and want to make varsity debate a welcoming environment for students who are moving from novice/JV to varsity.

I understand and appreciate critical and policy arguments and am fine with you arguing about whatever you wish to make the debate about. I see my role as an educator, however, and so will not allow anti-trans, antiblack, or bigoted language or attitudes that would deny the humanity of any participant in the activity. With those ground rules in place, I try to center my decisions on the arguments made in the debate and bracket my own predilections as much as I can. This is an aspiration but I also recognize and try to be reflective about the way my identity and history shapes my thought. It is important not to bracket these questions, even as I try to evaluate arguments fairly and not intervene to tip the scales.

With that said, here are my thoughts on procedural arguments.

Games have to be fair and simulate something we love about life, or be connected to life or they are not very fun. But what does it mean for a game to be fair? Is that the only value I should care about?

I love debate, so access to it is a terminal impact. It is an educational game (or it has been for me) so education is also a terminal impact. But it's a game. So fairness matters.

I don't think any of these three procedural impacts are more basic or fundamental than the other. I just abide in the tension and allow debaters to frame the impacts.

I believe debate is about open inquiry, and I want to allow debaters to test all kinds of claims. Admittedly, if you choose to examine philosophical questions, I will enjoy the discussion. Please note that explanation will serve you in debates centered around complicated concepts. Although I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, I would rather be treated as an informed layperson than a specialist.

Andrea Campfield

I did not debate in high school, so my experience judging is rooted within my 2 years coaching policy debate. Not sure if this qualifies as a paradigm, but this is what I find I look for in judging a round:

1. I am focused on the policy topic at hand as I judge. I am listening for reasonable arguments for or against adopting the policy in question. While I am open to good kritik strategy, I find way out there theory argument is a distraction to the task of quality civil debate and begins to sound like conspiracies on facebook. If you go off case, stay in bounds.

2. I also have found that habitually calling out abuse or lack of educational integrity and hoping it sticks or confuses is also a distraction. Definitely do so if there is merit, but if you have to try to win on calling foul all the time, what does that say about the strength of your own research and prepped case? Proving or disproving the validity of the topic is the debater’s job, and for me, the best job wins.

3. I also like an organized, respectful debate with clarity in speaking and questioning. Quality is better than quantity, so if a spread is merely to befuddle the opposing team, it will not serve well if I cannot understand your words. I don’t want to be befuddled.

4. I am also looking for your personal investment in the topic. Although we have to get through case cards, I am more interested in the debater’s response to the material.

5. And finally, I find that how both teams use cross X comes into my decision making, as well as the aff’s response to a solidly built neg block. Final rebuttals are key.

Again, not sure that’s a “paradigm”, but it’s honest. I am a work in progress, and I learn new things each time I judge. I hope you teach me a new trick!

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Email:mcalister.clabaugh@urbandebate.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think topicality is a useful tool for negatives.

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

Good luck.

Judge Philosophy for Policy Debate

As a judge, I approach debates with a focus on clarity, depth of analysis, and strategic decision-making. I believe that debaters should engage in rigorous research, thoughtful argumentation, and respectful dialogue.

Argument Evaluation: I value well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. I prefer debaters to focus on a few key arguments and develop them thoroughly rather than spreading themselves thin with numerous, underdeveloped points.

Research: I expect debaters to conduct thorough research to support their arguments. I appreciate evidence that is relevant, recent, and from reliable sources.

Clarity and Organization: Clear communication is essential. Debaters should structure their arguments logically, signpost effectively, and use understandable language.

Cross-Examination: I believe cross-examination is an important component of debate. I value respectful debaters who ask insightful questions and respond thoughtfully to their opponents.

Flexibility: While I believe that debaters should stick to their main arguments, I also appreciate adaptability. Debaters should be willing to adjust their strategies based on their opponents' arguments and the flow of the debate.

Fairness and Respect: I expect debaters to treat each other with respect and adhere to the rules of fair play. Ad hominem attacks, disrespectful behavior, and unethical tactics are not acceptable.

Decision-Making: In my decision-making process, I prioritize the strength of the arguments presented in the round. I consider the quality of evidence, logical reasoning, and strategic execution.

Role of the Ballot: I see the role of the judge as determining which team presented the most compelling arguments and analysis in the round. My ballot reflects my assessment of which team did the best job of fulfilling this criterion.

Overall, I aim to be a fair and impartial judge who rewards strong argumentation and strategic thinking. I look forward to judging your debates and providing constructive feedback

Highlights

Email: eric.clarke2019@gmail.com + swwpolicy@gmail.com

The 1AC needs to be in my inbox at the start time.

Good for Ks and policy. I prefer policy, but I'm fine with whatever.

I don't love evaluating theory debates to resolve the round, but I will. More below.

Love framework v K AFFs+ T v policy AFFs. Love = like hearing them, not that I'll automatically vote for it. Most good K AFFs have offense to framework embedded in the 1AC, so chances are if you hide behind framework without engaging case you'll lose terribly.

Good with speed. If you're unclear and I don't catch something, it is what it is.

Don't steal prep. If a timer isn't running, you shouldn't be typing, writing, or going over speech docs. I'm not usually pressed about watching debaters, but some people are so egregious about stealing prep that I can't help but notice.

Please track your time.

Experience:

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

General:

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

Make sure acronyms are full written out somewhere in the card.

I'll usually be paying attention during cross to help wrap my head around arguments. Cross usually helps me contextualize the arguments being made (especially true for kritiks). Cross is binding. Cross is also where you can get a decent bump to speaks - go in with a strategy.

I won't read your evidence at the end of the round unless I'm instructed to. Debate is a communicative activity, therefore you need to be able to verbally convey the key warrants in a piece of evidence to me. If I have to read the evidence myself to find the warrants, you haven't done your job. I will also read evidence if there's an evidence indict. Please make evidence idnicts. A lot of people try to get away with reading terrible evidence, and you shouldn't allow it.

Kritiks:

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

I'm not the biggest fan of kritiks that are gimmicky, BUT I will vote on it if you execute and do everything you need to on the flow. If you have to ask if your K is gimmicky, chances are it is.

Framework:

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

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

Theory

I have miscellaneous thoughts about various issues. If a particular issue isn't listed, it's because I don't have strong feelings about it. None of these are set in stone (except condo). These are just starting points I have when thinking about these theory arguments, but I can always be convinced to change my mind. Just keep these predispositions in mind if you decide to go for the position.

a.) PICs bad - lean neg but can be convinced otherwise depending on the PIC.

b.) Process CPs bad - lean AFF but can be convinced otherwise.

c.) Condo - three conditional positions is where I become open to voting on condo.

d.) Perf con - neg gets multiple worlds + contradictory advocacies are fine as long as it's resolved by the block.

e.) Disclosure - I think it's silly unless the other team is genuinely being really shady with their disclosure practices.

Misc:

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

Does fed follow-on mean states links to politics? Talk to me about it depending on the DA.

Tend to lean tech over truth

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

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

Speaker points:

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

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

I've coached for 10 years, I currently serve as the Executive Director of Portland Urban Debate League, I coach at Franklin HS and Centennial HS, and I have judged very few rounds on this topic as I typically am tabbing tournaments.

Put me on the email chain mallory@portlanddebate.org

*Everyone should be respectful. If y'all are rude/racist/homophobic/ableist/sexist etc. I consider that a reason to drastically reduce your speaker points. You can be nice and still win debates. If y'all aren't reading a content warning and describe trauma/violence/etc that need a content warning, I will seriously consider giving you an auto loss.

Overall: Tabula rasa, default policymaker. I prefer you go at a moderate speed and slow for tags. I'm probably not your ideal K or counterplan theory judge. I understand the basics of Ks and some of ideologies, but I tend to get lost without robust, slow explanations at every level of the flow. I flow CXes of K debates to help with my understanding of what is going on. On T- I default to competing interpretations. If you’re not rejecting the topic, you should be topical.

Framework vs non-traditional affs: If you think the aff should be topical, tell me why your model of debate is better than theirs. I prefer external impacts, but will still evaluate fairness as an impact if you go for it.

Specific Arguments

Aff: Need to have a method through which you solve your impacts, if you’re topical, that means you’re using the USfg and have a plan. If you’re reading a K, I want a clear articulation of how your advocacy is adopted/changes the debate space/matters in terms of impacts.

Case Debate: You don’t need carded evidence to point out solvency deficits of the aff. Analytics are generally smarter and more true than the arguments that take you 20 seconds to read the card.

Clarity>Speed: I’ll say clear once, but if you don't slow down you run the risk of me missing arguments that are key to you winning the debate. Please don’t assume you can go as fast as you want just because I’m on the email chain. SLOW on theory/T/analytics. Embedded clash in the overview is nice, but don’t put all your answers to the line by line there.

Cross-x: I flow cross-ex, and I think you should have a strategy for cross ex that helps you set up or further your arguments. If there is truly a part of the aff that is confusing, go ahead and ask for clarification, but your CX shouldn’t give the other team an opportunity to re-explain entire arguments.

Topicality: Describe to me what type of debate your interp justifies, and what type of debate theirs justifies. Whose interpretation of the resolution is better? Impact T out, for example limits in a vacuum don’t mean anything, I want you to explain how limits are key to your education and fairness. I could be persuaded to vote on reasonability, but for the most part think that competing interps is the best paradigm.

Disadvantages: Link controls the direction of the disad. Specificity over generics.

Counterplans: Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for the CP. I would judge kick the CP even if not explicitly told by the 2NR, unless the 2AR tells me a super cool reason why judge kick is bad that I haven't heard yet.

Kritiks: Run what you want, articulate what the alt is and how it solves for the impacts you’re claiming. Not enough teams explain HOW the alt works, which I think is devastating when compared to an aff’s clear mechanisms for solving their harms. A conceded root cause explanation or a PIK (“alt solves the aff”) would be a way to win my ballot if explained well. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made early on for me to evaluate it. I’m most familiar with fem, anthro, and neolib, but would listen to other K’s.

Theory: I rarely, if ever vote on theory. Mostly because most teams don’t spend more than 1 minute on it in the final speeches. If the aff thinks the neg reading 7 off was abusive, then the 2AR should be case + condo bad. Dedication to explaining and going for the argument validates it as a reason to consider it. If you spend 30 seconds on extending a dropped ASPEC argument, I’m definitely not voting on it.

+0.5 speaks if you tell me your zodiac sign

Fisk University '24

NUDL Director of Programming

Conflicts: Skinner West|Lindblom Math & Science Academy

TL;DR

Identity K teams, you should pref me a 1, if you read Baudrillard you should put me at the end of your prefs or be willing to really break it down. I want to be on the email chain, (dailyndavisdebate@gmail.com). Read what your good at and I will evaluate it as best as possible. Although for pomo I'm more used to debating against then running so please assume I have very little knowledge of what you are talking about. Alternative solvency should be thoroughly explained, and if you're going to kick the alt in the 2NR tell me. I won't kick it for you even if you're winning the rest of the k flow. If I mention a card you want or you've seen it on my wiki please email me, I will gladly send it.

For teams going for topicality, I do hold topicality at a higher threshold meaning it should be the majority of your neg block and the entirety of the 2NR. I will not default to reasonability for either team if the argument isn't on the flow.

Name: Aris Ferreira

Current Affiliation: Barack Obama Male Leadership Academy

Conflicts: Barack Obama Male Leadership Academy

Debate Experience: 3yr. Coaching middle and high school

How many rounds have you judged in 2022-23: at least 30

arguments that you prefer to listen to/debate.

1. Theory debates
2. Ethics
3. Race

arguments that you prefer not to listen to/debate.

1. Climate change arguments can get redundant.

I do like to do or like watch other people do.

1. I do like line by line

stylistics items you do not like to watch other people do.

1. I prefer clarity over speed

2. I prefer closed debates

I have a background in rhetoric therefore I prefer to listen more nuanced debate rounds. While I appreciate a technical debate as much as the next judge, I find it more interesting and compelling to listen to a debate with a foundation in persuasion and rhetoric. Strong logical arguments with sound reasonings.

About Me:

Bravo '20, CSULB '24, LAMDL 4eva

2024 ADA Champ, CEDA Semis, NDT Quarters, #3 Copeland Panelist

Currently coaching Huntington Park High School

Email: diegojflores02@gmail.com

People I talk about debate with or have influenced me heavily: Deven Cooper, Jaysyn Green, Geordano Liriano, Curtis Ortega, Andres Marquez, Isai Ortega, Toya Green, Azja Butler, Cameron Ward, Jonathan Meza, Jared Burke, Elvis Pineda, Irshad Reza Husain, Tatianna Mckenzie, Khamani Griffin

TOC Update

nothing new, if anybody's interested in debating at csulb lemme know

How I Judge

• Judge instruction above all else. Tell me why your argument comes first (framing, recency, more contextualized, etc.) or why winning x part of the flow wins you the rest, and do the opposite to your opponent's framing. A long 2AR/2NR overview that identifies the 2-3 biggest issues to resolve is much more instructive to me than blasting off a pre-written block. I fully believe that the focus of the debate is completely up to the debaters to determine and will decide it only on what the flow says, not what I think it should say.
• When resolving arguments for either side, I tend to view it kind of like debate math. If one side has a full extension of their argument (claim, warrant, ev) and the other side is incomplete (claim, warrant, no ev), then I default to the side that has a more complete explanation of their argument. In scenarios where debating is equal, I listen to judge instruction and read evidence when necessary, but this a rarity. I hate having to insert my own beliefs about debate in order to decide which argument is better, which is why direct argument comparison and judge instruction are the most important things to do when I'm judging you.
• I flow straight down and heavily decide debates based on technical execution, so responding to the arguments in the order that they come in is preferable to me. However, I am completely fine with you going in your own order as long as you clearly state what argument you're responding to and still directly engage your opponent's arguments.
• I don't have the docs open during the debate and only refer to them during cx to read ev or if the debate is really close. I'm comfortable flowing any speed, but will not hesitate to say in the RFD that I could not catch an argument because the analytics were unflowable or the argument did not make sense. Please do not spread your analytics as if they're cards.
• Capable of writing a clear RFD for any style of debate, but my advice for improvement is better if critical literature is introduced. I only read K-oriented arguments in college, but was a flex/policy-leaning debater in high school.
• Following the above ensures that good, technical debating always overrides my personal beliefs (hate capitalism and psychoanalysis but vote on them all the time its concerning)
• No judge kick make your own decisions, inserting rehighlights is fine with me on the condition that you explain what the rehighlight says using quotes from the ev.
• Speaker points start at a 28.5 and move up and down according to execution: Rebuttals > Organization > Strategic pivots/ concessions > Sounding like you want to be here > Winning Cross-ex moments is probably my list of priorities when thinking about it
• boo being a bad person to your opponents booooo. i'm all for debaters standing on business, petty throwdowns, etc., but i am not for full-on disrespecting your opponents simply for the sake of it. every debate is a performance and you should be aware of how you come off.
• Format stuff -- title ur email chains [Tournament Name - Round x - Team A -Aff- v. Team B -Neg-), pls put ev in a doc before sending it out, etc.

Argument Preferences

I appreciate debaters who stick to their convictions and are confident in their ability to win what they're best at regardless if the judge is predetermined to agree with their set of arguments or not. The following is a list my personal beliefs about debate that only matter if there is a complete absence of judge instruction/technical debating by both sides. Anything that is not addressed just means I'm neutral for both sides about the argument and is overwhelmingly determined by the flow.

K Affs - Affs should be clear about the method/epistemological shift from the status quo they defend and why it challenges the impacts/theory of power outlined in the 1AC. I'm better for method-based K Affs than solely epistemological ones because I think the latter is susceptible to presumption arguments since I'm usually unsure about the scale that is required for the epistemological shift to solve the 1AC's impacts and why the aff is uniquely key. Method-based affs should be prepared to debate impact turns.

K Aff v. Framework - I strongly prefer a counter-interpretation than just a impact turn strategy. What it means to be resolutional must be defined in the 2AC through definitions or a different vision for engagement. I also strongly prefer that the counter-interpretation is in reference to models of debate established by scholars in the activity (DSRB’s Three Tier, Elijah Smith’s KFM, Amber Kelsie’s Blackened Debate, etc.). I think there is enough history of debate established for us to have substantive debates over the pros/cons of traditional/non-traditional models of debate.

Framework v. K Affs - Clash/Skills with Fairness as an internal link instead of as an impact on its own. SSD over TVA unless you have a solvency advocate. A combination of limits arguments and no clash turning the case is needed in order to win these debates in front of me. The only "engage the aff's case" I require is defense agains the aff's theory of power and their "ballot key" arguments since those two are usually cross-applied to become offense against framework.

K v. K - The biggest thing to clarify is how competing visions/demands about society structure your offense against each side of the debate. Each form of offense should have a material example of how your theoretical distinctions manifest into real impacts.

PIKs - Affs should always explain that the component that the negative has PIK'd out of is necessary for aff solvency, and that the PIK is a worse version because of it. Offense by the aff is often underdeveloped and I wish neg teams would be less afraid to go for PIKs since its usually cleaner than other flows.

Policy Affs - 2ACs overviews need to explain what the plan does and why it solves the impacts of the 1AC as opposed to just impact calculus at the top. Negative teams should be more willing to go for analytics that call out wonky internal link chains and solvency claims.

Extinction Affs v. K - Affs should defend the representations of their plan beyond "if we win case then reps true + extinction outweighs" by thoroughly explaining why the impact scenario is true as opposed to the 2AR saying "no case defense, flow our stuff through for us". I truly don't understand the new trend for every debater to rattle off "debate doesnt shape subjectivity + fairness is nice" and think that its sufficient to beat the K without addressing the link or the alt. I'd much rather hear a 2AR that substantively defends the case and impact turns the links. I absolutely hate when heg teams say "china evil cus uyghurs" or "russia evil" and refuse to acknowledge their hypocrisy in defending the United States (enslavement, genocide, current support of Israel, just history and today in general.). If you want to win heg good in front of me, I need a substantive impact turn to the link and an offensive push for why the alternative on the K is worse than the status quo, not just "fwk - weigh the aff".

Soft-Left Affs v. K - These are my favorite debates to judge. Affs should spend more time explaining why the case is a good form of harm reduction as opposed to trying to beat the ontology of the K with "progress possible + pessimism bad" arguments. I usually think that these arguments do nothing for the aff since none of the cards are about the case, and they'd be better off explaining why the aff is better than the status quo even if the neg's ontology is correct, and that a perm would resolve the links enough.

K v. Policy - K teams should have a "link turns case argument" even if the 2NR is a huge framework push, but I prefer the strategy to extend an alt that solves the case and resolves the link debate. Case defense is appreciated. I'm not the best for K 2NR's that invest most of their time into the ontology debate because I think its better for neg teams to go for specific links that turn the case or have an argument that the impacts of the K should come first before the aff, and winning a link means the alt comes first before the aff. At most, I think the ontology of a Kritik should be used to frame which impacts matter most, and it usually does not make-or-break debates for me. I don't require "specific" link evidence versus the aff, but I appreciate link contextualization in the block and I think K's are best when the 2NC/2NR pulls specific lines from the Affs speeches and explain how their method's underlying assumptions turn itself.

Counterplans - Neutral for each side about theory/competition arguments. Counterplans that only rely on internal net benefits are less likely to win in front of me since I think a combination of aff theory + a permutation can beat it.

Disadvantages - PLEASE INTRODUCE IMPACT CALCULUS IN THE 2AC/2NC, I hate when the first time I'm hearing it is in the rebuttal speeches from both sides. Direct evidence comparison above all else, i appreciate an overview of the impact scenario at the top of each speech. I'm a lot more concerned by whose impact scenario has more overall risk of occurring than a "turns the case/DA" argument.

LAMDL/UDL Stuff

• ONLY TO LAMDL/OTHER UDL KIDS - Email me with questions, speech redoes, questions about debate, and I will try my best to get back to you with advice/feedback. Not having coaches and learning debate by yourself is hard and I can’t guarantee responses all the time but I try to respond to mostly everybody that reaches out to me.
• WIKI RANT - have a wiki up by your 2nd tournament or I’m capping speaks at 29. Cites of the arguments/evidence you have read are the only thing needed, not open source. Not disclosing on the wiki diminishes the quality of debates LAMDL produces and exacerbates the gaps we have in resources as UDL schools, and it does nothing to help up and coming varsity debaters who don’t know how to start prep against teams that refuse to disclose. Debate is competitive and we’re all here to win, but it sucks when part of the reason nobody’s prepped to be negative is because nobody knows what anybody is reading.

other thoughts

• Highlight Color Rankings - Yellow > Blue > custom light pastel color > any other color is ew
• Water > Coffee > any energy drink like Red Bull or Monster is disgusting
• Tagline quality. They’re either unflowable (too long/wordy) or way too flowable (no warrant/2 word). The way people feel about highlighting trends is how I feel about tags. I hope for the perfect middle ground.
• If you run critical arguments about an identity you don’t belong to, I need you to explain what my/your role as a judge/competitor is to that literature, even if the other side never brings it up. I think it’s valuable to understand how we position ourselves in relation to literature that isn’t about us and see how it affects our decisions to use it as an argument, as well as develop ethical relationships to it.
• I think variations of the Cap K (escalante, racial cap, abolition democracy, etc.) are great and the majority of Affs mishandle them. Defending it as a methods debate as opposed to a "cap root cause + extinction ow + state engagement good" strategy is better in front of me and the affs common responses of "racist party + accountability DA + aff theory is root cause of cap" can be easily beat assuming the negative has actually read the literature behind the cap k. Despite the fearmongering by framework teams, the Cap K is a great generic and more teams should be willing to go for it.

LAMDL Program Director (2015 - Present)
UC Berkeley Undergrad (non-debating) & BAUDL Policy Debate Coach (2011-2015)
LAMDL Policy Debater (2008 - 2011)

Speech Docs: Include me on the email chain: jfloresdebate@gmail.com*

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

*I only check the above email during tournaments, if you're trying to get in touch with me for anything outside of speech doc email chains, my main work email is joseph@lamdl.org.

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

TL;DR Do what you do best. I evaluate you on how well you execute your arguments, not on your choice of argument.

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

I believe debate is a space that is shaped and defined by the debaters, and as a judge my only role to evaluate what you put in front of me. There is generally no argument I won't consider, with the exception of arguments that are intentionally educationally bankrupt. I generally lean in favor of more inclusive frameworks, but do still believe the debate should be focused on debatable issues. Regardless of the framework you provide, I need offensive reasons to vote for you.

Most of my work nowadays is in the back end of tournaments, and this implicates how I judge somewhat. I might not be privy to your trickier strategies. Feel free to use them, but know if I do not catch it on my flow, it will not count.

I'm a better judge for rounds with fewer and more in-depth arguments compared to rounds where you throw out a lot of small blippy arguments that you blow up late in the debate. My issue with the latter isn't the speed (speed is fine), rather I'm less likely to vote for underdeveloped arguments. Generally, the team that takes the time to provide better explanations, applications, and warrants will win the debate for me. The team with more complete arguments (claim, warrant, evidence) will will get ahead for me more often than not as long as you also instruct me on the significance of those arguments to the round.

This includes dropped arguments. I still need these to be explained, applied, and weighed for you to get anything out of it - I won't do the work for you when it comes to weighing anything.

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

Feel free to read your non traditional Aff, but be prepared to defend why it is relevant to the topic (either in the direction of it or in response/criticism of it), and why it is a debatable issue. Feel free to read your procedurals, but be prepared to weigh and sequence your standards against the specifics of the case in the round. Either way, I'll evaluate it and whether or not I vote in your direction will come down to execution in the round. I've voted for and against both K Affs and Framework. Articulate the internal links to your impacts for them to be weighed as heavily as you want.

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

Speaker Points: I don't disclose speaker points. I don't give 30s because you tell me to for an argument.

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

Engage your opponents. Avoid being rude and/or disrespectful.

If you have specific questions about specific arguments let me know.

- Josh (he/him)

I'm a former national circuit high school debater from the mid-1990's, but since that time I have not had much in-round debate experience until the 2020-2021 season.

My general approach is to assess the round based solely on the arguments presented by the debaters, with as little intervention by me as possible, and where tech dominates truth. The remainder of this paradigm should be viewed in that light -- that is, it's a heads up on my general perspectives on debate that may or may not be helpful to you, but if we're all doing our jobs well, my perspectives shouldn't really matter and shouldn't enter into the RFD.

The specifics below are really intended to highlight a handful of areas where my own views or capabilities may differ from other judges.

********

Flowing / speed / clarity: I flow on paper. Please don't start your speech until you've given a roadmap, and until it's clear that I'm ready.

If you're an experienced high school debater, please know that my ear for speed is not quite what it used to be. I would suggest going a little bit slower everywhere except the body of cards. (That said, I do pay attention to what is read in the body of cards, and only consider a card to be evidenced to the extent that it is actually read in the round.) You certainly don't need to be at normal-person conversational speed, but taking 20-30% of your speed off would probably be helpful to you.

Please include some sort of unambiguous verbal indicator at the end of a card and before the following tag. A very brief pause is a start. A simple and clear "Next" is better. While it may be old-school, and very slightly inefficient, I'm still partial to some sort of number or letter in early constructives, particularly because numbers and letters allow for easier signposting in the line-by-line in later speeches. (Though, I also tend to hate 1-a-b-c, 2-a-b-c, etc., unless the sub-structure is highly related to itself, e.g., CP theory.)

There's an extent to which line-by-line seems to be a lost art, as does flowing. To an extent, I'll try to do the work for you and see if a given argument has in fact been dropped, but the best way to ensure that my flow has you covering everything is to signpost everything, and respond / extend in the order of the original line-by-line, i.e., the 1NC on-case and the 2AC off-case.

Please include me on the email chain -- I'll provide my email address before the round. In middle school and high school novice, my standard policy is to *not* follow along in the file, and I won't read cards unless I need to do so at the end of the round in order to assess some question of evidence. At the high school JV and Varsity levels, I'm more willing to follow along in the speech doc in order to do my part to adapt to you. But, I still expect clarity, signposting, and modulating speed on tags and cites.

Also, particularly at the high school JV / Varsity levels, I would strongly advise against reeling off multiple blippy analytics in the course of several seconds. If you do so, then if you're lucky, I will get one out of every four arguments on my flow, and it may not be the one you want the most. If there's a round-winning argument that you need me to understand, best to explain it thoroughly rather than assume I will understand the argument based on just a handful of words. This is all the more true if your delivery relies excessively on debate jargon or short-hand, some of which I can guarantee I'm not yet familiar with. (As an example, in a recent round, it took me a minute to infer that "a-spec", which I hadn't previously heard of, was just short-hand for "agent specification", with which I'm fairly familiar.) Please trust that I'm doing my level best, and that I'll be able to follow you when you're explaining things reasonably well.

In the end, if it's not on my flow, I can't assess it as part of the round, even if it's in your doc.

Kritiks: I have no principled opposition to voting on kritiks. This includes kritiks on the Aff. I do think Aff has the burden of proof to win definitively that they do not or should not need to have a topical plan. That is a burden that I have seen overcome, though the more of these rounds I see, the tougher this sell becomes for me. Regardless, in the end this is a question that I'll resolve based on the flow.

I'm arguably not clever enough to understand many kritiks -- I dropped the philosophy major because I couldn't hack it, and became a physics/math major instead -- so persuading me to vote on the basis of a kritik may require a fair bit more explanation than you would typically offer. I will take no shame in telling you that I straight up didn't understand your argument and couldn't vote on it as a result. This most likely occurs if you overly rely on philosophical jargon. If anything, my lack of experience relative to other judges in this particular debate subspace probably provides a natural check on teams reading arguments that they don't understand themselves. I'll posit that if you can't explain your argument in reasonably simple terms, then you probably don't understand it, and shouldn't win on it.

I'll say as well that I've judged a number of K teams that seem to rely heavily on blocks that have been prepared fully in advance, or maybe very slightly tweaked from what's been prepared in advance, with little attempt to actually engage with the other side. First, I find these speeches pretty tough to flow, since they're often extremely dense in content with little attempt to engage with their audience. Second, I happen to think this over-reliance on advance-prepared speeches is rather horrible for the educational value of the activity. It pretty severely undermines the "K debates are better for education" argument, and it also acts as a fairly real-time demonstration of the "link" on "K debates are bad for clash". I'm likely to be highly sympathetic to an opposing side that has any reasonable degree of superior technical execution when K teams engage in this practice.

It might be worth you knowing that K's were not really a thing yet back when I was debating. Or rather, they were just in their infancy (particularly in high school), rarely run, and/or they were uniformly terrible arguments that I don't think are run much anymore (e.g., Normativity, Objectivism, Foucault, Heidegger). Teams argued the theoretical legitimacy of the Kritik, and whether or not they should be evaluated as part of the ballot, but these arguments weren't unified under a notion of "Framework". Alt's definitely weren't a thing, nor were Kritiks on the Aff at the high school level.

Disads: I've quickly grown wary of Neg's claiming that their disad "turns case". There's a crucial difference between a disad "turning case" (i.e., your disad somehow results in the Aff no longer accessing their own impact, and in fact, causing their own impact) and "outweighing case" (i.e., your disad simply has a shorter timeframe, higher probability, or greater magnitude than the case). I've become increasingly convinced that Neg's are simply asserting -- unwarranted both in fact and in claim -- that their disad "turns case" in the hopes of duping the judge into essentially making the disad a litmus test for the ballot. If your disad legitimately turns the case, then that's awesome -- make the argument. However I think bona fide claims of "turning case" occur far less often than Neg's want us to believe. In the end, this is not much more than a pet peeve, but a pet peeve nonetheless.

CP's: Counterplans need a solvency claim/warrant, but not necessarily a solvency advocate, per se. That is, if the CP's solvency is a logical extension of the Aff's solvency mechanism, no solvency evidence should be required.

Theory / Ethics / General Behavior: I tend to be more sympathetic to teams launching legitimate, well-reasoned, and thoroughly-explained theory arguments than it seems many more modern judges may be, up to and including "reject the team, not the argument".

When it comes to ethics and general in-round behavior, it seems that many paradigms contain a whole host of info on what judges think debate “should” be, how debaters “should” act, and/or the judge’s perceived level of fairness of certain tactics.

My own paradigm used to contain similar info, but I’ve since removed it. Why? Because I think including such info creates a moral hazard of sorts. Debaters that are predisposed to behave in certain ways or deploy certain tactics will simply not do those things in front of judges that call them out in their paradigms, and then go right back to engaging in those behaviors or deploying those tactics in front of judges that don’t. To the extent that judges view themselves at least in part as guardrails on acceptable behavior and/or tactics, it seems to me that a better approach to rooting out negativity might be to put the onus on debaters to be considerate, ethical, and reasonable in deployment of their strategies and tactics – and then, if they aren’t, to mete out appropriate consequences. I do not feel obligated to state ex-ante that “X behavior is an auto-loss” if reasonable judges would conclude similarly and respond accordingly.

Don't worry: I'm not looking to be arbitrary and unreasonable in exercising judicial discretion, nor am I looking to insert my own opinions when teams engage in behavior that's debatably unfair, but goes uncontested by the other side. Just be thoughtful. It’s great to play hard. But if your tactics are questionably fair or bad for debate, be prepared to defend them, or reconsider their use. If the other side is deploying tactics that are questionably fair or bad for debate, make the argument, up to and including “reject the team”. I will evaluate such arguments and their implications based on the flow.

******

With all of that said, I consider myself to be in the midst of getting back up to speed in the modern norms and conventions of our activity, particularly at the high school Varsity level. I'm more than willing to be convinced that I should rethink any and all of the above, whether as part of an in-round debate or out-of-round conversation.

Name Chris Gentry

Previous institutional affiliations and role

Appalachian State Debator 4 years, double member parli, experience coaching and judging PF. Policy, Parli

Add me to your email chain chris.gentry.e@Gmail.com

Former Coach Hubbard High School

Former Coach Harker Middle School

Current Chicago Debates Program Manager - 2 years

High school and college debater – graduated college in last 5 years

1.Clarity > speed:Clarity helps everyone, I am happy to listen to you spreading and will happily get most of it, just slow down on the tags so I know where we are if I get lost.

2.Neg positions: Overwhelmingly the biggest issue I see in debate is students poorly linking neg positions. cool your impact scenario is great but your link is weak so I struggle to care.

3. Cross x Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

I give 27.5-30 points, 27.5 being for poor speech, less than 27.5 for abuse. You can lose points for demonstrated abuse in round or poor treatment of partner or opposition. You can gain points through good responses and effective response strategy

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clearer or louder 3 times.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

Not a ton, mostly to confirm accuracy and understanding

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

No, I need the argument to be made for why a thing matters, how it matters, and what it is that matters. I will only read the underlined parts of the evidence if I doubt validity

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

To ensure proper decisions and to confirm accuracy if any cards feel like they are incredible.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality.

As long as it is clear and warranted especially on ground loss. I need the impacts to be fully leveled out, and I need there to be solid arguments for fairness impacts.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

I definitely prefer critical arguments that are resolution specific versus the generic kritik, however I am fine with the generic kritik as long as you tie it well to your argument and the resolution being debated. I will vote on perm and theory if presented well. That said, I really like critical arguments when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated. Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know 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 the 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.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff:

They don’t need to read a plan but they do need an advocacy that is different than the SQ

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

I find performance-based arguments to struggle on solvency. I find the nature of debate to sometimes be constricting to performance. I am not saying I won't vote for it, I just need you to explain why your performance produces in-round solvency in opposition to the performance of debating/criticizing or advocating for policies

I do think "performance" as critical metaphor can have access to rhetorical solvency, but it's harder for me to access literal solvency. So while I am not biased towards projects or performances so long as they are grounded in some context that is in round, I think they can still be interesting and get a ballot.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

I enjoy good K v K debates

I enjoy unique critical debates

I also have a large background in policy both in real life and in deate and am happy to handle policy args too

I am one of the debate coaches and teacher advisors at Huntington Park High School, since the 2022-2023 school year.

Email: luisgonzalez4ed@gmail.com, pronouns: he/him/his

I have limited experience with debate, other than advising our team over the year and a half. I have background on the topic, given I am a Social Studies teacher who teaches US History and AP Government. I have judged about 10 rookie/novice rounds + 1 Varsity round and would consider myself to be an inexperienced judge, especially at the higher levels of debate.

Given my limited experience with debate and judging, here are my preferences:

- Speak clearly and at a conversational pace (no spreading) and especially emphasize key points and give clear, compelling judge instruction

- I am not into or well-versed in the technical or theoretical parts of debate. I am more appreciative of clash within the debate, especially during CX

- Both partners should participate equally

- Run your own times

- Respect each other and be kind

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11. I am currently the debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

add me to email chain please: aegorell@gmail.com

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I love judge instruction. I err tech over truth.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

General - Removing analytics is coward behavior. Okay, after I put this in everyone seems to think I mean I need to see all your analytics ever. I’m saying if you have prewritten analytics you should not remove those (coward behavior) especially in the early constructive speeches. Removing analytics and trying to get dropped args from spreading poorly is bad for debate and if it’s not on my flow it didn’t happen. Analytics off the dome from your flow are great and not what I’m talking about.I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaker points if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaker points. Please signpost theory shells. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision, but generally I think if a judge is pouring through your warrants thats probably not a good sign, you should have been extending those yourself I shouldn't have to hunt them down. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality/Theory - Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T and theory debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about. I think for theory to be compelling in round abuse is supreme. If you're complaining you had no time to prep and then have 15 hyper specific link cards....come on. Disclosure theory is basically never viable independent offense but I think it can be a strong argument to disregard theory arguments run against you since they refused disclosure norms.

Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.

Kritiks - You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your tags without contextualizing or explaining anything, you don't understand your Kritik. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan but I can be convinced otherwise. My threshold is high and it’s easier to access if you can prove in round abuse / actually tailored links. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates. I think a lot of kritiks are very vulnerable to vagueness procedurals.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I used to say I tend to err neg but I actually end up voting aff more often than not mostly because negs don’t seem to know how to engage. Vagueness seems to be most egregious with k affs. Don’t be vague about what you’re trying to do or what my vote does and you’ll have a much better chance with me. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Just because I like debate doesn’t mean it can’t also be better. I can recognize its problematic elements too. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy. Really listen to what the K aff is saying because often you can catch them contradicting themselves in their own 1AC, or even providing offense for perf cons.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. You need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse. I think I start being open to condo bad around 3 or 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I think fiat theory arguments are good offense against many CPs. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule, but more than 5 planks is crazy. By advantage CPs I mean like...actually thought out a targeted ones that exploit weaknesses in plans.

DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.

For LD - I try to be as tab as I can but in order to do that you need to give me some kind of weighing mechanism to determine whose voting issues I prefer. If you both just list some voting issues with absolutely no clash it forces me to make arbitrary decisions and I hate that. Give me the mechanism / reason to prefer and you'll probably win if your opponent does not. So like, do I prefer for evidence quality or relevance? Probability? Give me something. I'm probably more open to prog arguments because I come from policy debate but if someone runs a Kritik and you do a decent job on kritiks bad in LD theory against it I'll vote on that.

Please add me to the email chain: gutierrv@southwestern.edu. I'd prefer an email chain over speech drop.

TLDR: Argue for what you’re most comfortable with (if you’re a theory/T debater see below), I’m good with speed, slow down on advocacy texts, implicate a framework. Compare frameworks. Do weighing. Implicate the link chain to solvency/ impacts. I time. Please don’t prep while the docs are being sent or before the time has started. Be kind and have fun.

I will evaluate any argument in the round- take the notes below as standards that I tend to learn towards in debate, and possible ways to heighten a strat, rather than this limiting what type of arguments you go for in a round. If you go for 14 off is good and win that debate, even if I don't think that's a good model of debate, I will still vote for that regardless of my personal beliefs.

About me:

Hey I’m Val (she/her). I’m in my last year at southwestern studying political science, latin american and border studies and spanish. Meaning, I love policy and philosophy.

As a debater, I went to a small school in Dallas and made it to outrounds at a couple TFA/NSDA tournaments. I initially started as a UDL policy debater and later as an LDer and was taught most of what I know by Kris Wright. While I acknowledge that debate is sometimes cutthroat, I know that it is one of the kindest communities out there, and I ask that you are kind and respectful.

General notes:

• Please don’t abbreviate topic-specific terms, I don't judge every topic and I probs won't know what you mean.

• I’m very persuaded by a quick overview or a story of the link chain, especially as someone who judges intermittently.

• Simply saying they dropped something without implicating the impact of the dropped arg won't get you far. Same as "extend __ arg." I grant you some leeway with the extensions but you still have to implicate the effects it has on the round and/or under a fw. Explain your warrants rather than simply extending tags and referencing authors.

• Congress- Recently judged congress for the first time - It'd be helpful if you add your initials to zoom or say name before each speech.

• World schools- I'm not as familiar with judging world schools as a format, however, but I am aptly suited to judge the content of the round. Please state your name before each speech so that I can more easily input scores.

• Big Questions Debate- I find that it is similar to LD but with different speech times. I'm new to the format but comfortable appropriately judging.

Not so short version

Framework - I have no predisposition about what the framework of a debate should be, however, aside from t/theory, or nontraditional K/performance debates, I weigh framework as the highest layer in a debate. I think that some variation of a complete fw debate articulates what the fw means, how the impacts in the round are weighed under the fw and why your fw comes first. If I'm unsure how to weigh these, I'll try to minimize intervention as much as possible. Winning the framework/role of the ballot is not a reason alone to win a round, it's a NIB- you should explain how your form of debate and/or impact scenario comes first in accordance with the winning framework.

LARP- f you’re doing traditional policy debate, I believe the aff has to defend the resolution/prove its desirability. As a neg I believe that you get to test the competitiveness of the aff and/or negate the resolution. Just be reasonable here. This allows you to run disasds and cps/pics, but please make it clear what the competition is and how it functions, whether that be the DA or independent offensive arguments.

Even if an impact outweighs there still has to be a clear link story as to how an advocacy causes/solves that impact. Don’t let that link story get lost, it can ultimately cost a round.

Please slow down on advocacy texts.

Criticisms - K debates are fun when articulated correctly. Like everything you run in debate, but especially important for Ks, know what the alt and story of the K is. Re-reading tags and simply extending cards will not work for me (If you run a k, know your authors.) Tell me what the alt means and how the criticism links. Most importantly, tell me how the alt solves your criticism.

Performance - I love when debaters do what they most enjoy, so a good performance can get you far. The performance needs to function as offense in the debate, so please explain how that functions under a rob/fw. Side note: if you perform in the 1AC or 1NC, and don't do it in the following speeches, I will likely not be as persuaded by any real offense coming from the performance of your speech.

Theory - ngl, if you read 20 disads to a counterinterp in 30 seconds, I'll probably suck at flowing it, because I find that it is usually really unclear. I'd prefer quality here, so if you tend to dump in theory debates, know it won't get you far. Bottom line, slow down a little here.

Topicality - I’m more comfortable with T than theory, but also slow down. If T is messy, I'll default to reasonability.

Spikes - Same feeling as theory debates apply here. Debates with spikes often get messy, and are slightly beyond what I'm comfortable judging.

*Disclaimer:* If you're religiously into theory/t/trix/spikes, strike me if you're able to. If you’re not, slow down and choose quality over quantity*

Logistics:

Speed - I don't have an issue with spreading, but be clear. (Read the T/Theory above for specifics here). I'll say clear once to let you know I can’t understand. Ultimately, not being clear results in me having to stop flowing because I can't understand.

Timing

• Speech time - I'll time, please stop as soon as the timer goes off. To preserve fairness, please do not finish your sentence or continue after your given time.

• Flex prep - It's okay with me if your opponent wants to answer your questions. They don't have to, and I won't make them.

• Prep time/marked cards - I'll time prep. Also, the most it should take to hit send on the email chain is 10 seconds. If there's a problem with you sending the doc, I'll start your prep.

If you prep while they're sending docs (during non-prep time), I will ask you to stop. If I have to repeat, I'll dock speaks for the sake of fairness.

Background: I have been coaching debate and mock trial since 2006. For over 10 years I was a teacher and coach in the Chicago Debates League and have sent teams to a variety of TOC tournaments. Most of my debate coaching experience has been in Lincoln-Douglas with a growing emphasis in policy over the last several years.

Policy: I am not a fan of high speed spread debates and prefer moderation in speed over an ultra spread style delivery.Speed is fine if clarity matches the rate of delivery. If a competitor is going at a rate so fast that I cannot flow their arguments, then I am not able to effectively consider and weigh them for the round. Given this, I generally prefer to not be on the email chain as it is your job to communicate clearly and effectively in the round.

In the end, I prefer Policy rounds that come down to clear well supported argumentation, solid clash, impact calculus, stock issues, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution. Counter Plans, Topicality, Theory arguments, Framework are great though I feel that they need to have some direct connection and relevance to the actual case, i.e. generic negative arguments are valid, but they need to have some clear and legitimate relationship to the discussion. Always open for a great kritik, though prefer that you make clear how it is directly applicable to the affirmative plan and the ideas that it represents.

In the end, my preferences are just that, and if a team can successfully convey the meaning and importance of any set of arguments I will absolutely vote for them.

Policy Notes: 1) No open cross unless clearly agreed to by both parties before the round begins.

LD:

Former UC Lab debater and current Kenwood Academy coach (16-present)

jharduvel [at] cps [dot] edu

The most important things that you can do to get my ballot are:

1. Strategic overviews that explain how to resolve the key issue(s) of the debate
2. Comparative warrant analysis
3. Well-impacted arguments throughout

I strongly prefer to resolve the debate based on the flow rather than by reading your evidence and believe that you should do that explanatory work for me.

I will vote on whatever arguments that you wish to make. I'm more familiar with critical literature so if you're planning for a tech-y policy debate, be ready to explain your arguments thoroughly and do some storytelling in your overview.

Slow down enough on analytics that they are clearly flowable. I believe that there is a threshold you need to meet for me to vote for any given argument. Blippy extensions are going to give me significant pause and even if something is conceded, I need more than "They dropped condo and it's a voting issue for fairness and education!" to vote on it.

Topicality and theory: These debates should include clash, comparative analysis, and impacts just like any other part of the debate.

Kritiks: I prefer when debaters are specific on the link and alternative debates, and when they go for arguments like the K turns case or is a DA to case instead of vague impacts.

Counterplans: I am sympathetic to aff theory arguments against PICs, consult CPs, and process CPs. On the permutation debate, I tend to lean neg and assume risk of a link to the net benefit (unless I am told otherwise, of course).

Speaker Points: I reward line-by-line, comparative impact calculus, clash, creative argumentation, explanation of warrants, and smart analytics. I will deduct speaker points for oppressive language or arguments, rudeness, being purposefully evasive in cross-ex, excessive interruptions of your partner, and ethical violations. Clipping cards or refusing to provide the other team with access to your cards are serious violations, and I will deduct speaker points accordingly whether the other team points these issues out or not.

I've been in involved with competitive debate for over 25 years. I have coached policy debate at the high school and college levels. For the past 11 years I have worked at the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues to build more debate programs across the country. I have not judged many debate rounds during that time. I have helped construct novice core files on this and recent topics.

I am not up to date on the the acronyms, buzzwords or theory evolutions of this topic (or the past few).

Debaters should communicate clearly both in speeches and cross examination. Make your best arguments persuasively and I will do my best to keep up.

Debaters should resolve key issues of the debate in the final rebuttals to help the judge make a decision.

lukehill at urbanddebate.org for communications

Name: Paul Johnson

LAMDL/Port of Los Angeles High School

List the types of arguments that you prefer to listen to/debate.

1. I tend to give weight to the typical policy arguments.

2. Impact calculus

3. Framework debate (Tell me what’s important.)

List the types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to/debate.

Kritiks and theory arguments are indeed valuable, but some of them can seem rather vague and "out in the weeds" for me and so are hard for me to judge. Often I feel that these arguments can get rather generic if not explained well enough for me to understand the connection to the current debate.

List stylistic items you like to do or like watch other people do.

1. I love overviews. And signposting is great—helps me follow the flow better.

2. Explanations are great to hear in place of blippy statements with cryptic debate terminology lacking clarity or application.

3. Good, old school “clash” and arguments well applied are (and will always be) the best.

4. Cross ex that’s well done. That makes a difference in close debates.

List stylistics items you do not like to watch other people do.

1. Yelling, rudeness, and/or overperforming to make a point. Well communicated passion and narrative can be extremely helpful, but only when the evidence and argumentation direct the conversation.

2. Spreading just for the sake of being fast. If there are lots of arguments to cover that’s understandable, but much can be accomplished through brevity and cross applying arguments.

3. Spreading that is unclear! I’m not the best at flowing and this only complicates things.

In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.

I was a policy debater and I appreciate the usual stock issues, but if someone applies and explains well enough more theoretical arguments, I’m ok with that. For me any effective argument needs to demonstrate value in advocating good (and rejecting bad) policy decisions and for productively advancing good debate. Again, as a judge, I’m looking for “good policy” (what’s “good” should be debated and K can still be relevant here). Speak to my pragmatic side and convince me that the plan is a good or bad idea and I will vote accordingly.

I also appreciate the educational value of debate. I want to preserve a meaningful debate space where imaginary world considerations intersect with real world concerns. However, at the end of a round, I want a debate where my ballot reflects what our leaders should do with regard to our world and future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add me to the thread: tkirk@bostonpublicschools.org

I was a high school debater 20 years ago. This is my first year as a debate coach. I attempt to approach each round with a Tabula Rasa philosophy, to whatever degree that is possible. I am willing to listen to and am familiar with any argumentation. I want debaters to evaluate and frame arguments as the round progresses with emphasis on comparative analysis between those competing arguments. Speed is generally not a problem.

I had no experience competing, coaching, or judging speech and debate prior to becoming a teacher coach for Yerba Buena High School's speech and debate team in 2020. Since then, I have judged policy, public forum, world schools, original oratory, and impromptu.

I enjoy listening to all types of arguments, but please treat me as a layman judge and thoroughly explain your arguments, especially if uncommon debate jargon/terms are involved. As an English teacher, I expect every argument brought into a round to be followed with strong evidence and warrants. I tend to favor a well-supported argument over several weak arguments (quality > quantity). I prefer that debaters do not spread because this often leads to my missing important points/arguments; as a non-debater, I cannot follow arguments in the same way that debaters do. Whether or not you spread, providing a roadmap before your speech and signposting during your speech will make it easier for me to follow your argument.

For email chains: lae@esuhsd.org

Name: Sarah Lasken

Experience: I was not a debater in high school or college, but I have been the coach for the Lincoln Park debate team for the past 2.5 school years.

Email: slasken1@cps.edu

General Thoughts:

1. Clarity: Clear communication is essential. I understand the drive to spread as fast as possible, however if I can’t hear your arguments or warrants I can’t vote on them. Also, consider that I am not a trained debater myself, so I wasn't trained through that experience to process a vast amount of information at a rapid pace. Please speak very clearly. Furthermore, please provide clear signposting to help me follow your arguments. Number your contentions and make it evident when you're moving between them or responding to your opponent's points. Speak slowly and clearly when you are providing your tags/citing the source.

2. Neg positions: Whether you use a DA, CP, or K my top priority is you must explain HOW your argument links to the Aff/Resolution. Explain how the plan causes the DA, HOW EXACTLY the CP solves the problems of the resolution better than the aff, and how the K links to the aff. If you don't explain the link to the case and how you get to the impact, it doesn't matter if you're winning impact calculus.

3. Framework/Topicality: I appreciate a well-argued topicality Neg because I do fundamentally believe that debate should relate to the resolution; however this is NOT a hard fast rule. I can definitely be persuaded by a strong K Aff that presents warrants for why there are fundamental flaws in the philosophy presumed under the resolution. I just need those flaws to be very clear.

4. K affs: The relevance of the K Aff must be clear and the team must present the real-world implications of the aff. How does it address significant societal issues and why is it relevant in the context of this debate and this resolution?

5. Performance affs: I often do not find performance affs persuasive because I find them to be outside the bounds and purpose of debate. That doesn’t mean I have never been persuaded by a strong performance aff, however it required clear verbal explanation of the relevancy of the performance

Other Considerations:

-I expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time.

-I may ask you to slow down (multiple times) if I am unable to parse your words/argument.

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

Name: Vanessa Lee

Current Affiliation: Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet

Hi there! I’ll cut right to the chase - I am new to the debate game. I am the debate coach at Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet in Dallas ISD. While I’m new TFA, I’ve had such an enriching experience learning how to competently judge World Schools by participating in tournaments hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Association.

I look forward to a day of engaged and informative debates. I expect debaters to remain professional and cordial despite the passionate positions they may be asked to take. I will listen carefully to your arguments and maintain objectivity and check my personal opinions and unconscious bias regarding the topic at the door.

Style: DO NOT SPEED READ (spreading). You do not have to read at a snail's pace either. Clear communication with the intention to HEAR your opponent is, in my opinion, the best way to ensure that we’re getting the most out of World School debate.

Content: Try to to take 1-2 POIs for each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.

Strategy: Be sure not to drop arguments. Strive to analyze your case as well as your opponent’s arguments, provide fleshed-out examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side while making comparative claims about the superiority of your position.

Know that I am listening intently to the case you present in your argument and wish everyone the best of luck!

Email: flynnmakuch@gmail.com

***you know what is absolutely CX or your prep time? asking the other teams which cards they read or didn't read. you are responsible for flowing and don't get free time to compensate for your inability to do so. a "marked doc" does not mean a new doc where the other team removes all the cards they didnt read

a few virtual/hybrid debate things:

-audio is less intelligible than in person -- make sure you're really clearly enunciating -- i'll yell clear 2-3 times and my facial expressions will be obvious if i can't flow you and then frankly the L is on you pal

(tbh i think most people would benefit from going a bit slower even in person. don't sacrifice judge understanding at the altar of reading that last card)

-MAKE SURE you get a thumbs up or a yes that I'm ready before you start

-prep stops when you've attached the document to the email it shouldn't take you more than 5 seconds from after you've said stop prep to have pressing send on the email

My pronouns are they/them and my last name is pronounced "MACK-oo."

I have judged close to a million rounds

debate history: -HS GBN (2x TOC elims, RRs) - College Texas (2x NDT elims, RRs) -Colleges coached: WSU, UCO, Emory, NU -HSs coached: bronx science, edgemont, GBS, westwood, damien -taught/directed at many camps every summer over the last 12 years -currently assistant coach for NU and used to work full time at the Chicago Debate League + judge/direct lots of tournaments

TOP LEVEL:

Even though I read as arguments and studied critical literature about race, gender, colonialism, and sexuality in college, my HS background was exclusively "policy," and I continue to do research and coach in both areas.

In the post round, if you'd like to seek advice or challenge components of my thinking or note your disagreement or be grumpy or try to get my ballot in the future or try to understand my decision, I would love to discuss my decision with you! If you are into post-rounding as some weird ego thing where you need to demonstrate that you couldn't possibly have lost a debate by berating the judge, then you should not pref me.

I take a while/my time to decide debates, so time-wasting during a debate is truly to your detriment.

After the 2XR, please send me a judge doc with the (marked version) of ONLY the cards you extended.

Things I am really interested in:

--lots of evidence comparison!! this very often shifts my decisions and honestly y'all have become not that good at doing this consistently. a great 2XR will explicitly indict every piece of evidence the other team has read on the position they are extending

--nuanced impact/il comparison

--framing arguments and judge instruction!!!!!!!

--even if arguments -- recognizing where you might be losing

--beginning the 2XR with what you want the RFD to be very explicitly

--in depth explanations -- more warrants! i feel QUITE confident just jettisoning arguments that weren't explained

--strategic concessions + cross applications

--thoughtful and consistent analytics

--attentive line by line

--(hate to have to say this) 2NRs that take advantage of 1AR dropped arguments. It will hurt your speaker points a little if there's a clear path to victory that you ignore entirely

Things I am not interested in:

--cruelty

--inserting long rehighlightings

--long overviews - LINE BY LINE is where those overview arguments fit my friends. i promise you can find a spot if u look

--being rude to your partner

--scholarship/behavior that is morally reprehensible

--"if you vote X you'll have to look me in the eye and explain..., etc." type of inefficient judge strong-arming

--multiple paragraph tags

--mumble spreading on the text of cards

--things that happened outside of the round

--highlighting into sentence fragments

When cx time is over, both teams need to stop talking unless someone wants to take prep.

Make sure you time yourselves, because I WILL forget at some point

Pointing out that something was conceded is not the same as extending that argument. Author names or claims without warrants are not arguments. I think I have a higher standard than most for this. A conceded assertion is still not an argument. Yes ofc, your burden of explanation is substantially reduced, but there's gotta be something.

Framework:

Things I am interested in:

--saying anything new or unique if possible - tbh i judge mostly fw debates and i promise you i have already heard your blocks many times and i am bored

--the solvency mechanism of the aff, whatever solvency means in the context of the affirmative

--clash impacts in the context of skills gained from debate

--whether the aff is contestable

--a good ol' topical version of the aff that addresses impact turns

--impact framing arguments

--line by line refutation

--well developed impact turns to the neg's interpretation/TVA that don't apply to a counter interpretation

--counter interpretations that address some of the neg's clash/limits arguments

--slowing down when reading consecutive paragraphs of text you have typed for 2nr/2ar

Things I am less interested in:

--affs that are descriptive but not prescriptive -- it's easy to say something is bad, even in a very theoretically dense, educational, interesting way. the more difficult question is determining the best method (not picky about what this is) for addressing or approaching the problem described

--fairness as an impact in and of itself -- it's an internal link to an impact (in my default view, though I end up voting for it pretty frequently bc not well contested)

--long, pre-written "overviews" where you address none of the line by line (both sides are very bad about doing this)

(As an aside, if the aff says they'll defend they link to DA(s), I would always strongly prefer the neg take them up on a substantive debate. That's not to say the neg shouldn't go for framework if that's their heart's desire, only that I find a substantive debate more interesting.)

Counterplans:

Whatever re: the whole thing. I truly have no strong feelings/beliefs about conditionality either way, other than it'll be tough to win 1 is bad. But, I decide that like I decide all things: based on the arguments actually presented in the theory debate.

Exception to that -- perms are just no link arguments to the opportunity cost of the CP, so I will never vote that dropped perm theory arguments are a reason to reject the team.

DAs:

See plea for evidence and impact comparison above. When I get a stack of cards at the end of the debate, it's going to be annoying for both of us that I now just have to render judgment on each of them with no guidance.

Please make more smart, warranted analytics about why the DA is nonsense. A lot of DAs don't pass the test of being a complete argument if the full text of the cards are read and you just take a second to actually think about it.

I expect a high degree of technical proficiency in these debates.

Ks:

Can we please being doing more line by line?

Neg needs SPECIFICITY in your explanation of the aff. Highly specific cards to the aff are not necessary, though helpful, to make specific links, alt solves, turns case, root cause arguments etc. Reference/quote the aff's 1ac ev. Use historical examples. Make logical arguments.

What is the impact to the link in the context of turning/implicating the aff? If you can't answer this question I don't think the link is all that useful unless it's a top level thesis claim. The more contextual your explanation of every facet of the k is to the aff, the more likely you will win that part of the debate and the higher your speaker points will be.

Against policy affs, you will likely win a link, so focus your attentions on defeating the impact turns/case outweighs arguments from the jump. Opposite for k affs -- less focus on impact, instead focus on in depth contextual explanations of the link and how it turns the aff, the alt solves aff impact better, DAs to the perm that aren't just links to the aff, etc.

I almost always find the framework debate to be a huge waste of everyone's time. Both sides get to weigh their stuff -- there are NO debate theory arguments I find persuasive responding to that. Please just spend this time clashing over the substance of the K/aff (things like epistemology/discourse first are substantive arguments btw). This is my most biased opinion, in that it's the only place I consider intervening -- I will almost always err towards allowing both teams to access their substance, even if one team isn't doing very well on the fw debate. If I'm the only judge, feel free to spend VERY little time here.

Finally, almost every argument in the overview should/could be on the line by line.

When aff vs. the K, know thyself. Before the tournament you should know what you want the 2AR to be against Ks. Hint: it's probably not the perm if you're not reading a k aff

T:

Debates about reasonability are usually so shallow as to be meaningless.

Let me save you time:

You: "What did you think about [x argument/author name]"???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Me: "I didn't think about it that much because you didn't tell me to/you didn't speak about it enough or in a way that made it relevant to my decision making process."

However:

I do try to be thorough. Debaters have worked hard to get here, so it's my obligation to work hard to assess the debate.

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

This is the best cx I've ever seen and a very important video to me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rgzsO-AMM

Background: Georgetown University '23 & Northside College Prep '19

I competed in national circuit policy debate for seven years, qualifying for the NDT and the TOC. Currently coaching for Northside College Prep in Chicago and Richard Wright PCS in D.C (go urban debate leagues!).

Debate is not my full-time job; however, I do spend quite a bit of my free time coaching, judging, and cutting cards.

Yes, email chain: km1585(at)georgetown(dot)edu

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

TLDR: You do you. No one can be truly tabula rasa, however, I intend to evaluate the arguments at hand rather than default to my personal preferences. Preferences about specific arguments are my defaults in the absence of adequate argumentation.

Be respectful toward one another. I am not afraid to dock speaks for unnecessary ad hominems or things of that nature.

I really like when debaters emphasize important parts of their speeches. This does not mean yelling.

There is no way for me to verify things that happened outside of the debate so I will not vote on them.

If you make any argument about the other team cheating, you need to stake the debate on it. I will end the round there and give 25s + Ls to the offending team. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted 25s.

Evidence

Evidence quality matters a lot but only to the extent to which teams makes arguments about it. (Is the author qualified to speak on this issue (not an undergraduate)? Do they have an incentive to misrepresent certain information due to their own biases or otherwise? Is your article peer-reviewed?) However, I won't read cards from the speech doc UNLESS there is an unresolved back-and-forth on the evidence in question. I would highly prefer teams explained what their evidence says rather than asking me to read it afterwards.

Furthermore, explain the implications of qualification/date/etc when comparing. It's not enough to say "our evidence is more recent" without explaining why that matters.

Counterplans

I'm aff leaning on most competition questions - if you have doubts about whether your counterplan is competitive, make sure you are very confident in answering the perm. Conditionality is probably good and I'm generally OK with states (this does not mean you can just say "fiat" when responding to every aff answer). Theory debates on those questions are winnable, but should not be your first resort. Most theory arguments, aside from condo, are reasons to reject the argument not the team.

Disasdvantages

"Turns case" and "turns disad" arguments are usually under-explained, however, I'll reward thoughtful versions of these arguments even if analytical.

Topicality

Try to provide a clear picture of what debates will look like under the various interpretations in the debate. Negative teams will be best served by reading evidence that clearly substantiates their desired limit. Successful affirmative teams will have well thought out arguments about the intrinsic benefits of including their affirmative in the topic.

Kritiks

Specificity is a must, if not in evidence, then in application. I won't hesitate to vote on more generic or tricky arguments if they're dropped, but the bar is higher when the affirmative has a cogent answer. Affirmative teams should be ready with a good defense of what they say and do in the debate. Negative teams will benefit greatly with even a few well-thought-out case arguments.

The K is core neg ground against small affs. I’m unpersuaded by interps that exclude K arguments entirely. That said, I’m not great for FW interps that entirely exclude the plan. I believe neg teams must disprove the desirability of the plan, but not that they must do so solely with references to its narrow, fiated consequences.

I am very familiar with critiques of capitalism and settler colonialism, more so than I am with other genres of the K. Do with that what you will.

Performance/Plan-less/Other Labels

As above, do what you are best at and I will give the attention and thought I would any other argument. That being said, if you want to completely dispense with the plan-focused vision of the topic, you need a very compelling reason for doing so. In topicality/framework debates, clear links and clash at the impact level is most important. Simply saying the negative is denied disadvantages or the affirmative is denied ground is not sufficient. For the affirmative, your aff's solvency mechanism should not be an afterthought. For the negative, be sure to press on the scope of the aff's solvency claims as they are often disconnected from the impact.

Please add me to the thread: jmaximo@bostondebate.org

I debated with the Boston Debate League for three years in high school, representing Brighton High. I coached at English High during the 2015-2016 season and volunteered with/worked for the BDL as a tournament assistant and logistics intern for another couple seasons. I currently work for the Boston Debate League as their admin coordinator and as the volunteer manager "shadow".

I haven't actively judged in a long time and, as such, am not as familiar with what debaters are currently running.

Things that are important to me as a former UDL debater who was not hot sh*t but tried her best:

If you must spread, PLEASE be clear and signpost.If I can't understand you, it won't go on my flow. Debaters who give me a roadmap before every speech automatically get higher speaks from me.

Clash!!!!! Good evidence comparison!!!! Impact calculus!!!!

I will vote for any argument as long as you explain and can convince me as to why I should (and as long as it's not something completely absurd or harmful).

I love K debates but am not familiar with all the literature, so proceed at your own risk. Regardless of my familiarity with the lit, operate under the assumption I don't know anything and explain it to me like I'm 5!!

Not a fan of neg teams who run more than 4 OFF as a time suck strategy, but you do you.

I'm lazy and not nearly as good at this as any of you are, so tell me what my role is! Tell me how to evaluate the round! Don't make me do more work than I need to, pls.

Central '19-'23

Currently coaching for Central

Hi! I’m Cayden, I use they/them pronouns, please use them! I’m generally quite a neutral judge however I think that making debate an inclusive and fun space outweighs all else.

I have bad hearing so please speak extra loud and if it’s online, make sure your mic is clear!

My email is cayd3nhock3y12@gmail.com, stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com if there's an email chain I’d like to be on it for ease of everything. add

This note comes before anything in this paradigm and its at the top for a reason: Please just run whatever you feel best running. I would rather have you run something I’m generally not partial to well than something I like badly. The best debates come from people running what they know best, so do that!

MS/Nov notes-

1. What I said above about having fun in debates applies even more here, I coached MS and currently coach novice and truly just want it to be a positive experience for everyone involved!
2. Read a plan text! If you are going for a CP or K, read the CP text or alternative!
3. At the end of the day, my role in debate is to help you learn and grow, I am more than happy to answer any questions before or after the round, please feel free to email me if you think of questions after the tournament is over!!!

Some notes:

Pls no death good args in front of me. Also if your args have TW/CW let me know before the round starts please, not before the speech.

Judge Instruction-I think debate has lost a lot of what I think is one of the most important pieces which is the story of arguments. I am down for the tech level, but you are much more likely to get my vote with good judge instruction and consistently explaining the story of your args and how they shake out by the end of the round.

Spreading- Clarity comes first. I will be on the speech doc for the ease of things however I will not flow off the speech doc. If I cannot understand your tag, date, and author I will flow it as an analytic. I firmly believe that policy debate would be a far better activity without spreading, that isn’t to say I see no purpose in spreading, I absolutely understand it, but I do think it is bad for our education. If you are reading this and worried I won't be able to understand you, just slow down on your tags a little bit for me and we are good, I can flow you I pinky promise. I will also call clear three times for each person after that, if I can't understand you I won't flow it.

In round non debate stuff: I debated online for a year+ so trust me, I fully understand that “normal” policy debate ethos has gone out of the window, that being said, I would prefer if you do whatever you can so I can hear/understand you better as my hearing is not great. I also will not tolerate being explicitly rude in round. I was a very assertive debater myself so I’m not saying don’t be assertive, but don’t just be flat out rude, especially during cross. You will be getting your speaks docked. As stated earlier, debate should be fun and inclusive and I think that this is an important part of it.

Tech v Truth- Not gonna lie, unsure who is like a true truth>tech judge these days. I'm securely tech>truth, only spot that I think is a little bit closer towards truth is on bad IL chains on DAs. I also weigh arguments as new the first time they have a warrant, analytic or ev.

T- I am down for T however my standards on T impacts are higher than the avergae natcir and lower than localcir. I default to models but am also more likely to happily pull the trigger on in round abuse.

Ks- I ran Ks on both sides and love them over most policy arguments however I’m not going to try and claim to understand your complex literature I just have not read. If you are able to explain your K literature well to me I would love to see you run your K, however if you can’t, I’m not going to try and do the work for you. I also probably buy most no link args over bad link args BUT I do tend to give alt solvency a fair bit of leniency. I am down for you link you lose good or bad debates, down for most K args, not a fan of baudy or psycho but I'll judge em fairly I just won't be the happiest camper.

PTX DAs- I kinda hate them but I totally get that they are a very legit strat especially on the topic, but please be able to defend why PC is real.

CPs- Go for it. I ran a lot of these and see they have a place, that being said I’m also very open to hearing arguments against that. I think that on perm theory I’m pretty deadset neutral but I default to test of competition (idk any judges who don't anymore). I can also be convinced that X type of CPs are bad for debate if given good education and fairness arguments.

K Affs- I ran one, go crazy, love a good planless debate, love a good framework debate. Some of my favorite rounds have been performance style but also some of my least favorite have been bad K affs. I am probably not your best judge for a fairness bad round. Also, I have only ever heard one good death of debate argument and I think nearly all of the rest are not worth it in front of me.

FWK- I go through this first if its present and it will never be a "wash" for me. I default to a policy maker but also ran basically every fw under the sun so I am happy to be convinced otherwise. Please slow down on this once you get to the rebuttals and I love techy cross applications of other flows to fw.

Condo!- I go into each round deadset neutral on condo. I've seen teams win condo v a 1 off conditional advocacy and teams win v condo running 10+ conditional advocacies. I probably am truly deadset neutral on my own opinions around the 6 condo advocacies line, slightly more likely to vote aff once you hit the 10 off mark. All of this can be 100% changed by the round in front of me (obviously) just know these are the mental lines I think I have.

Theory in general- I am sad to say I feel like I need to add this because of Central. I will vote on most theory args, I defualt to condo good but that can be easily changed in round. I also think in round abuse args are always going to be the strongest but models of debate is fine too. At the end of the day though, just because I will vote on it doesn't make me happy to and your speaks will reflect that.

Also, unless the tournament rulebook specifies disclosure, please don't run disclosure theory in front of me, I believe that if you can win on disclosure theory, you can win on something else.

Atlanta Urban Debate League (UDL). Decatur, Ga. Currently I teach AP Lang and direct a small AUDL program without a ton of institutional support but in a previous life I coached mostly policy on the national circuit. In fact, I've been around long enough to see the activity go from notecards in ox boxes to xeroxed briefs to some computerized debates to having everything online. I prefer to flow on paper because that's how I learned back in the dark ages.

You can put me on the E mail chain: mcmahon.beth@gmail.com.

For UDL tournaments:

I am an old school policy coach and do not love the K (even though my teams do run it) because teams just read their blocks and don't evaluate the round. That said, if you run the K, awesome -- be ready to debate the line by line and go for something other than framework. See my note below about having an advocacy of some sort.

For the Barkley Forum: If you are in speech events, know that my background is in policy. If you are a policy debater, know that I haven't judged a lot of varsity debates this year so watch the topic specific acronyms. From what I've seen it will be fine but just wanted you to be aware.

Old stuff:

Current Urban Debate League coach (Atlanta/AUDL) but a long time ago (when we carried tubs, no one had a cell phone, and the K was still kinda new) I used to coach and judge on the national circuit. I took a sabbatical from coaching (had kids, came back, things have changed, no more tubs). I still flow on paper and probably always will. FYI -- I have not judged national circuit varsity debates consistently since 2008 when I worked at a now-defunct national circuit program that had some money for travel. I've been told I'm more tech over truth and although I enjoy listening to K debates I don't have a K background (my national circuit experience has all been old school policy so like DA plus case plus CP). If you are a K team I expect some sort of ADVOCACY not just a bunch of block reading and a framework dump. If you don't have a plan you still need to advocate FOR something. Theory dumps are very frustrating to me because I don't know how to evaluate the round.

Crystalizing the round in rebuttals is an important skill - especially in front of a judge like me that did not spend 8 weeks at camp nor has read all of the lit. Or maybe any of the lit. You absolutely will be more familiar with your evidence than I will so please don't expect that kind of deep dive into the post round discussion. There was a point in my life when I could have those discussions, but I'm not there anymore. I am however more likely to buy your case attacks or a topicality argument so there's that.

Notes for IE/LD -- I judge more policy debate than LD/IE/PF/Congress but at some point this year have judged all of the above. I tend to be more tech over truth with LD and am looking for some sort of impact analysis of the values presented. My policy team does not run the K and debates more traditionally -- one of the most underutilized strategies in LD is to debate the other team's case.

I have never judged nor debated before, therefore I don't have much of a paradigm to offer. I believe that debates should be fair, honest, and good-spirited. I am open to all arguments, but I believe it would be easier to judge a policy debate as opposed to a critique. Being a new judge, I am most concerned about being able to follow and understand your arguments. Quantity will not exceed quality. I plan to judge the debate on the merits of your arguments, not on how many arguments a team poses. Teams should respond to all arguments that the opposing team gives, however I think I would favor affirmatives or counterplans that have the bigger impacts. Being an inexperienced judge, your arguments have to be clear, concise, and connected. If a team does not provide roadmaps, it will make it nearly impossible for me to understand and consider all of their arguments. Speed will not help you with me. If I cannot understand what is being said, I cannot weigh the argument fairly. Run what you would like to run, I am open to any argument somebody presents. But, if it is against what I believe to be true, you will need to convince me that your argument is valid and I would need to reexamine my point of view. If you are able to do that, it is very possible that I would vote for your team. Being relatively new to debate, I will probably not reward teams that an experienced judge would. For example, if an argument is dropped, and experienced judge would likely notice, however, I may not. Therefore, the team that presents the best structured arguments, that are logical, and ring true with me, is most likely to get my vote.

rnix@bostondebate.org

Policy Debate Coach for 3 years at Edward M Kennedy (MA), now working for the Boston Debate League. I'm familiar with the resolution and most of the common policy Affs this year. I'm familiar with the more common K and Theory arguments, but if you're running a theory-heavy kritikal aff, do a little bit extra to make sure I understand your argument. I believe my role as the judge is to help both teams improve their arguments and learn from the round.

I go blank slate as best as possible, but I will vote down offensive arguments, and I will explain myself fully in my feedback if that is the reason why I voted you down. I will vote on anything, including K, T, Theory, FW.

Please extend your positions throughout the debate, if you drop an entire position in a speech, even if you bring it back later, I will vote on fairness/violation issues (but only if the other team actually explains the nature of the violation and why I should care that there was a violation in the round, I will do my best not to intervene). Violations won't lose you the debate, but they may cause me not to consider some of your arguments.

I will only ask to see evidence if there has been a direct challenge by the opposing team to it's content or validity.

Impact analysis is the debate round. Convince me why your impacts within your framework are best and why you best achieve your framework and you'll win the round. If one side drops framework, I will assume whatever framework the other team gives me. You need to do the work to weigh the most important arguments at the end of the round. It's safe to assume that if an argument was run and extended throughout the debate that I will at least minimally weigh it in my decision calc, so ultimately you need to explain to me why the summation of your impacts outweighs those of the other team.

I'm pretty good with speed, but volume is important, as long as you're loud enough we'll be all set. There is something to be said for emphasizing your most important points by extending them throughout the round and changing your tone when you present them. Otherwise I will assume everything you're saying has equal weight, which may not benefit you in the round.

Organization is important. Tell me which flow you're on and tell me when you move to something new. If you're giving a line-by-line, let me know, otherwise I'm going to flow everything straight down as an over/underview. I won't do the work for you on the flow.

Hi! I'm Kate and my pronouns are she/her. You can contact me or add me to the email chain at knozal@macalester.edu

Some background info for you:

I debated for Rosemount 2017-2021 and I have coached at Highland Park (St. Paul) since 2021. I am currently studying sociology and data science at Macalester College. I mostly judge on the local Minnesota circuit.

If I'm your judge:

First, I want you to enjoy debating and feel comfortable. If there is a way I can support you please don't hesitate to reach out beforehand or whenever a concern arises. I also really value education and I hope you do too. It will make me happy to see you doing your best to learn for yourself, and with your partner and opponents.

Second, I am looking for you to write the ballot for me in your last rebuttal. I don't want to have to do any work for debaters when writing my rfd so if you provide me with a clear way to evaluate impacts and how to resolve the round you will be in a great spot. With that being said, I vote off my flow but I'm not perfect, so it's your job to tell me where and what you want on my flow (aka signposting and clarity of speech are important). Tbh, I don't enjoy tricks or out spreading your opponent. I think the best rounds are when debaters are making smart and competitive choices but also considering others in the round and how you conduct yourself affects the community.

Other info about me as a judge:

As far as argument-specific questions go please feel free to reach out to me by email and I'll respond as soon as I can. My best advice to you is to read what you want to! Debates are way more fun when debaters care about and write their own arguments. When I was in high school I went for Ks on the aff and neg.

Name

Charles Palmer

Current institutional affiliation

Lincoln College Preparatory Academy, Kansas City, MO

Current role at institution

Head Debate Coach

Previous institutional affiliations and role

Foreign Language Academy - Head Debate Coach

Debating experience

High School Competitor and Head Coach

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate? (Possible answers may include: referee, policymaker, tabula rasa, stock issues, capable of effectuating change or educator). Please elaborate

I’m of the tabula rasa mindset. I accept all arguments and opponents should be prepared to clash with whatever is brought up in a debate round. I will vote for affirmative cases that have no plan or are not necessarily topical on its face if the negative team fails to win their arguments against these types of cases. It should be the ultimate goal of each team to be the most persuasive. My favorite debates are those with great clash and passionate speech. I have no issues with performance teams, but what they say will hold more weight than how they say it.

I will say that I tend to roll my eyes at most claims of 'abuse'. If you're going to claim that another team is abusive, there better be some real validity to it. Don't claim that you didn't have time to prepare for an Aff case that's been on open evidence since the beginning of the season. Additionally, racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other hateful types of comments or arguments will not be tolerated.

I do not count flash time or road maps against prep and debaters should keep their own time. I don’t expect debaters to share evidence with me, unless I request it for the purposes of determining validity or making a final decision, but the debaters should absolutely share evidence with one another. I will only consider arguments that are made from each debater and/ or read in evidence. Open cross-ex is fine, as long as both teams agree to it. Some speed is okay, but make sure I can understand your argument and include me on the speech drop or email chain.

My normal speaker point range is 20-30. I consider not only clarity and how well a debater speaks, but also how persuasive they are and the organization of their thoughts. It is on the debater to be clear from the beginning.

Most of my experience is with policy, but I do have some LD and PF experience. Persuade me.

Tabroom.com is mostly my fault. Therefore I'm out of the active coaching game, but occasionally will stick myself on a pref sheet as a free strike so I can judge in an emergency.

My history in the activity includes competing in parliamentary debate and extemp, coaching and judging a lot of extemp, PF, LD and some other IEs, policy and congress along the way. I've coached both champs and people who are lucky to win rounds, and respect both. I coached at Milton Academy, Newton South HS and Lexington HS in that order.

All: Racist, ableist, sexist, trans- or homophobic, or other directly exclusionary language and conduct is an auto-loss. Debate the debates, not the debater. I will apply my own standards/judgment, it's the only way I can enforce it.

Policy & LD: I'm not active but do regularly watch debates. I'm OK with your speed but not topic specific jargon. Be slower for tags and author names. If you're losing me I'll say clear a couple times, but eventually will give up flowing and you won't like what happens next. I won't lean on the docs to catch up and have zero shame in saying "I didn't get it so I didn't vote for it." If I don't understand it until the 2N/2AR I consider it new in the 2.

LD: I did a lot of LD in the late 90s until the mid 2000s, then mostly stopped, then started again at Lex and coached them for about eight years. So I'm comfy with both older-school framework debates and the LARP/policy arguments my kids mostly ran.

My threshold on theory tends to be high; dumb theory debates are part of why I stopped coaching LD. I wrote an article that people still card about how theory should be relegated to actual norm creation instead of tactical wins -- though if you card me as an attempt to flatter instead of actually understanding the point, I will probably be cross.

I also dislike debates about out of round conduct or issues. I can't judge based on anything that I did not see, such as disclosure theory, pre-round shenanigans, or "he said last debate that he'd do X and he didn't." I also will take a dim view towards post-rounding that crosses from questions into a 3AR/3NR and will adjust points to reflect that.

Don't tell me that the tab room won't let me do that. I can always do that.

K: I am sympathetic to K debate and its aims, and will frequently vote for it if it makes sense in the round, but Ks get no more gimme wins from me than any other argument. If it doesn't link or I don't get the impact or the alt sounds like we're supposed to stop all the world's troubles by singing campfire songs you'll probably lose.

I take a dim view on the type of K or identity debates that demand disclosure of identity from anyone in the room. I'm part of the LGBTQ spectrum, and when I was competing, I could not disclose that without risk to myself. I therefore flinch reflexively if you seem to demand to know anyone's place on various identity spectrums as the price of winning a debate. A place in debate should not be at the cost of their privacy.

That said, if you put your own identity in the round you therefore risk your identity being debated. Don't try to run a K and then call no tag-backs if someone tries to answer your stuff with your stuff.

Policy: I have less background in your activity than I do in LD. So I know the general outlines fine, as the events have converged, but I'm definitely going to need you to slow down just a titch especially if you're running the type of policy args that haven't crossed as much into LD, like T debates or specific theory/condo stuff. I'm very much not a fan of the politics debate and will have a very low threshold on no-link args, since I tend to believe politics almost never links anyway.

Also see the K section under LD.

PF: I mostly enjoy PF rounds and coached it as my only debate event for about 4 years at Newton South. I don't sneer at it like a lot of coaches from the LD/Policyverse might. However, there are a few things I really dislike that proliferate in PF.

1) Evidence shenanigans between speeches. Have your evidence ready for your opponent to read/review immediately. Your partner can create a doc while you speak, for crying out loud. If you fumble around with it and can't get your act together, you'll see your speaks dropping.

2) Evidence shenanigans during speeches. Look, PF speeches are short. I get it. But ultimately the decisions as to whether you're abusing evidence are mine to make and I will make them. Don't fabricate, make up, or infer things your evidence doesn't say because I will read and check anything that sounds suspicious to me, or your opponents call out. This includes PF Math™: taking numbers out of your ev and combining them in ways the author did not. I read a lot of news so the likelihood I know when you're making it up is rather high.

3) Good God most crossfires, especially the free-for-all at the end, make me want to stab my ears out. Here's where I import prejudices from LD and policy more than anything: cross is about setting up arguments and confirming things, not trying to corner and AHA! your opponents or sneaking in a third contention. Set up arguments, don't make them. If you try to extend something out of cross, that's not going to go well for you. If you are an obnoxious talking-show nitwit, that's REALLY not going to go well for you.

4) If you're playing the game of "Look How Circuit I Can Be Mr Policy/LD Judge!" and your opponent has zero idea of what's going on, I'm not impressed. Debate is engagement, and giving your opponent no chance to engage by design is pretty much an auto-loss in my book. That does not mean you should shy away from creative arguments. It means you must explain them so that everyone in the room can be expected to understand and engage with them as long as they're trying to.

UPDATED FOR THE THE GLENBROOKS 2023

uclabdb8@gmail.com

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***brief***
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. pen time on overviews matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue

**background**
identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. i now spend my time developing programming for Chicago's urban debate league. you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.

**disads/cps/case**
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- chicago
- udl
- coaching debate!

**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

Name: Yanelle Perez, YPerez03@dadeschools.net

Current Affiliation: Miami Urban Debate League- Miami Senior High School Coach

Conflicts: Miami Debate League

Debate Experience: 5 years as Highschool Coach

Preferences: on case arguments, disadvantage debating, topicality debates, and counterplan debates.

Dislike highly theoretical or philosophical arguments.

Stylistic preferences: closed, neat cross ex. Arguments should be ordered by importance, (i.e topicality first). When reading quickly signpost clearly to make it easier to follow.

Dislikes: sloppy cross examination, disorganized information, theory/violations arguments that are used preemptively as opposed to in response to an actual harm.

Ideal debate: on case or disadvantage centered, deals with stock issues. I enjoy policy v. policy debates.

Experience: Policy Debate (2 Years, But I still made it all the way to Urban Nationals Gurl)

Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School: 2016-18

Cal State Long Beach: 2018-19

Contact Info: elvispinedaten@gmail.com

In a nutshell: I'm a pretty open debater and I love hearing all types of arguments. Policy Arguments... love them, Critical Arguments... love them, just make sure to articulate your arguments because even something as simple as a Cap K are run differently from round to round. Uniqueness questions are good, Links need to be there, Impacts are vital (You don't know how many people forget to impact out their stuff... make sure you do because I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IM VOTING FOR, I will not feel bad voting you down if you have a great link story but no impacts) and I appreciate intellectual debate jargon. All in all I will vote on anything, it just has to make sense and you have to convince me why I should vote for you and not the opposing team (Cross-Analysis). I love debate; I believe its a form of academic expression and just remember to have fun and pour your hearts out on the battlefield. I'm not a point fairy but passion, effort and craft are highly rewarded as I highly value (as we all should) seeing students actively pushing themselves for both an academic and interpersonal growth!

K's: Know the literature, it'll make your clap-backs that much stronger and makes it easier to contextualize. Throughly explain the alt, I noticed that the alternative debate is always the least covered and if I don't throughly understand what I'm voting for... then the permutation becomes an easy option for me as long as I believe it is possible. LINK ANALYSIS WILL GO A LONG WAY... Just saying. I ran Queer, Ableism, Witchcraft and several CRT K's but I understand the post-modern ones as well (please don’t run baudrillard, I’ve already had to vote it up once --> Update: Twice).

K' Affs: I ran Critical affirmatives the majority of my debate career so I might already understand or be lenient towards some of the reasons why non-traditional affirmation might be good. HOWEVER!!! This doesn't mean that if you run a K Aff I'll automatically vote for you, I find myself voting on presumption arguments or framework a lot because sometimes the literature of the affirmative is so dense and either: A) I feel like there is an articulation issue (and thus disorder on the flow) because of the density of the material or B) The internal link chain which leads me to believe that the affirmative is a good idea might be fundamentally under developed.

Da's: Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. I like disads, make sure to be strategic, make them net-benefits to the Cp otherwise I do believe that the Squo is always a viable option.

Cp's: Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Have Net-benefits and show me solvency deficits (It'll make your life easier trust). No I won't judge kick the CP for you unless you explicitly tell me, i feel like it gives judge intervention way to much power.

T: Topicality is more than "aff is not topical". Tell me why that is bad? What do you lose access to? Prove to me why the aff's interpretation of debate is bad or abusive. If I can make those connections and you persuade me to prefer your model of debate, then its looking good for you and I'm very inclined to vote on it.

Framework: A lot of T applies here too, make sure to win why we need procedural fairness, why is the aff's model of debate bad for the debate community in general, Internal and External impacts are convincing, and also make sure to make those common FW arguments that prove you don't limit the aff. Framework to me also doesn't necessarily mean that "USFG means the 3 Branches of Government", even though its common and I don't mind seeing it, I feel like you can tailor so many framework arguments to work around the rhetorical offense affirmatives get with that interpretation.

Aff's: PROVE TO ME WHY WE NEED THE AFF! I need to know that there is a reason why you have to affirm what you are affirming and thats why you're doing it in a nontraditional way. Also prove to me why your model of debate is preferable to the neg's arguments. Just persuade me (Make me feel like I HAVE TO DO IT). In addition, anything performative should always be used... and offensively too. Don't waste precious 1AC time without utilizing it to the best of your advantage.

Case: I LOVE CASE DEBATE <3!!! I appreciate a good neg team that directly challenges the aff's warrants and their claims. So that being said... good case debate is appreciated and will be rewarded with higher speaks. Flush out them case turns (I'll gasp if its good)

Advise for the aff: Don't forget your 1AC, YOU SPEND 8/9 Minutes on it, please utilize it and utilize it as offensively as you can!

HAVE FUN! I love debate and I'm always happy and excited to watch y'alls debates!

GOOD LUCK!

John-Malik Radford (he/him) - University of Georgia c/o 2023 (A.B. Political Science)

For speech docs & questions: johnmalikradford@gmail.com

Current affiliations: Emory University & Atlanta Urban Debate League

Conflicts: Atlanta Urban Debate Leauge, Arabia Mountain High School

Debate Experiences:

High School: Debated with Arabia Mountain High School under the Atlanta Urban Debate League from 2015 to 2019. Competed in HS Novice and HS JV Divisions from 2015 to 2018. Competed in HS Varsity in 2019 and competed in two Nationals circuit debates (2018 Samford University Bishop Guild Tournament & 2019 NAUDL Championship at Georgetown University).

College: While I retired from the competitive college debate circuit, I was a member of the Phi Kappa Literary Society which is one of the University of Georgia's debate and oration societies. I was involved in this organization from 2019 to 2023. In addition to this, I was a Debate Camp Instructor during the summers of 2022 and 2023 at the Atlanta Urban Debate League Summer Insitute held at Emory University.

Post Grad: Currently I am a member of the Atlanta Urban Debate League's professional staff as the 2023-2024 Alex Zavell Debate Education Fellow. I do administrative work for the league as well as judge rounds on an at-need basis. I assist with prepping our volunteer judges before tournaments begin.

General Notes:

I am familiar with the 2023-2024 resolution to the extent of the AUDL's evidence. I prioritize deep explanations and nuances of the arguments being presented. I can adapt to evidence beyond what the AUDL provides as long as you take the time to explain your arguments thoroughly. While I am a couple of generations removed from the machinations of open debate and the national circuit, I have a fundamental understanding of how this structure works.

Debate whatever arguments you feel most comfortable arguing AND can reasonably explain. As a judge with a moderate amount of experience, try to debate as if both a layman and an expert were in the room. I really like strong and clear overviews, line-by-line, and signposting. I care about quality over quantity, so I'd rather see a few strong arguments rather than multiple weak arguments hasten together by fast spreading. I want to be able to clearly imagine both teams' supposed worldviews.

Tag teaming for cross-x is okay for me as long as it stays respectable and not overwhelming.

CURT RAKESTRAW – POLICY DEBATE JUDGE PHILOSOPHY

I’m Curt Rakestraw and I am the debate coach at White Station High School in Memphis, Tennessee, where I have coached for 10 years. I have coached policy debate for 15 years total. I teach AP US Government and Comparative Government at the school as well as running the debate program. I personally have no debate experience outside of coaching. I have been working with our debate league for 15 years, but I personally have never debated.

In a round, I am comfortable with debaters speaking as fast as they would like as long as I have their files so that I can read along on my laptop. Even then, it is absolutely necessary for you to make sure that I can hear and understand the main points of each of your issues. I don’t need to be able to understand every single word that you say, but if you want to make sure that I remember it at the end of the round, then make sure I hear it from you.

In the round, I will look for the affirmative team to convince me of both the need for something to be done, and that their plan is the best way to accomplish this. As a government teacher, I can’t help but put considerably more weight behind concrete arguments about policy as opposed to more philosophical arguments. I will expect the negative team to convince me that the affirmative plan is unnecessary by disproving one of the stock issues.

If in reading this philosophy, a debater may be trying to adjust as to how to sway me more easily, I would recommend a focus on the specific policy issues in the affirmative case.

I will keep the prep time unless both teams and I come to an agreement for teams to keep up with each other’s prep time. If I keep the prep time, I will give it out in minute, or 30 second increments in order to simplify my keeping track, but if the teams keep up with it, you may start and stop it as you need.

I will expect each speaker to flash the documents to me before the speech in order to be able to flow what they are saying. I can also do email, but that will depend on wifi access at the tournament.

I will give more weight to speakers during the rebuttals in terms of speaker points, as that’s where I expect to see the speakers really explain to me why I should vote for them. I will also consider how a speaker handles themselves in cross examination for speaker points , and in this I mean that I expect debaters to remain professional in any situation. I will end up reducing speaker points for debaters who are not polite and professional with each other, even in cross examination.

I will not read evidence after the debate round has taken place. Therefore, the debater needs to make sure not only that the evidence has been covered in speech, but that they have emphasized those important points to me. At the end of the round I will review my flow and I will look back to those stock issues. Debaters who have focused on why they should have won those issues in rebuttals will do the best job of swaying me as a judge.

The affirmative team must present a plan. I can be swayed by a persuasive Topicality argument – especially those that are about the involvement of the federal government. I can also be swayed by a good counterplan – one that can better solve the plan with a different actor particularly. I rarely am swayed by kritiks. I will consider anything introduced in to the debate round, but when the negative team veers off into philosophical territory, I am less interested, and therefore those arguments must be particularly strong in order to convince me that they impact the desirability of the plan. I have never witnessed a performance debate. I don’t actually know how I would react until I actually saw what it was, but it might be safer to avoid this type of debate style if I am the judge.

Remember the burden is on you to make sure that I understand what you are trying to argue. I am not going to be able to understand if you are relying simply on debate jargon. I am also happy to address any questions raised by this prior to the debate round when both teams are present in the room.

top-level

qualifications (AKA bragging rights & career highlights): i am a computer engineer and sociology double major in college. i was also the scout of the year at the 75th NDT online. i have cleared at 10 college policy debate tournaments starting with triples at the northwestern season closer for that year on alliances, and on antitrust i was double 2's in getting to doubles at the 2022 Texas Open. next 2 years i made it doubles as the 17th seed at end-of-year championships, for both the 2024 ADA tournament at indiana and the 77th NDT in 2023 in virginia on the legal rights for AI topic, and at both of those previous two championships i beat Michigan State GM during round 4 in an upset. also coached a team to clear at NAUDL on the NATO AI topic while i double 2'd during the 77th NDT during the same weekend. nothing exceptional but im happy with the mild success attained during my career.

speaker points: the only reason my inflation for speaker points is probably high if you look back at my speaks is because i think speaker point inflation has been wild. i cant fight it and i dont want to be the reason someone doesnt make it to elims on speaks, so i mean i give out decent speaks compared to most people. however though, that being said the trade-off here is that i will be probably more critical in the RFD and im direct and straightforward and outspoken so you can argue with me in the decision i dont care it doesnt bother me ill just respond back nicely and still be correct, but i dont mind some back and forth, im a debater too i get it. ultimately the impact i want my RFD and decision to have on you is simple.

i dont get paid enough to change your personal opinions, but i do get paid to give you an RFD which ur gonna hear approximately two and a half hours to three hours after you read this when you see my name on the pairing. My RFD is based on who i think won the Debate based on community consensus across the board. it reflects what i think most judges in the pool would think, not my own hot takes. i believe the judge should adapt to the debaters and i am aware of community consensus on most things and takes in the topic and community about logics and arguments. dont judge me based on what others say. time yourself please, and do not go over time because i will be timing so do not try it.

read whatever u want. seriously. i promise you i can judge any debate. i am very familiar with patent law and copyrights as i am a computer engineering major who debated on antitrust and legal rights. if you do run critiques, i hate when people call it "the K". we're not german. that's really my only personal pet peeve.otherwise, not super nitpicky, i have a real life outside debate. i honestly couldnt care less about 99% of peoples hot takes sorry.

novice things for the neg:

1 - split the block, novices always forget the negative has two back to back speeches (2nc and 1nr) and they should have completely separate arguments from one another (but should still be somewhat compatible or at least not contradictory otherwise it's a performative contradiction) but they should be totally separate positions, i.e. 2nc takes the counterplan and case, 1nr takes a disadvantage and kicks out of any other argument.

2 - the 2nr must choose and narrow down - you want a DA, or a case turn, or you could do a DA with a counterplan, but do not just go for a ton of different random unrelated arguments. please narrow down in the 2nr. if you sound all over the place, you're probably going to lose.

3- 1nc and 1nr should not need prep time - you should have your 1nc ready before the round, and after you finish asking questions to the 2ac you should immediately start working on the 1nr. i recommend the 2nc takes half of the prep time you have, and the 2nr takes the other half. the 1nr should have at least fifteen minutes to prep this way, and it should be a really good speech because you can take one position and just solidly answer every single argument they put on that one position, which in novice debate usually translates to a very winnable 2nr.

novice things for the affirmative:

1 - answer every position and try to not drop any flow (as in, any position - you can surely drop parts of a position in novice debate and be fine usually), think about how much time you need to spend on each one in advance and break it down.

2 - don't drop your case in any speech, and put case as the first thing in every affirmative speech. please do not drop their case turns in your 2ac. have blocks that respond to each off case position and if you can do at least that, you're good

3 - the 1ar only needs a couple good arguments on each flow so just pick and choose and go fast. the 1ar only needs to extend your case impact for 5-10 seconds, and solvency for 5-10 seconds - if you don't do at least that, then i have to vote neg on presumption.

varsity - ABC's

conditionality: unbiased, more in the camp that it depends on the number not the practice, unless aff goes for condo bad outright. 2nr for condo good obviously doesn't need as much as the 2ar's full speech of condo bad, you just need to beat 1ar because 2ar can't make new arguments that weren't in the 1ar. that being said, 2ar still has hindsight and i'll still evaluate ur cross-apps. i dont understand how people still think dispo solves because being able to straight turn multiple neg positions and forcing them to go for them seems untenable and perms only take a couple of seconds to say on each flow so you still have to make most of the arguments otherwise so just set counter-interp to less than theirs or say its bad outright.

cap good/bad: i think the aff link turn to cap bad on this topic is pretty good, and if your planless aff says cap is bad, then i honestly dont think that is offense (in and of itself) against framework if the neg team is competent and can win TVA or SSD, so just go for other DA's to framework in that scenario. you can obviously implicate capitalism in how they construct their impacts or ideals under their model with more nuanced explanations, im just saying that they will win you can say cap bad under their model too, so you should account for that. if you want to go for cap good and you think it is strategic in round, and it links to their alt/aff then i will vote on it if you win the link and impact calc.

cp theory: unbiased usually i dont care either way but generally if you can articulate specific abuse story for the type of counterplan they have it's winnable for the aff for me still but at the end of the day just be real with me about what the impact to their thing is, or if their model and interp is just bad go for that, neg teams should feel good if they justify what they do

critique: the more u talk about the aff the more likely i will vote for u. dont drop their answers to your super important things, i get that you can drop stuff but it makes me sad when they have an on-point answer that you pretended to not hear. collapse down on the offense and close doors for me.

answering the critique: your strategic vision, which are often times very basic arguments, are key. use your aff and answer alts, your strategy usually either needs link defense and perm or just really good offense on framework and your aff's impacts not turned by them or captured through alt solvency by them.

framework against critical affs: i will vote for whoever is doing the better debating about debate i promise less on cheap shots more on impact level, fairness clash education skills are all equally good impacts i am unbiased in terms of each. predictability is your friend and limits should frame how you describe the iteration of your model over the course of a year and otherwise it is an internal link to the above four impacts. testing turns case because refinement, ballot cannot solve because Debate doesnt shape things, their model links back to their own offense because its not intrinsic to reading plans, and mitigating their turns to the process of Debating because they fall back on relying on them in some way are the four key components of negative strategy in my opinion. i think Defense is good, for four examples, the TVA or SSD lets you absorb their impacts with your model, and people can say they dont solve their case with generic presumption pushes or particular conceded cards specific to something they have said that their aff relies on. i know aff will shift but something you have said will probably stick if you are smart and can actually engage with what they are saying.

disadvantages - fav arg on topic highkey, yeah i like inflation and politics. 1ar must answer turns case, uniqueness frames the link for me but i can be convinced otherwise thats fine. in a lot of situations, uniqueness usually either is so powerful it overwhelms the link or it loses to thumpers, so exploit that. i think you should frame conceded internal links against the relative probability of aff solvency or your impact defense on their advantage if you have any, or if you are pairing it with a counterplan thenframe it as any risk of a link to net benefit combined with sufficiency framing.

states counterplan - own section because sometimes it can be OP if states can do deficit spending because sometimes that solves every aff solvency deficit against the counterplan so i would say that it is a great generic but a clever aff team can certainly push back against the parameters for solvency.

topicality - biased towards thinking aff can tax because of wording but go for whatever you want, im cool with it. i won in a debate, beating michigan state's top team to topicality for my 2nr at the ndt for an aff about artificial intelligence on the legal rights topic. my only real bragging right i really care about.

theory - apart from CP theory and conditionality, i often think reject the arg not the team is a decent response to lots of them and i also am willing to hear defenses of some out there things, i think textual competition alone is not too good but in tandem with functional maybe not too bad, lit base usually checks abuse probably

final notes on strategy

good strategy: there are many different ways to view Debate which are all "good". i believe there are a lot of different ways to understand what "good" strategy is. i'm honestly tired of having opinions on lots of strategic disagreements between different sectors of the Debate community and i molded my brain so much over the years that i really don't have any strong opinions about which strategies are good, in a sense of what wins Debates, comparing community consensus to my own takes. i don't know what the "it" factor always is to win, but it's pretty obvious within the Debate.

Tech first makes sense obviously, but truth first isn't just what someone arbitrarily dictates is the truth on a personal level - it's the framing and narrative of the Debate that isn't just about technical coverage. Most of the time though when it's a simple Debate, Truth = Tech, because they end up being usually the exact same when the winning team goes for dropped arguments that are executed well and become true even when we might not agree on what the capital T Truth is. i care about you having your own arguments you focus on and also answering their arguments they focus on. i flow well enough to know when something is dropped, but good cross-applications can save you. giving a speech with more persuasive and narrative value even if you drop a minor blip is better because well-executed strategy always maximizes your chances of victory.

Don't worry about adjusting your strategy in front of me, unless you double turn yourself, not just multiple contradicting worlds. Debaters are already under enough stress as is at a debate tournament. Just debate well. i can recognize good debaters regardless of what argument you read and how you present yourself, so actually just be yourself and i can give you tips on how to just unlock your true potential based on what you already do, not based on what i want you to do. just go for the argument that is both the most technically sound decision because of lack of technical coverage, AND the argument that is the most coherent in general against the affirmative you're going for and would be your A-strat against the best team that could be reading that aff.

Defense-Offense or Offense-Defense as better known is intuitive to me because of how i have been coached in college, i divide arguments into Defense and Offense intuitively but i don't discriminate if your strategy is more of one than the other. i've seen teams prioritizing the latter in Debates and give incredibly difficult speeches to fight back against effectively even though sometimes i think they don't collapse down and instead extended way too many different pieces of offense. i've seen teams give largely Defensive speeches that i thought were pretty good too, and they were persuasive because they were directly responsive to the other team's primary arguments and largely controlled the direction of the Debate enough to actually determine the condition for the win. Most people do a mix, which is generally good, but interestingly i think different styles are conducive to different ratios of Defense to offense, if that makes sense. But don't overthink it - you should just do what you're already prepared to do.

My judging paradigm is pretty simple.....I want to see a good debate with a lot of clash. Take the argument, and give your response and your warrants. Tell me why that argument is a voter, why I should vote for your team. Why does the argument matter. For example, if you decide to present a philosophy that should be considered before the policy, then you need to tell me why that's important. How will it impact not only my decision, but the round.

I'm pretty much willing to listen to most arguments, but the debaters need to make it compelling. An hour of silent protest might be interesting for the debaters, but it isn't a very compelling argument. Debaters need to show respect for one another, not lose their temper, and show respect for what is a truly wonderful activity.

I'm a former competitor in Extemp and Public Forum. I've been coaching for around ten years. I teach world history in Atlanta. I haven't judged much policy debate but I've judged and coached plenty of speech, LD, Public Forum and World Schools.

Things I like: arguments with warrants, citations, consistent logic, argument extensions, relevant questions, speaking skills (good flow, clear, etc...), theory, speech roadmaps, evidence, etc...

Things I do not like: rudeness and arguments without citations and/or warrants.

Analytic arguments are fine for any of the debate events.

Worlds Schools - Do not spread.

Policy - Kritiks, disadvantages and topicality are all fine. I like line-by-line and clear organization in your speeches. For me, an ideal debate would be polite, insightful, and have some relevance to our current historical moment. It would represent the zeitgeist so to say.

If you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask.

mrobinson43@gmail.com

They/Them

Programming & Operations Coordinator for Denver Urban Debate League / Editor-in-Chief Champions Brief LD

For online rounds please put me on the chain. Email: DSSQ62@gmail.com

Been around debate for 20 years (4 years as a competitor the rest coaching). I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I can understand spreading at high speed unfortunately time is catching up to me and I can’t write/type as fast as I once could so I'll say clearer or slower a few times as needed in order to make sure I can actually flow what’s necessary.

*Slow down a bit for online debates. I flow off what i hear. Sound issues inevitably pop up and while I may have the doc just in case; this isn't an essay contest.

Lincoln Douglas

I'll evaluate the round based on how I flow it so run what you want for specifics see below. Please ask me questions if you want to know more.

Framework

I judge a lot of util debates which is fine but I'm up for any kind of framework debate. I like a good complicated Phil heavy round. Skep debates are sorely lacking nowadays so I'm all for them. Haven't heard a good skep round in awhile. Don't be afraid to run nihilistic frameworks in front of me. If you can warrant it and defend it I'll listen to it (so long as it's not racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic).

K's:

Run them please. Admittedly I'm more familiar with classical K literature like cap, bio power and some psychoanalysis. I enjoy a good postmodern Phil round but that doesn't mean I won't listen to other K's. Identity K's and stuff like that are totally fine but make sure you're really clear on the link and alt level. K aff's are fine as long as they can win reasonability on T.

Topicality:

I default to reasonability it's hard for me to say there is an objective limit on the topic when language has multiple meanings. Have good interps. Warranted interps that have an internal justification for why they're true will probably be better than a random dictionary. Random violations that you know your opponents meet but you run them anyway as a time suck are bad. I likely won't buy a contested RVI but a good I meet is probably enough for aff's to avoid any offense on T for me. T violations function as a gateway issue. If the aff isn't topical they likely will lose especially if there is a topical version of the aff. If the aff can give me a good warranted reason why they don't need to be topical I'll vote on it. The standards debate is important if you're gonna go for T you need to go all in and spend time here really explaining why your interpretation creates the best model/the aff isn't debatable.

Theory:

Not my favorite but necessary at times. It's structured the same as topicality and starts with a "T" but theory isn't T. I default to drop the argument in less you tell me otherwise. Theory comes immediately before the layer in which it is criticizing unless you tell me otherwise. Frivolous theory is real, it's when you could easily answer arguments but decide to read theory. This shouldn't be your go to in front of me but I will vote on it if you win it. I'll listen to RVIs on theory but it takes an awful lot of work or the other debater just dropping it for me to vote on them. Better route is just answer the theory quickly and get to substance.

CPs & DAs

Yes please. Make sure you have an explicit CP text with a solvency advocate. Debaters jump from links to impacts really quick nowadays. Don't forget about internal links. They help tell stories in the 2AR/NR. Conditionality is probably fine in front of me but I think anything beyond testing the aff once methodologically and once pedagogically (one CP and one K) is getting abusive.

*Tech over truth only goes so far. If your technically true argument is morally repugnant don't expect me to vote for it. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or transphobic that's likely gonna be an auto loss.

I am new to the world of debate. This is my first year with the Miami Dade Urban Debate League, as such I have limited experience judging. I am thorough though.

Likes: On case arguments, disadvantage debating, topicality debates, and counterplan debates. Well organized arguments; reiterated throughout.

Dislikes: Highly theoretical or philosophical arguments. Stick to the issues. Use of abbreviations, spell things out.

Stylistic preferences: Closed, neat cross ex. Arguments should be ordered by importance, (i.e topicality first). When reading quickly signpost clearly to make it easier to follow.

Ideal debate: On case or disadvantage centered, deals with stock issues.

adam.sirimarco@gmail.com for evidence threads

4 years HS policy debate

4 years college debate

6 years HS policy debate coaching in a not-so-modern circuit

Generally, I am open to almost any argument and will vote on anything if it is argued well. However, you should know the following:

• CPs/DAs/policy affs- This is my preferred strategy, but don't feel bound by this.
• Ks/performance - I am open to all critiques/performance arguments. However, I am not as familiar with your K literature as other critics. I mostly debated policy-based arguments when competing, my local circuit is not K-heavy, and I rarely judge blatantly non-topical K aff. Please don't hesitate to run these arguments for me if that's your game. Do what you do best. The framework, alternative, and advocacy need to be clear.
• Theory/T - I do not find T/theory cheap or less valuable than other arguments. I'm also open to arguments about why T is not a voter or any critique of T/theory. I'm open to all forms of CP theory debates. Make sure to tell me how you think the argument functions (drop the team, dismiss the argument, etc.). If not explained/argued, I will presume all CPs/Ks on the neg are conditional, perms are tests of competition rather than new advocacies, and theory is a reason to reject the argument rather than the team.
• Framework - I will not vote on defense alone unless you make a very convincing framework argument for status quo presumption. If not given a framework by the debaters, I default to a policymaker paradigm and weigh advantages against disadvantages in a traditional post-fiat universe. I am open to alternative frameworks if you argue them well. Whatever the framework, make sure you're doing impact calculus.
• Evidence - "Extend Piccone '18" is not an argument. Explain the warrants in your cards; don't just spit author names and dates at me in rebuttals. I typically don't look at evidence after the round unless there is a dispute about the evidence in the debate. Don't expect your evidence to do the work for you after the round.
• Technical proficiency - I'm not super techy. I care more about argument quality than technical proficiency, and I give teams leeway on technical mistakes.
• Speed - I'm not a huge fan of speed, but I permit and can flow it. I generally do not appreciate it as a mechanism to spread the other team out of the round in an attempt to win on drops. I think this is exclusionary and bad for the activity. That said, if both teams want a fast round, then have at it. I won't ignore drops (a dropped argument is functionally granted), and if neither team argues speed is a voting issue, I won't vote against you for going fast. Speed and clarity will be a consideration for speaker points.

Nikola (Nik) Stamenković Diez | (they/them)

Northwestern University '24 - John F. Kennedy HS '20 (Chicago Debates)

Email Chain (yes, add me): <nikola.stamdiez@gmail.com>

~Background/TL;DR~

Currently debate for Northwestern. Do what you do best. Gonna steal this from Buntin:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~Framework/Topicality~

What's your model of debate? Are models important? Fairness isn't an impact in of itself, but it could be if explained well. Limits is the most persuasive internal link. Impact calculus, argument comparison, and clash is central to these debates.

~Kritiks/Kritikal Affirmatives~

Specificity, a well-defined theory of power, and evidence comparison is important. Link work should be specific and contextualized to the aff. You don't have to win an alt in front of me. Judge instruction is key. Resist the K jargon. Long, obnoxious overviews are annoying. Don't assume my familiarity with the scholarship you're presenting, I want to see your explanation and reading of it. This is what makes debate fun & interesting!

Kritiks vs Policy Affs: Answering impact turns and defending against case outweighs arguments.

Kritiks vs K Affs: Make the link debate as specific and in-depth to the world of the affirmative. Work should also be done to explain why I should or shouldn't care if the alt solves the aff impact better along with substantial answers to DAs to your perms.

~Counterplans~

Counterplan competition is important. Competition can be garnered from cross-examination. Theory is great when debated well.

~Disads~

Properly explain each component of your DA and how it relates to the case. A good flushed out link story is necessary.

~Case~

1ACs are more likely than not terrible, absolutely terrible. I strongly believe teams should be debating the case. Whether or not it becomes entirely relevant or not at the end of the debate, case debating should be happening to some extent.

~Other~

Online debate: if my camera is off, assume I'm not in front of my computer.

Make the debate space safe. Show up, debate the arguments, learn, and make friends.

The easiest way to avoid misgendering individuals is using preferred names. Misgendering someone in or out of a debate round makes it astronomically more difficult to compete and perform at one's best.

Coach for St. Paul Central from 2021(water)->present

Pronouns are they/she

I would like to be on the email chain stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

Email for questions / contact: marshall.d.steele@gmail.com

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

Quick and easy for prefs/strikes

Clash judge that appreciates good judge instruction and is neutral on most things. Good judge for k/fw debates and probably not the best for lots of (no substance)pics. If you just wanna know my K aff thoughts I will happily vote on em but am friendly to TVAs and skeptical of a lot of SSD claims. Be nice and run arguments you like and we'll get along fine.

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

Paradigm In progress, feel free to ask anything not yet answered here.

"My ideal round is one where both teams are cordial and having fun. I think too often we attach our self-worth to the activity. My favorite thing about debate is the people I've met along the way. I hope that the trophies and placements at the end of the tournaments don't hurt our ability to appreciate the genius of ourselves and the people next to us. If any part of my paradigm limits your ability to enjoy the round, please let me know." - Melekh Akintola

Judging Takes:

PLEASE ACTUALLY LABEL YOUR FLOWS IN DOC AND IN SPEECH: I will dock points if you don't. its an accessibility issue and the minor time skew of clicking on the flow and coming up with a name isn't worth annoying your judge.

Judge Kick: I support it unless either side gives a reason not to.

Tech V Truth:Tech over truth but making overtly untrue arguments to get the other side to drop them isn't gonna be great for your speaks and doesn't make for persuasive argumentation.

Speed - I don't think judge lines on speed effect much. Just here to say I don't mind speed and can flow very fast rounds. If you are fast and unclear I will drop args off the flow and will feel 0 remorse. speed is a choice one that comes with the responsibility to still communicate your ideas. Not sure where else to put this but I will put something as new the first time I hear a warrant. i.e unwarranted claim from the bottom of the 1nc dropped in the 2ac still needs explanation in the block to win in the 2nr.

Framework - Im fine with framework, I've run both sides of it. Realistically every framework interp is self serving I really only care if you can defend *your* self serving model as better than theirs. If your model would be really messed up to read against people of a certain identity, maybe don't read it at all

Kritikal Affs - go for it. I like them, probably don't admit debate is just a game in cx and you'll have a better time. Don't assume I'll automatically understand your lit or import my analysis - same standard as any policy arg. If fairness is bad what offensive reason do I have to not flip a coin and vote how I feel?

Topicality - I'm pretty neutral on T. just please don't forget to at minimum say "voter for xyz" and I'm open to hear your interp of the topic. For 2023-24 I am probably leaning a little neg on T but thats speculative and open to change.

Counterplans - I think a lot of counterplans really test the limits of tech>truth with the actual text / claimed solvency mechanism. that said if the 2ac doesn't say anything I'll buy it. I don't have many strong opinions on counterplans. default to perms as a test of competition. Am generally not a fan of counterplans with 5+ (functionally contradictory) planks.

Kritiks - I like kritiks, I don't like how they tend to get argued. TLDR is please give me specific links and an articulation of the alt if you want me to vote on it. If not please actually give instruction on how you get a ballot. Generally a big fan of framework vs kritiks as I think a lot of kritiks tend to make valid analysis and give little reason to vote. The specificity of your arguments and how much you elaborate on them is gonna be big in front of me. Also like, probably don't read a K against an aff your authors are on record supporting(looking at you biopower teams).

Anything not listed above you can assume im mostly neutral on. As a final note on my judging philosophy, debate whatever you feel most comfortable with in front of me. An argument I don't like debated well is better than one I do debated poorly. Plus we all have more fun if your debating what you actually enjoy debating/feel comfortable with and that genuinely supersedes pretty much everything else listed on this paradigm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POINTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The most important things to know about my judging style and experience are as follows: - I'm in my third of year coaching in the Boston Debate League, so I'm most familiar with their cases on this topic (UBI, Federal Jobs Guarantee) and not as familiar with cases outside the BDL packet on this topic. - The most important arguments to me are the arguments that carry through to the end of the debate round - if something comes up in Constructives or CX, it needs to show up in the rebuttals for me to consider it in my decision. - I haven't done much varsity judging before in my three years of coaching. - I am most familiar with the structure of policy arguments.

**Conflict me if you have committed to attend Emory University**

Email chain: angrycornpeople@tabroom.gay | I want to get the same version of the speech doc that the other team does. If you are looking for email chains/speech docs from rounds I have judged (or anything else that requires a response), email me at acpdebate.forthis@simplelogin.co instead.

Name is pronounced ee-LEE-see-uh /iːliːsiː.ə/ (I don't care what you call me in the round but if you choose to say my name please say it correctly)

My conflicts are with Atlanta Urban Debate League teams (Decatur, Druid Hills, North Atlanta) + anyone committed to attend Emory.

___

Virtual debate: My home Internet sometimes doesn't like me, so feel free to let me know if I sound weird or look laggy. I keep my camera on, so assume I'm not at the computer/ask if I'm there if you don't see me (sometimes I forget about my webcam cover).

Income Inequality topic: Holding K affs to a much higher threshold for rejecting the resolution and expect advocacies to be in the direction of the topic. I think this is an extremely aff-skewed topic so I'll probably lean neg on all non-condo CP theory. More familiar with basic income and job guarantee lit (but I don't understand the nuances of MMT) than social security stuff.

____

tl;dr - I'm good for most styles of debate and am willing to vote on pretty much anything but disclosure theory and Heidegger. I regularly vote on arguments I disagree with. K debaters probably want to pref me higher and people who hate all kritikal arguments probably want to pref me lower or strike me.

___

Run whatever makes you comfortable. I will do my best to vote based on the flow and check my biases. That said, you should probably know what those biases are:

• I flow on paper and prefer not to look at speech docs. This means you should actually slow down on things like tags and analytics. I mostly only look at docs now to make sure one team hasn't altered the file to be harder for the other team to read or to give more specific feedback on the ballot.
• I get really grumpy about unorganized speeches. Speeches should follow the roadmap and have clear signposting. Tell me what to call your offcase positions--if I don't know what to title my flows I will be grumpy for the rest of the round.
• Speed is fine but a lot of y'all are not nearly as clear as you think you are. You should use transition words regardless of what speed you go at so I know when I should be writing something down (I cannot audibly distinguish emphasized text in the body of a card from a new tag).

• Please send speech docs as attached files (preferably as .docx/Word files rather than PDFs) and not links. I am happy to help you figure out how to export/download your Google Doc.

• This whole paradigm probably looks very truth > tech, but I am a tech > truth judge - but you must actually develop what got dropped instead of starting and ending with blippy arguments (i.e., dropped args = true args, but dropped claims are not the same as dropped args)
• Prep ends when you tell me you're saving and sending the speech doc. Honor system. I will always time prep myself, and if the times you say are much higher than mine, I will assume you are trying to steal prep. Any cards marked during the speech should be marked and sent out immediately after. I won't force CX to start until the other team has received a marked copy but I won't take prep while you mark it. If prep is not running and no one is speaking you should not be typing or writing.
• I think I tend to give lower speaker points than average, sorry. Sub-27 means you did something very offensive.

• Specific arguments**:
• ** Conditionality is not inherently good or bad. I do not have a set number of conditional advocacies I think should be allowed. Super contradictory positions I feel are not useful for education or fairness. Time skews are real but not an easy voter (I'd rather the aff point out how flimsy an underdeveloped argument is when answering it than try to win the round on condo; I agree with the neg position that time skews are possible/inevitable with or without condo). My default way of enacting RANT is to stick the neg with the position unless I'm told to do something else.
• ** Topicality (v policy affs): I care much more about if the plan is topical than if it's predictable (meaning I like unpredictable, creative, but topical affs and am willing to vote on T against a predictable, core aff that everyone knows). If you have a dubiously topical but predictable aff, you should spend more time telling me why predictability or whatever other standards you have are stronger internal links to fairness and education. Having a good caselist and/or Topical Version(s) of the Aff will go a long way in front of me. I will probably think your violation is ridiculous if it's not based on specific word(s) in the resolution or is based on generic words like "substantially", "increase/expand/decrease/reduce", or "should".
• ** PICs: Running a PIC isn't automatically a voter for me, but if specific in-round circumstances make things abusive, talk about it! (I think PICing/PIKing out of specific performances or authors on a K Aff can be a really good and exciting strategy in certain situations) I tend to either love (specific, creative) or hate PICs. I'm much more skeptical of word PICs and process CPs. If the whole perm defense is severance bad you better be able to actually explain what the perm specifically severs and why it affects fairness/education in the round.
• ** Generally the only CPs I like are single-plank advantage counterplans, but I don't think others are bad strategically or invite strong theory violations (except counterplans with lots of planks; if there are more planks than cards in the 1NC shell, go for theory in front of me).
• ** My default ROJ/ROB is to determine whether or not to do the aff and let the negative decide to argue against doing the aff however they want. Yes aff gets fiat, yes neg gets links to stuff beyond the plan text. That said, you can absolutely tell me what I should do in the round. I've run really funky/out-there FW args and am game for yours. I tend not to like FW interpretations that try to completely erase one side's argument. I particularly hate the "versus status quo or competitive policy option" 2AC interpretation but also don't believe in K FWs that tell me not to even consider the aff. Good K debates should be able to use the logic of the K to explain why the affirmative is outweighed/can't solve/reproduces certain things/etc.; I'll use one of these interpretations if it's the only one extended or wins reasons to prefer, but I don't think they're good for debate. I tend to care way more about education than fairness.
• **I will very happily vote neg on presumption if you're winning the case debate.
• ** K affs: I'm game for K affs with or without a plan (it should still be clear from the 1AC what an aff ballot means), but you need to defend why not being topical is good/doesn't matter and your aff needs to actually solve impacts that you talk about in the 1AC. Your ROB/FW should still have some way for the negative to engage. If it engages the topic I'll be excited. I'm probably more permissive than most if your aff doesn't use the USFG but is about the topic. I'll vote on T-USFG/FW, but I expect both sides to actually argue why their model/standards are better than the other team's, not just that one is good/bad for debate (y'all are both gonna say that anyway). Please don't attach the ballot to an affirmation of your life, that makes me extremely uncomfortable and makes it significantly harder for the other team to engage.
• ** Don't assume I know the literature base for whatever you're running. That said, I'm generally familiar with some kritikal literature (particularly identity stuff, Marx, Foucault). Warren and Wilderson were my bread and butter. I am NOT very familiar with high theory stuff like Baudrillard or Deleuze & Guattari.
• *** If the other team runs Heidegger (or any other known Nazi), you can make that a voting issue in front of me.
• Telling another team to quit policy debate/go do another activity will make me very angry. This activity already has enough barriers to full participation.
• I'm autistic so don't read too much into my face or tone of voice. They're just like that.
• I'm not saying CLEAR if you're unclear but I will always do my best to flow. If the other team is barely comprehensible, call that out and I'll give you a lot more leeway on answering.

• Tag teaming in CX is fine, just don't steamroll your partner.
• I will not vote on disclosure theory. If you gotta bring it up use it to bolster your predictability argument. That said, if your aff is intentionally not topical, I think you should put it on the wiki after you've read it in a round for the first time or it will really hurt your debate-space education/spillover arguments.
• Troll arguments are fine if both sides agree. If you commit to it I'll probably be willing to vote on it.
• If you try to out another person/force them to disclose whether or not they're queer in round, I will intervene, drop you, and talk to your coach. You should never do this in any context.
• Accusations of card clipping need to be backed up with a recording and will immediately decide the round based on the guidelines in the Unified High Schools Manual unless the tournament has given judges specific instructions on how to resolve clipping. I'm more likely to make an exception to this at an educational tournament like a camp.
• If I can do anything to make the round more accessible, let me know.

___

My competitive background is 100% HS policy mostly as a 1-off K (antiblackness) debater, but other teams often told me I should quit and do LD if I wanted to talk about race. Interpret that however you'd like. I've run traditional big policy affs, a smaller policy aff, and (non-performance) K affs. While antiblackness kritiks were my go-to as a 2N, I have run disads, counterplans, and T. My coaches were Ross Gordon, Erik Mathis, and Clay Stewart. As a judge, I have mostly seen HS policy rounds but have a little experience with college British Parliamentary/Worlds debate. I now work for the Atlanta Urban Debate League and mostly judge there. I see my role in the world of debate as that of an educator and I do believe in the potential for education to spillover outside of rounds.

Other paradigms I generally like (in order):

Misa Stekl

Nick Sciullo

John Turner

Solomon Watson

Manny Navarrete (particularly policy v policy)

Mike Demers

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

David Trigaux

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

Director, Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

15 Sec Summary:

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

Recent Update: 2/6/24

1. **New Pet Peeve** Plan / Counterplan Flaws: The plan text / advocacy statement is the focus of the exchange -- you should put some effort into writing it, wording it correctly, etc. I've found myself very persuadable by plan flaw arguments if a substantive normal means argument can be made, and heavily reward the wit and research to prepare such arguments. Obviously flawed texts just come off as lazy, sketchy, or both. This also includes circular plan texts -- "we should do X, via a method that makes X successful" isn't a plan text, it's wishful thinking, but unfortunately repeatedly found in 3-1 debates at TOC qualifiers.

Accessibility:

I run an Urban Debate League; debate is my full-time job. I work with 700+ students per season, ranging from brand new ES and MS students refining their literacy skills and speaking in front of someone else for the first time to national circuit teams looking to innovate and reach the TOC. Both debaters are equally valuable members of the community and accessibility is a big issue for me. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship and strategies as presented to me in round, but folks gotta be able to get into the space and be reasonably comfortable first.

5 Min Before Round Notes:

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

Ways to Lose Rounds / Speaker Points:

1. Being Mean -- I am very flexible with speaker points, heavily rewarding good research, wit, and humor, and am very willing to nuke your speaker points or stop the round if you are demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.
2. Leave D.C. Out: Don't leave D.C. out of your States CP Text or other relevant advocacy statements. Its bad policy writing, and continues a racialized history of erasure and abuse of the 750,000 + majority black residents who live here and experience taxation without representation. Don't perpetuate it.
3. Make Debate Less Accessible: I run an Urban Debate League; it is my professional responsibility to make debate more accessible.
1. If you erect a barrier to accessing this activity for someone else, I will vote you down, give you the lowest possible speaker points, report you to TAB, complain to your coach, and anything else I can think of to make your time at this tournament less enjoyable and successful.
2. This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own) when in person. This is a big accessibility question for the activity that gets overlooked a lot especially post pandemic, many of our debaters still use paper files.
4. Rude Post-Rounding (especially if it is by someone who didn't watch the round): I will contact tab and vigorously reduce speaker points for your team after submission.
5. Multi-Minute Overviews: Don't.
6. Extinction Good: Don't be a troll, get a better strategy that isn't laced with nasty racial undertones. This is a place where theory makes sense -- show me why they don't give you another choice.
7. Intentionally Trolly High Theory or Technobabble Arguments: If you just want to demonstrate how good you are that you can make up nonsense and win anyway, strike me. There should be a point to what you say which contributes to our understanding of the world.
8. Highly Inaccurate Email Chains: Unfortunately, some folks put a giant pile of cards they couldn’t possibly get through in the email chain, and skip around to the point of confusion, making refutation (and flowing) difficult. It’s lazy at best and a cheap move at worst and will impact your speaks if I feel like it is intentional.
9. **New Pet Peeve** Plan / Counterplan Flaws: The plan text / advocacy statement is the focus of the exchange -- you should put some effort into writing it, wording it correctly, etc. I've found myself very persuadable by plan flaw arguments if a substantive normal means argument can be made. It just comes off as lazy, sketchy, or both. This also includes circular plan texts -- "we should do X, via a method that makes X successful" isn't a plan text, it's wishful thinking, but unfortunately repeatedly found in 3-1 debates at TOC qualifiers.

In the Weeds

Disadvantages:

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

o Do:

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

o Don’t:

§ Read something random off Open Ev, Read an Elections DA after the election / not know when an election is, or be wrong about what the bill you are talking about does on Agenda Politics DAs. I wouldn't have to put it here if it didn't keep happening folks....

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

Counterplans:

· I like a substantive counterplan debate.

o Do:

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

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

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

o Don’t:

§ Forget to perm.

§ Fake a net benefit

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

Procedurals/Topicality:

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

o Do:

§ Prove harm

§ Have qualified evidence and intent to define

§ Slow down. Less jargon, more examples

§ Creative Violations

o Don’t:

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

Case Debate:

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

o Do:

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

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

o Don’t:

§ Concede the case for no reason

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

Kritiks:

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

o Do:

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

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

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

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

o Don’t:

§ Read hybrid Ks whose authors wouldn't agree with one another and don't have a consistent theory of power.

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

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

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

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

Public Forum: (Inspired by Sim Low, couldn't have said it better)

I'm sorry that you're unlucky enough to get me as a judge. Something went wrong in tournament admin, and they made me feel guilty enough that I haven't found a way to get out of judging this round.

I did enough congress and LD in high school to assure you I am not a policy debate supremacist from a lack of exposure to other formats, but because peer reviewed research says that it is the most educational and rigorous format that benefits its participants. I also find the growing popularity of the format that is proud of its anti-intellectualism and despite research that shows it is discriminatory against women and minorities reprehensible.

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

    My basic preference is for well explained and impacted arguments over techie line-by-line tricks. Basically, if you want me to vote on an argument, then the argument should be a substantial chunk of your speech and not a one liner on the flow. Slow it down and explain your arg. I'm not saying I won't listen to speed; I am saying in most debates fast doesn't equal better. Debate isn't Costco - More Cards/Arguments are Not Necessarily Desirable.

 

The Specifics: Topicality & Theory - I am ok with some T debate. Make sure the violation is clear and the substance of the debate is worthy of the time you are putting into it. Other theory is mostly a non-starter for me. I don't vote on the specs. If you are going for theory (not topicality), then you probably aren't winning this round.

 

Disads - The key to a good DA debate is impact calculus.

 

Counter-plans - Sure, why not? I'm a policy maker at heart.I err neg on all counter-plan theory. Basically, Counter-plan theory, for the most part, is a non-starter with me.

 

Kritiks - I'm not a fan of generic kritiks and rarely vote for a kritik without a plan specific link. If your idea of a good argument is Zizek, Nietzsche, or any generic K, then I'm not your judge. In terms of framework, I err negative. The K is part of debate - accept this and debate it. Use your aff against it.

 

Performance Aff's - I believe the aff should defend a clear USFG should policy. I am a policy maker.

Current Emory University (Barkley Forum) Policy debater, qualified to nats in BQ, South Florida debater

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

Speaker Point Scale:

< 25 = You said something incredibly offensive and I'm considering dropping you on face value.

25-25.5 = You definitely have room for improvement.

26-27.5 = You’re an alright speaker and might even break.

28-28.5 = You’re a great speaker and will probably break.

29-29.5 = You might be in contention for a speaker award with speeches that good.

30 = You impressed/entertained me in such a way that I had no choice but to give you the maximum amount of points.

T - Go full T in final speech

K - If I can't explain it back to you clearly, then I don't vote for it

DA/CP - Standard procedure

GeneralParadigm: I consider myself a policymaker. I don't like voting against stock issues such as inherency, solvency, etc. Speed: I need to be able to flow what you are saying. Please enunciate/ articulate. If I'm not flowing then you need to slow down. Stylistic Preferences: 1. Line by line rebuttals 2.sign posting when switching from on case to off case arguments. 3.off the clock roadmaps. 4. underviews that help me understand what you're talking about.

Scott Warrow

Debate Philosophy Statement

I have been judging, teaching, and coaching policy debate for over 30 years at a variety of schools in Michigan and have always been open to a variety of arguments so as long as they are well-development and explained. Arguments need to be reasonably well understood by the debaters, more than just reading of tagline and evidence, debaters need to be able to explain the interconnectedness between arguments on and issues, the relationship between different issues, and the framing of the debate with a coherent narrative. Providing multiple avenues to show how you win and why relative to the opposing team, with the assumption that you may not win every argument, is critical to sound argumentation and my ballot.

I do like a well-developed and explained Kritik (AFF or NEG) debate. Don’t assume that I know what you are talking about or have read up on what is trending in the national circuit. I am familiar with popular Ks (Capitalism, Security, ect) and like creative thinking. But I don’t tend to fill in the holes with my own interpretation. So, a lackluster, undeveloped K does you more harm than good. That said, comparatively I do prefer policy-based debates that are strategic and thoughtful. I am not a fan of a negative team that runs eight off, with external contradictory positions. I am also not a fan of an Aff with a slew of undeveloped Advantages. Perhaps my least favorite group of arguments is theory debates. I often find them confusing and a regurgitation of taglines. Unless purposeful and strategic or completely dropped, I tend not to vote for a team to win the round on theory. Topicality, on the other hand, if thoroughly argued, I enjoy listening, however; it hard for me to vote Neg on T for a mainstream Aff that has been run all year.

Also, It is very important that debaters compare evidence and a weigh issues and arguments in rebuttals. I won't do it for you unless you leave me no choice. The line by line is important, but I am not going to vote on an undeveloped argument just because it is dropped on the flow. I need to be able to understand the arguments and evidence clearly in the context of the whole debater.

Finally, show respect, have fun, learn, and grow, and do your best. You can ask me any questions.

Hi all :)

I am the head coach of Parkrose High School and am also assistant debate coach for Sam Barlow High School, both in the Portland, OR area. At Parkrose, I primarily coach policy for the Oregon/NAUDL/Nat Cir. but I have students who do IE's and other debate events. For Sam Barlow, I specifically coach their WSD team.

I did policy debate in high school and parli (NPDA) in college, nat cir. I have either debated, debated against or am familiar with most, if not all, arguments out there. I spent my time debating policy and k arguments pretty equally - but maybe more k heavy - both on the aff and neg. I judge on the tech and flow of the debate and will hear any argument you can justify - with some exceptions (ex: don't impact turn racism or say feminism doesn't matter (I have seen it happen, don't be that person, I will do anything from vote you down and tank your speaks to potentially, depending on the round, report you to tab). Have fun with it, I love to hear fun and interesting stuff :) I will also be happy hearing a policy aff and a DA / CP / T debate. Don't feel like you have to get fancy with it if it's not the best strategic choice for you. I want to hear whatever will make the best debate possible. Debate the topic, don't debate the topic, reject the topic, whatever you choose to do, just be prepared to do it well. I also encourage the use of alternative modalities if that's something you like to do. I want to create a space where you can say what you want and feel free to run any arguments you would like. If you have any other questions about any specific arguments or types of arguments, please ask before the round.

Speed - I am just getting back into debate after a few years off so please take it a ~little~ slower on tags and non-carded arguments than you normally would, for your sake. Feel free to still spread but on tags, analytics, and theory arguments please slow down a tiny bit, especially with theory. I was a very fast debater and I understand the need to go as quick as you can (little time, lots of args) but I am a little out-of-practice with debate speed and do not want to miss anything that could be important to you later on. This is mainly targeted at extremely fast debaters, if you don't feel like you're in the top percentiles of speed, you're probably fine.

Signposting - I feel like the vast majority of HS debaters do not know how to speak in a way that signals to the judge with clarity when they are moving to different arguments down the flow. I should, in general, be able to tell where you are based on what you're saying but HS debates can be very messy, so please, do make it as clear for me as possible. Verbally signaling, whether through just saying where you're at and what you're responding to, saying "next" in between args, or using other tone/volume/pausing indicators (more advanced skill), make sure you're letting me know in some capacity where to write an argument. If I don't have to spend time figuring out where you are on the flow, it not only looks a lot better on you but it also means I can hear more warrants / examples etc. in depth and overall makes it a lot easier for you to win the debate. Tell me when you're on the link level or the alternative or the perm debate.

Pet Peeves:

1. Being ~too~ aggressive in cross-ex. Cross-ex can get heated. I have been there, and I understand that sometimes it's just part of debate, but sometimes, there are times when it clearly goes beyond being competitive. From a judge perspective, aggression in cross-ex can come off anywhere from being passionate and competitive to being condescending, demeaning, and potentially misogynist. You are in control of how you treat others within the debate space. We all create the environment that is "the debate space", make sure you are acting in alignment with what you think it should look like.
2. Running things you don't know. I understand that it can be difficult to know all in the ins and outs of an argument when breaking it for the first time. I also get wanting to try new things that you may not know all that much about. But, it's very easy to tell when someone is reading an argument they know next to nothing about and are betting that they know just enough to beat someone knows nothing about it. I don't think it produces very good debates and is often a strategy used to avoid meaningful clash. (this is mainly about k's - if you're going to read a k, please AT LEAST be able to explain the link and alternative in your own words as well as how it relates to the topic/aff).
3. Extending arguments without actually explaining the argument. If you're extending an argument / author, I need at the very least the claim + warrant and how this argument functions in the debate. You can extend a card that says "x" but if I don't have an extension of x bc y and this is important bc a + b, then it makes the debate hallow and very circular. I find that high school policy debaters have the biggest problem doing this well because of the reliance on cards and evidence. For example, do not just say "extend the link" say "extend (insert author) who says (insert claim + warrant). the aff is doing (insert plan / part of plan the offcase position links to) which relates to (what author says) in xyz way which creates ~whatever impact~". I get that everyone is pressed for time but the work done on these explanations in the constructives are important and set up the rest of the debate if done properly.

General thoughts:

As a judge for policy debate, I am not comfortable with debaters spreading. I will warn debaters once about clarity, and speed, after that speaker points will decline and flow accuracy will be in question. I am not well versed in debate lingo, but I can give a common RFD. My paradigm is centered around fairness, critical analysis, and effective communication. I approach each round with an open mind and evaluate the arguments presented based on their merits. Here is a breakdown of my judge's paradigm:

1. Fairness and Impartiality:

- I strive to be an impartial and unbiased judge, evaluating the round solely on the arguments presented by the debaters.

- I expect debaters to adhere to the rules and norms of policy debate, and I will enforce them to ensure fairness for all participants.

- I am open to hearing new and innovative arguments, but they must align with the established rules and standards of the debate.

2. Critical Analysis and Evaluation:

- I carefully evaluate the quality and strength of the arguments presented by each team.

- I prioritize well-reasoned and logical arguments that are supported by credible evidence and analysis.

- I expect debaters to clearly articulate their positions, provide logical reasoning, and respond effectively to their opponent's arguments.

3. Communication and Presentation:

- I value clear and effective communication in debate rounds.

- I expect debaters to present their arguments in a manner that is easy to understand, well-organized, and persuasive.

- I appreciate debaters who actively listen, respond thoughtfully to their opponent's arguments, and engage in respectful cross-examination.

4. Respectful Conduct and Sportsmanship:

- I expect debaters to engage in respectful and civil discourse throughout the round.

- I appreciate debaters who demonstrate good sportsmanship by respecting their opponents and engaging in constructive dialogue.

• I will not tolerate personal attacks, disrespectful behavior, or discrimination in the debate round.

5. Clarity and Organization: I appreciate clear and well-organized arguments, use logical reasoning, and present their arguments in a structured manner.

6. Evidence and Analysis: I value evidence-based as well as current events arguments I appreciate thorough analysis of the evidence presented.

7. Clash and Rebuttal: I want to see debaters engage in meaningful clash and rebuttal. I expect debaters to respond to their opponent's arguments, identify weaknesses in their opponent's case, and provide counterarguments. I see the value in debaters who can effectively refute their opponent's arguments and defend their position.

8. Persuasiveness and Impact: I look for debaters who can persuade me with compelling arguments. I appreciate debaters who can explain the importance and implications of their arguments and show how they relate to the overall debate topic. I want to see debaters who can effectively communicate their ideas and convince me of the merits of their position.