Groves Falcon Invitational
2015 — MI/US
Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hideshe/her
coached high school policy at Portage Northern HS, MI 2013-2015, affiliated with Edina HS, MN 2016-2020
3rd year judging PF, 8th year judging policy
i'm fine with speed (see policy experience)
will vote on any type of argument if it's run well, like actually *any* type
flow-heavy judge - line-by-line is v. important AND i expect some macro-level explanation on how i weigh values in the debate, sticky defense is fine
final focus: answer the question,"why am i signing this ballot for you today?"
extensions: i prefer explicit clash on priority-level arguments, that said I'm conscious of your time
argument over style, 80%/20%
"Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in grand or FF?" no
Please ask me questions if you have them!!!!
I'm flexible but I have a very low threshold for disrespect - esp. important in PF
Impact Calc.
Show me why your argument is better
I will vote for anything as long as it is explained
I like ethos inside of the debate
please say "next" in-between cards
do some kind of impact interaction
explain why I should vote
if all is done u should win
Have good document organization and sign posting
Jordanbranch91@gmail.com for email chains
Background
Debated a year for Petoskey
MSU 2018, currently debating
Email Chain
Please use one and put me on it: waynec5119@gmail.com
Email>Pocketbox but I won't be bitter.
Clipping
Seems to be a problem. If you do it and if I catch you, then I will drop you.
Pre-round synopsis
I don't think anything in my paradigm deviates from the norm enough for you to spend pre-round prep reading it. I could be wrong.
You should debate what you are best at. I’ve voted for every genre of argument. There are some arguments my record seems to favor, but I don't think it's usually significant enough to justify a change in your strategy.
I think the primary purpose of debate is and should be to learn, research, and make reasoned arguments about a contested resolution. As such, I try to defer to what is actually debated and often vote against what I think is true.
Other predispositions written below are thoughts I have about arguments in the abstract. That is all it is and sometimes it changes faster than this page gets edited. I think it's pretty reliable though.
Topicality
I’ve done some preseason research on the topic and judged some debates, but I don’t have a strong normative predisposition about what the topic should look like. If you want to win on topicality, you should use the opportunity to craft that vision for me. “Core of the topic” cues are not something that will click as well with me because I don’t have a strong vision of what that should be/is.
K Affs/FW
Affs should have, at least, some sort of fundamental relationship to the topic.
I'm not sure if fairness is an intrinsic good.
I don't see a strong connection between debating a topical plan and producing activism or better activism. I'm more amenable to predictable limits arguments, and the education that those limits are more likely to consistently produce I do think is an intrinsic good.
I think I vote aff when the 2NR goes for FW >60% of the time. This isn’t because I dislike FW, but because a lot of the time the aff has a set of impact-turns to FW that they win the technical debate on. I think that a good defense of why the neg’s interp doesn’t preclude the themes of the aff coupled with impact calculus can remedy that.
Competing methodologies is persuasive... I think the aff getting to apply traditional standards of competition into K debate makes it very difficult to be negative.
Kritiks
I’m really frustrated with some of Michigan’s reliance of super generic kritiks that rely on links of omission or really non-central assumptions of the aff in order to win. I don’t hate all kritik debates…. I don’t think… I just would prefer it if the debates were more case-specific.
Case Debates
Are something that Michigan debate needs more of— even if you debate kritikally. A lot of affirmatives’ internal links don’t stand to scrutiny and smart analytical presses early on go a long way and increase your speaker points.
Theory/CPs
Unless it’s perf con and/or conditionality, it’s almost always a reason to reject the argument. Process/agent/condition counterplans are probably bad. PICs I’m down with if they exclude large enough portions of the aff such that the aff should seem to have to defend them. Heavily neg on conditionality. I lean more neg than I otherwise would on all theory questions if it's a new aff or if it is not a new aff but is still undisclosed (that last bit is more Michigan-specific).
Presumption
Is towards less change
Impact Calc.
Explain why your argument is better (break it down to what's wrong with their plan/ arguement, how you solve or they do not solve)
ethos is good but I want logos and pathos as well.
I vote for anything as long as you tell me why it wins
Please be clear on the tags
Open paradigm/ no predispositions
Im fine with
Spreading, Kritiks, K -Affs, Performance, Policy
Background: So I debated at H.H. Dow for 3 years and just recently started with coaching with the team. Fun Fun. I debated on a Varsity varsity level so most things that you run I will probably be able to understand. I know some of the topic due to me going to tournaments but I'm not as familiar with all of the cases and what they do, or literally any of the abbreviations, so some explanation during round would be much appreciated. :). Pokemon, Mtg, Dota, LoL, Anime... Love it all.
Truth/Tech: Basically I prefer tech. Its how I was taught to debate and so its likely that I will evaluate the round in that way. However, don't be discouraged from running anything in the Truth realm. Just because i prefer tech does NOT mean that I won't evaluate or look to during round or while making the decision. I.E. I'll probably disagree with Racism/Sexism/etc. good. Duh.
T: T was like my favorite argument but it seems to be a bit less common this year. Just because its my favorite dont feel like you have to run it, especially because if you don't do enough work on it then it really wasn't worth running anyway. To win the T-flow for me you have to win the top, not the bottom (Although winning both wont hurt (: ). I'm totally fine with Extra/Effects and K of T's, but if you can't articulate it then I probably wont vote on it. I don't think Potential Abuse is a voter and I also won't vote on an RVI.
Case Stuff: Do a good job on your case. Your strongest cards are in your 1AC so use them to your advantage. Don't drop it until the 2AR or I'll cry. The neg team should also put some stuff on case. The 1AC is their best cards so prove to me that its a bad idea. Non-Plan Text Cases are fine with me. Make sure I know your stance/advocacy at the end of the round or I won't vote for you.
K: I like hearing K arguments, when articulated well. If you can't tell me or the other team what the K is or how the Alt works then very low chance I'll vote on it. Same with perms for the Aff. I'm not super familiar with a lot of the authors but I know the thesis of most K arguments, just let me know what the K is all about. That's more important to me. 1 conditional CP and K is about my limit, if not then theory is fine (weigh the impacts on theory dont just say fairness and education.)
CP: Counterplans are cool. It needs to have some sort of netbenefit or a super solid reason that its strictly better than the aff. Aff needs to do the opposite and run/extend perms and explain why the CP is worse or not mutually exclusive to the Aff case. 1 conditional CP and K is about my limit, if not then theory is fine (weigh the impacts on theory dont just say fairness and education.)
DA: Run them. I think that DA's are often underused and actually can have a lot of weight if you do some impact calc. Spend time arguing the Uniqueness and the Link because just impact weighing is not enough to answer it. DA turns case arguments are super cool and should be run.
Framework: I would like some form of framework argument when it comes to K's especially (other arguments too, but especially on K's). Tell me why evaluating the round in your framwork is better and why I should vote that way.
Theory: Running theory just as a time and strat skew is super lame. Actually impact the theory in the round and tell me why the Theory argument is important and how they violate the theory that you're running.
Misc.: -CX: Be nice. I can tell you that if you're rude your speaks will definitely go down. Be nice to the other team, look at me, and ask relevent questions. Tagteaming is fine but dont take over your partners CX
-Attitude: be nice, not rude, dont worry, be happy, dont be nervous, you're probably doing fine
-Speaks: being nice and humor go a long way, and if your arguments are good they will also go up.
-Flashing: if it takes longer than like a minute or so I'll probably start/take off some preptime. However, tell me if you have a tech issue and I will understand
- Neg Block: shouldnt have to be said but for my sanity split the block.
- Spreading: I'm fine with speed, be sure you're clear. If I dont hear it, it's not getting flowed.
- Cheating: don't, lol. Stealing prep is cheating, so is clipping cards, etc. If the other team accuses you I'll have them bring evidence. If you're caught, you lose and get the worst speaker points possible. If you aren't caught then they get reduced speaks and you probably get the round. There's no need for false accusations.
Feel free to ask me any questions about arguments, tell me about your teams policy on an issue, special stuff about your aff or about you. I won't bite, if you're confused after a decision or have questions about what you could've done better then ask right after the round or whenever you see me. Happy to help.
did the thing for 3-ish years at wayne state university '20 #gowarriors #d5 and qualified to the ndt twice. i now work in transportation policy so i'm less active in debate (read: capable to keep up with all things debate jargon, not capable enough to know everything about topic nuance) but am excited to watch your round. she/her pronouns.
i'm rather apathetic towards the content of debate rounds, but believe it's my duty as an adjudicator to explain how i decide rounds.
with that being said, here are some things to know about me:
-i was a 2a my entire debate career, so many of my debate predispositions are shaped as a response to being a 2a/1n -- a lot of this is seen in how i judge theory/t debates, and my preferences re: judge kick
-i'm inherently a pragmatist but believe i'm a still good judge for clash debates. with a deep knowledge of k lit due to the research i had to do to give 1nrs on case versus k affs, i believe i have the skills to adjudicate without bias. i also believe there are a lot of problematic assumptions in both policy development and in debate that need to be interrogated. i tend to strongly prioritize offense in framework debates.
-i was a policy argument-leaning debater all throughout college. technical debates are my jam, and good 1nrs on the disad are my bread and butter.
-i strongly reward nuance, argument depth, and strategic argumentation pivots. if your strategy is "we read links in the 1nc but won't really answer your questions or give you aff specific examples of the links until the block," i'm not your judge.
-because of ^^ i do not follow along in speech docs during the debate, and will always try to default to debater evidence comparison and analysis. if i think certain cards are important, i'll always read them after the debate. if you think there are cards that are important, send them in a card doc after your last rebuttal.
-i promise to invest 100% of my energy to all debates i watch and i promise to invest that same energy into helping any team improve as much as they want. i will show up to your debate attentive and ready to enjoy it - i really enjoy this activity, so i hope you really enjoy being in rounds as much as i do.
here's how i decide rounds:
-i'll do flow math as the debate goes on to try and resolve some of the core debate controversies and flag what is important argument resolution. i'm rather expressive, so if i disagree, if i'm upset with how an argument is articulated, or if i agree with you, you'll see me react during prep time or during a speech. this is why i'm not a poker player.
-once the debate is over, i'll determine what i think the main questions of the debate are. for k debates this is often a role of the ballot claim or a framing question. for policy debates this can look like solvency v solvency deficits, direction of the link, etc. having debaters flag these is nice.
-i'll take sub-arguments from the flow that supports/contradicts this question. i'll resolve them, will play devil's advocate to determine if i think how i resolved them is correct, and will thus come to an answer to the question.
-i allocate the average speaker a 28.7 and work up/down from there based on the quality of the round. i would like to think i give fair points (esp after being out of the activity for a while), but i may not be the best judge for you if you're going 5-3 and need speaker points to boost you into elimination rounds.
Working with: Oakwood High School - Dayton, OH
University of Kentucky
TOP LEVEL:
*Email chains work best (if there's is wifi) and put me on it - fultzgrady071@gmail.com
*Speed - Go as fast as you are capable
*Don't steal prep
*Always time your own speeches, opponents' speeches, and prep. I will too but it is good habit.
*Prep stops when you send the email or when the speech is saved to the flash drive
*No place for pre-written blocks that are longer than a minute. Overviews are fine, but but don't waste time reading some block from a debate 6 tournaments ago. Tailor your arguments to this round.
*Impact calc must be comparative
AFF:
Know your aff. Feel free to run any affirmative you like whether it be critical or policy. I ran mostly policy affirmatives but have heavy experience with both.
T - I am sympathetic to reasonability if you defend it well
NEG:
Run anything you wish. Know your offcase just as well as you know your oncase evidence and know them well.
T - If you have a good violation, internal link, and impact go for it
CP - Have a solvency advocate, defeat permutations, and have a strong net-benefit
K - Feel free to run what you wish. If you use a ton of buzzwords and don't communicate your arguments well, I will be sad and it will take me longer to make a decision. If you're going to be a debater who runs Ks, be a good one.
Disads - Turns case arguments are good to have and I enjoy them.
PET PEEVES:
Be a competitor. Harsh comments that have nothing to do with winning the debate WILL impact your speaker points.
CX:
It is meaningful, therefore I will pay close attention to it.
My paradigm is very straight forward. I believe that the participants in the round construct, and determine, the issues, and thoughts that I should find important during the course of the round. What this means is that I try to decide a debate based on the discussion within that given round. This allows those in the round to "tell" me how to vote, and why I would vote that particular way. As a result, I reward people who do comparative assessments between arguments, and those that speak not only to an argument, but also to its impact, and its impact on the ultimate outcome of the debate, including how I should vote.
I do not have a preference for any particular argument, theory, or style of debate. I will not automatically vote for, or against anything. I do not apply any notion of "correct" theoretical argumentation on theory, Kritiks, or anything else for that matter. I had my turn in the activity, and was very successful during my run, so I try to allow the current debaters to do the debating.
With that being said, the only true bias I have is against people being assholes. This is an activity that everyone involved can benefit from, regardless of skill level. So, I will take it out on your speaker points if you treat people like shit. I will not vote against you for it (Unless the other team makes that an argument that they win), but I will express my displeasure through low speaker points, and an after round discussion that, at least part of, you will not enjoy. Be competitive, but please just be considerate.
Now, I would not normally focus on my past achievements, but I have not been around the activity for years. I realize most people will not know who I am, or what to do with my preference sheet. I remember trying to figure out what to do with that unknown judge that came out of nowhere & could end up having one of my most important ballots in their hands. So, it has been a long time, but as a result of having the unique pleasure and privilege of debating for John Lawson at Southfield High School, and George Ziegelmueller at Wayne State University, I enjoyed a tremendous amount of success. I won back to back Class “A” State Championships in Michigan, including dozens of tournament wins, and dozens of top ten speaker awards, including several top speaker awards, in and out of the State of Michigan. In college, in consecutive years, I made it to the Octa-finals, Quarter-finals, and then Semi-finals of the National Debate Tournament. My partner, Toby Arquette, and I were a top ten pre-bid team both my junior & senior years. In fact, we were the 3rd ranked pre-bid my senior year and made it to the Semi-finals, losing on a 4-1 decision to the eventual National Champions. This was not meant as a bad rendition of Bruce Springsteen’s "Glory Days", I just thought it may be helpful in making your judging decisions. I debated every type of style, speed, theory, position, etc. Please know that in spite of my time away from the activity, I am extremely confident that I will be able to make coherent decisions predicated on what is presented to me in that particular debate. Any questions, please feel free to ask.
Name: Adam Green
High School: Groves (Class of 2012)
College: University of Michigan (Class of 2016, currently not debating)
Preclusions: Groves
General Stuff: I know pretty much every judge will say this, but I’m very much a clean slate when judging. I debated for 3 years at Groves, and have had experience debating most arguments. It is most important to me that you know what you’re talking about during rounds: I don’t care if I think the argument you’re reading is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, if you outdebate your opponent on the issue, I will vote for you. However, I didn’t work at a camp this summer, so I’m not that familiar with the Transportation and Infrastructure topic, so you may have to explain some of your arguments to me a little more.
Specifics:
Topicality: I think topicality debates are being incredibly underutilized nowadays, and that’s unfortunate. I know a lot of people just think of T as a cop out argument, but it can be a lot more than that if argued adequately. I think some work needs to be done on the framework of competing interpretations vs. reasonability. Also, most importantly, I really need to hear why you think your interpretation is better. The simpler you lay that out for me, the more likely I’ll be to vote for you. I’m also obviously more inclined to vote on T if the aff case is incredibly non-topical. Lastly, I would not recommend running Ks of T in front of me. I’m not saying I’d stop paying attention, but let’s just say you’d be fighting an uphill battle.
Theory: I know I’m in the minority on this, but I love a good theory debate. Unfortunately, most theory debates I’ve seen recently have just been teams reading blocks at each other. However, if theory is debated the way it should be, and impacted correctly, I’ll be interested. Also, I’m much more inclined to listen to theory arguments that I actually think are legitimate (say, International Fiat Bad) then one that I do not think is (like Dispositionality Bad). The burden is on the team advancing the theory argument to prove why it’s a reason to reject the team.
Critiques: I am not the biggest fan of the K. I very rarely went for it in high school, and I am not very familiar with much critical literature. That being said, I would thoroughly enjoy a good K debate in which the team advancing the K gives me a good explanation of the thesis of the argument as well as actually answering arguments on the line-by-line. If you can't explain the K in language people use when they aren't trying to confuse other people into submission, chances are you'd be better off going for a different argument. This is why when I hear an 8 minute 2NC overview of droning on about how “we turn their entire case” or “we solve the aff” usually put me to sleep. If you’re not an expert on the K that you’re running, you probably shouldn’t be running it. Since I’m more of a policy guy and not a big fan of Ks, I absolutely love impact turns against the K. However, when it comes to permutations on the K, you probably need to do some work on severance/intrinsic perms.
Disads: Now this is the stuff that I like. Case-specific disads with specific links and good impact weighing in the final rebuttals will get my attention very quickly. I do think that controlling the link is more important that uniqueness (i.e., the economy may be bad now, but that doesn't mean making it worse isn't bad)
Counterplans: Competitive counterplans with specific net benefits are probably my favorite policy option for the negative. But again, it is very important that the counterplan is actually competitive. I love a good permutation debate on counterplans. When it comes to CP theory, again I’m a fan of theory and will definitely listen to theory again types of counterplans that I think are susceptible to theory violations, such as process CPs.
Case Debate: The most underrated part of policy debate in my opinion, and it’s not even close. It’s very sad that some negative teams just run a bunch of off-case arguments and pretty much ignore the case debate after the 1NC. I would be very up to listening to a policy strategy that consisted of a CP, a DA, and 6 minutes or so of case defense and turns (preferably impact turns). If the neg can convince me that the risk of the case impacts are very low (or turn those impacts into offense) it becomes SO much easier for me to weigh their DA against that mitigated case. Also, the way a lot of 2ACs handle the case is also saddening to me. You should make sure to make it a priority to handle all of the negative arguments on case adequately. However, don’t read new cards on case in the 2AC unless there are offensive arguments against your case. I hate it when the 2AC doesn’t reference 1AC cards in response to 1NC case arguments: it makes the 1AC a waste of time.
Random Stuff: I’m not one of those judges who will write out a list of things that will get you good speaker points in front of me, but all the normal stuff applies. Don’t be rude during C-X, speeches (although being aggressive is a good thing. You need to know where the line is. Also, when it comes to speed, I’m 100% ok with it, but if you’re unclear, I’ll yell out “clearer” a couple times, and if it doesn’t get any better, you better hope the most important parts of your arguments come out clear enough for me to hear them). Finally, have fun out there. There is no professional debate: you’re only here because you want to be. Remember that, and enjoy yourself. Don't be afraid to tell a joke if you’re a funny person. Good luck guys. Thanks for reading this page, I think it’s really important that you know stuff about your judge before you go into the round.
I am open to new arguments, however, solvency is key in any argument presented to me. I am not a fan of conditional arguments and kicking what seems important at the moment until you can no longer support it. Be respectful of your opponent - debate the topic, not the person. It is imperative that you are organized and methodical in your speeches - I value clarity over speed. Be creative - the same boring arguments, tend to have my mind wander. Keep me engaged with your passion and your ingenuity!
Hello!
I am an attorney and former debater. I competed in Policy debate for about 4 years in undergrad for Wayne State.
My paradigm is below:
I'm pretty open to most arguments, but don't assume I always know what you're talking about. I tend to lean more critical in debate, although I have a pretty solid understanding of formal policy. I'll vote for whoever gives the most reasonable, logical and clear explanation of the round for me. Watch my face and my hands. If you're saying something irrelevant, you can usually tell by my face. I'll stop flowing if you're being repetitive, or if I feel you've done enough to win this argument. Don't take yourself too seriously, you're on the high school debate team, there is life outside of this.
T: I've never voted for T on the neg, maybe someone will change that, but you're going to have to make a really really really REALLY good case why I should.
FW: Not much of a framework debater at all, I usually always engage with whatever the out of bounds aff is with some sort of counter K or another off case position. I like super critical affs, I think you should probably learn to engage with the philosophies behind them on some level outside of the debate tech. I will listen to your FW args but you're going to have to make a very good case in order to win in front of me against a super critical aff. Critical affs: make logical arguments here, explain to me what's going on and take a chance to talk about your aff.
CP: I like counterplans, slow down when you read the CP plan text and probably try to solve the aff. You need a net benefit and you need to thoroughly explain it to me. Aff: tell me why your perm works, don't just say "perm".
K: I love the K, I'm open to most K's unless they're just totally unreasonable. I have a degree in Philosophy, so I read lot of this stuff for my course work and I very much enjoy it. To win on this with me you'll need a serious link and a serious explanation, you'll need some sort of impact framing, and you'll need to explain the K evidence and not just read tags. Aff: explain the perm if you're going to for it, don't just say, "perm".
DA: You need a solid link with an explanation, not just some random card tag. I like a lot of impact calc here, this is where you will win most of the time. Not a fan of the politics DA at all, but I'll listen to it, you should very thoroughly explain to me the internal link chain.
Sharon Hopkins
Occupation: High School U.S History Teacher
Past Affiliations: Director of Debate at University Prep HS in Detroit, MI & Assistant Debate Coach, University of Iowa
I am in my 8th year of coaching. I have had two teams clear at national tournaments including New Trier, Iowa Valley, University of Michigan, Glenbrooks, Scranton, Blake, & Lexington. Winner of the Berkeley Tournament in 2014 & the NAUDL Tournament in 2014 & 16. I have also had two teams qualify to the TOC and one Semi-Finalist.
Updated 4/21/18
The Topic
I am familiar with many of the arguments on this topic.
The Basics
A wise judge once said "Win what you are good at". Pretty much Anything goes as long as you understand what you are saying with the exception of "racism good". Debate is about critical thinking and often times teams rely solely on the cards and not the merits/effects of the policy and their understanding of them. Argumentation outweighs evidence. I prefer that you explain arguments thoroughly through your own understandings rather than reading a bunch of cards. If an argument is explained well, it will be given just as much weight as a card. I believe in persuasian over tech. With that being said, I rarely call for cards after the round. I prefer for debaters to debate it out, and not to construct my own story after the round.
In your rebuttals, you must do a good job of framing the debate. I don't like to have to nitpick my flow to decide what's important & should be voted on. You need to tell me which side I should vote for and why its your side
Paperless
No prep time for flashing but ABSOLUTELY be quick about it.
Speed
Slow down on the tags. If you spread through them and I can't flow them, this can be detrimental to your speaks and the overall round.
Topicality
I will vote for it but it is not my favorite debate especially if the aff is clearly topical. If you run T, you need to really explain the standards, not just re-read them.
CP's
CP's must solve the harms of the affirmative or I won't vote on it. If you run a PIC, the net benefit must be explained well and extended throughout the debate.
DA's
Have a good link story and impact it throughout the round.
Politics DA's- I find it difficult to evaluate these debates especially when the link is flimsy & the impact scenario is far-fetched & very much removed from reality.
Theory
Most of these debates are a wash except for Perf Con.
Kritiks
I really like to listen to a good K debate where the Kritik is explained in laymen's terms. In addition, the links need to be specific or you need to explain how the aff's methodology, reps, etc links to the K. If you take this route, your burden becomes more difficult but is still winnable.
Critical Affs
Aff-I'm your judge.
Neg-Have an inclusive framework and respond to case directly.
Hear Ye, Hear Ye... A Word About Performance "A project is a temporary endeavor with a defined beginning and end (usually time-constrained, and often constrained by funding or deliverables),undertaken to meet unique goals and objectives, typically to bring about beneficial change or added value."Based on this definition every 1AC is a project. In addition, not all performance teams are the same. Some critique debate itself. Others critique the resolution, some critique the government, while others have a plan text or advocacy statement that is a policy implementation, the performance is just the method in which debaters make their arguments more inclusive or put simply, makes it more interesting for a 16 year old to incorporate what they like into what they love. The best teams find a way to make their performance a discussion of the topic. I have seen some of the best critical thinking happen in these rounds where young people really found there voices. I do think that this argument should be accepted just as any other, and over time it will be, just as the Kritik was a taboo in the beginning, but is now commonplace. Teams need to be prepared for this type of argument just as they would any other, and not just read framework. They must actually interact with the effects of the advocacy.
*This does not mean just because you run a critical affirmative or performance that I will automatically vote for you. If you drop util arguments and such, I will vote accordingly.
If you have any questions, please ask before the round. Ultimately, be nice to each other, learn, and have fun. Everything else is secondary.
Pronouns: Any (They/He/She/Them/Him/Her)
E-mail: loganedward77@gmail.com - put me on the email chain
Updated in October, 2020.
Experience: 2 years high school debate at Mona Shores High School, 2.5 years college debate at Wayne State University, 1 year coaching at Mona Shores High School, 2 years coaching at Detroit Country Day School, and a long judging history over that time to present, for both high school and college-level debate.
I'll give a short version: I'll listen to just about anything, minus overtly problematic arguments (racism good, sexism/gender discrimination good, fascism good, etc.), which will at best lead to tanked speaker points, at worst an automatic loss (and I lean that way).
I have a fair amount of experience debating both traditional policy and K frameworks but find myself being more entertained in K v K rounds. It's a T/Framework thing, it's boring and I don't trust the government to do anything right. Read more below, I definitely still do like a policy v. policy round, I just hate voting on T.
I expect everyone to be timing themselves. Please don't call me "judge," I don't like most of them IRL. "Logan" is fine.
Virtual Debate: I don't care whether or not your camera is on, regardless of what the tournament rules are saying. If your virtual workspace is anything like mine, it's improvised and ugly. Also, it feels like I'm invading your privacy on some weird level when you're debating from your bedroom. 2020 is weird enough without trying to force you to show me your house. Also, if you're experiencing connection issues, turning the video streaming off can really help. On another topic, CX is kind of tough right now due to talking over one another by accident. I don't really have a solution for it other than trying to stick to the model of whoever's not speaking next asks, the person who just spoke answers. That being said, if you can tag-team effectively virtually then go for it. When the questioner tells you to stop answering, stop answering.
Dropped arguments are usually true arguments (save for the above), you must make the argument early enough in the debate for me to vote on it (outside of theory/common-sense or evidence-based analysis). That being said, I vote on arguments I understand. If I don't understand, that's on you, this is a speech activity.
More probabilistic impacts outweigh bigger magnitude ones for me, on almost every level. Establishing probability is most important to me and I think the overemphasis on existential impacts is making policy debate stale (as well as literally untrue, I have not yet died in a nuclear war).
A lot of the longer version below doesn't really apply in high school debate outside of Open division.
The long version (ask specific questions before the round if anything is unclear):
T/Framework - T needs standards and voters on the neg and counter-standards and -voters on the aff or you probably won't win it. Framework is also fine, but you should do it right (when I didn't go for Cap, I went for framework). You need to have impacts to Framework that you can weigh against the aff (or another off-case argument you can weigh). "Fairness" is not an impact I'm going to vote for. Framework can be defensive if you want to go for the other off, and this is usually the best way to use it in front of me. I don't find skills arguments very convincing at all and I find them very easily turned as the only skills I learned in debate either A. weren't transferable or B. were skills that help the government murder people more effectively (this is definitely more for college and I'll definitely vote on skills args at the high school level). I have a high threshold for this line of argumentation and I'm not ashamed to hold you to that, but I will vote on them if they're mishandled or you've found one of the few I believe (here's a hint: research probably isn't inherently bad). Explain the impacts to the generally accepted ones like fairness (research burden, ground loss, etc.) Probabilistic impacts matter more here too: Does the aff you're running framework against stand a chance of modifying debate culture? What specific fairness/skills loss was there? The most probabilistic impacts happen in-round, in front of my face, and this is how I weigh T. I default to competing interpretations, as do most, but my threshold on reasonability is comparatively low, because for me to vote on competing T interpretations, you're going to have to convince me beyond a doubt that the way they violated the topic was uniquely bad for you debating in this round. That means if you're reading a CP or DA that clearly links, you probably shouldn't run T as I will probably buy the "but their DA links" arg.
The Aff, in general: I was a 2N and when I was double 2s I hated being aff, so I don't have much advice here. Most teams who are aff lose in the 1AR, but the 2AC is close behind. Time allocation is much more important on the aff (which is why I hated being a 2A, I'm slow), so identify which arguments are the biggest threat early on and adjust accordingly. The biggest mistake newer debaters make is forgetting about all that evidence you read in the 1AC, which should have embedded answers to your weak spots.
Policy Affs: Cool. You should probably kick some of it by the end of the debate at the college level, free up some time for that 1AR and 2AR. Left-policy affs are usually weaker than both their policy and K options (standard policy follows the rules better, helping you out in a framework debate, and the K probably solves better), so try not to read them unless you have really good ideas for how to use it.
K affs - Fine by me, be prepared for the framework debate, win the impact turns to framework and I'll vote for you. That being said, I still have to understand. These weird "every theorist ever" affs are kind of getting out of hand (at least at the high school level), but if you can explain it, run it. No plan text or advocacy statement required if the mechanism is clear. If you're going to run a left-policy aff, you'd might as well just run the K version in front of me, I'm good for it. I prefer K v K debates in these rounds because I hate listening to framework/T (it's just boring), use it as leverage and time-skew instead. I also think they're more useful and educational because waxing poetic about how a team broke the rules for 4 speeches is not only extremely boring, it's self-fulfilling and frankly only useful for institutionalized debate (which isn't a real thing IRL). They should probably still be tangential to the topic, but I can be convinced the topic should be ignored in favor of something better.
The Neg, in general: The more specific the strategy to the aff, the better chance you have of winning. General topic links are usually not enough and need some analysis to make them compelling. That's not to say I won't vote on more general links/uniqueness evidence, but that the aff is probably winning your DA/K/CP coming out of the 2AC and you'll need to develop the arguments a lot more in the block.
DAs - fine, run them, explain them, win them. Winning a link (and the internal links) is more important than totally winning the impact. I'll vote on risk, depending on how things are going on the case flow.
Theory - I've become a bit more open to theory but the only theory I find automatically compelling is conditionality bad (and that's if the neg runs too many condo off-case args, "too many" being determined by the skill level). If theory is dropped and is a reason to reject the team, that is super bad for the team that dropped it, keep track of the line-by-line. Best case, I reject the argument, worst case I reject the team (if they've dropped it but you haven't explained it well, I'll probably just reject the arg, be prepared to lose if your 2AR is 5/6 on theory). Theory about generally accepted and common args is probably useless (50 states fiat, neg fiat, limits on aff fiat, etc.), but I'll vote on it if it's explained well and is mishandled by the other team, or you can convince me an actual offense was committed (a long shot). Your theory should have warranted impacts, just like any argument ("They did a bad thing that's bad because...").
CPs - See above for how I feel about conditional advocacies. I can be convinced of most counterplan theory (again, see above). The best PIC/Ks are when no one knows that's what they are until the 2NR, usually that's an immediate neg ballot. PIC theory is usually a wash after you read your blocks at each other. I love a good advantage CP and I hate a bad one.
Ks - I went for the Cap K in almost every 2NR of my college/late high school career. Ks should usually engage something specific about the aff. Specific links are good. However, I don't think you necessarily need them, your general ones probably do the job well enough, paired with explanation. Ks should prove the aff is a uniquely bad idea/influenced by bad ideas and prove the alt can solve the impact. They should prove the perm doesn't work (preferably just being able to cross-apply case offense and prove it still links) and that the impacts outweigh the aff. This means you have to win the framework debate too, unless the K has existential impacts). I'll vote on risk of alt solvency if there's enough defense/risk on the case flow, probably at a lower threshold than most, given the framework debate basically has to be won (unless you kick the alt and go for structural impacts, which means you're probably having a bad time anyway). Fiat is illusory. It just is. Good policy-prone teams know this better than the K team.
More specific thoughts, as I did debate the K:
Cap: Honestly, I have a slightly higher threshold because I went for it so much when I debated. I'm an anti-capitalist in "real life" and familiar with most theoretical arguments contained within and if I think it's a dumb argument (not even in the round, just generally) I might have some bias, but I promise I'll try not to. I love great Cap rounds, though, so, if you're confident in your strategy (and maybe more importantly, theoretical basis), go for it!
Queerness: Read this for maybe a year as well, but wasn't as heavily invested or well-researched. That being said, I am passingly familiar with the field and like the line of argumentation, but it must be explained well, both for my sake and your opponents', as Edelman can be basically incomprehensible at times.
AntiBlackness: I find this and Cap most compelling when talking about debate writ large, which AntiBlackness debaters frequently do (not so much on the Cap side, but you should, debate is classist). I have found the best AntiBlackness rounds I've spectated or watched (or, rarely, was a part of) directly tied their impacts to the round or the topic (governance writ large isn't as good of a link/internal link, but use it anyway). However, I also think that many AntiBlackness debaters have a hard time encountering a Black policy debater, when they really shouldn't. The strategy should NOT be to attack or cast doubt on this debater's Blackness, but the structure of policy debate that incentivizes skewed topics, interpersonal violence, resource skewing, and bad rhetoric. I'm fairly read on the subject of AntiBlackness but, as a white person, I'm always listening closely in these rounds (not to imply I don't otherwise). Also, as a white person, I CANNOT be trusted fully to adjudicate these rounds, which AntiBlackness debaters would do well to keep in mind for all of their white judges. I find alternate root cause arguments fairly unconvincing on most Ks, but this one even more so (although there are TYPES of arguments I can find convincing in this realm, such as the totalizing description of oppression that some AntiBlackness teams make; It's complicated). I (and if "we" were being honest, most white judges and debaters) am usually pretty uncomfortable adjudicating these rounds as I feel whiteness is inherently moderating in these cases. That being said, I think white debaters should be very careful with these arguments (to the point of maybe considering not reading them), ESPECIALLY in reading prewritten tags. Don't call yourself Black or imply that you are a part of the "Black Body" if you are not.
Anthro: I can be convinced, but it's been a running joke to me (and pretty much anyone who isn't a die-hard) for years. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, so I'm probably more persuadable than most people on this one. Animal death matters and anthropocentrism definitely defines our relationship to the environment, but I'm gonna find it really annoying if you equate animal death to human death, as I feel like this has some... implications. The better impacts here are rooted in environmental destruction, but there are easier ways to that impact.
Ableism: I am very easily convinced that the root cause of ableism is capitalism. Other alt causes could probably convince me too. Always open to hearing your way around that, though.
Beaudrillard/Symbolic Exchange/"The Real": I gotta be honest, this usually isn't helpful without being combined with theory that evaluates an axis of oppression under this theoretical framework. Another point of honesty: Tough to understand, especially being read at Mach 5 in a debate round. Explain yourself well, impact it out, and explain how the alt resolves the impact. The link debate is less important with this type of K (at least to me), but it should still be there.
Rhetoric more generally: Should probably contain a justification for the self-link here, but other than that I can be pretty easily convinced that debate is bad and the rhetoric we use sucks too, read further on for details.
Speaker points - I generally try to think as little as possible about them, as speaker points are subjective and largely useless except for tie-breaking. I am a chronic stutterer, empathize with speaking difficulties, and they obviously won't affect speaks. Doing things like using problematic language, misgendering, stealing prep, being generally rude, etc. will at worst get you dropped (malicious or ignorant use of problematic language or misgendering will get you dropped 100% of the time), and at worst will get you docked speaks. However, I understand mistakes happen, especially in the case of misgendering, and as long as it doesn't become a reoccurring/malicious issue, I won't be very heavy-handed with the docking. Get to know your competitors and asking for pronouns never hurts. The way you earn the most amount of speaker points is good STRATEGIC decision-making. I don't really care about your style, but the way you manage the round. Also, if you're not using all of your prep/speech time, it better be perfect or you'll probably lose speaks for that too.
One caveat, definitely more for college-level - My debate experience has been complex and frankly, frequently negative in university. The community is toxic and often overworks students to the point of serious mental health issues. I am thankful for what I learned and what resources debate gave me, but some of the behavior in this community is inexcusable and leads to the sort of institutional abuse (verbal, emotional, and sexual) that plagues politics, which makes debate a good microcosm for government (which, if it's not clear, I hate). I take extreme issue with anyone that uses institutional power in debate to give themselves or their team an edge and will make that clear if I think you or your team is doing so. Of course, this is an unsolvable problem, as more wealthy schools have inherently better access to resources and, thus, better win rates. I encourage every debater to remember that debate does not happen in a vacuum and to respect your fellow debaters no matter their skill level, style, or status because at the end of the day, your skill level, style, and status are all dependent on luck and environment. I also especially encourage coaches to take this into consideration and help your students understand this, as you are ultimately responsible for not just their careers and health, but everyone else's in this community (especially because it is usually coach ego causing these issues). All of this being said makes me sound like I have a heavy bias against policy debate (versus the K), which I'd like to think I don't, but I may have one. I suppose what this all means for your rounds, besides the obvious decorum I expect, is that I likely have a higher threshold for arguments that assume policy debates, and to some extent government and statehood, are inherently good. I believe some of the skills arguments, but any argument about upward mobility (gross), political understanding good (which "political understanding?"), or literature knowledge (again, what "literature knowledge?") I may chuckle to myself over, but begrudgingly vote for if the other team drops the ball. I think it's pretty proven that most former debaters either become bureaucrats or other government (gross) or debate coaches (due to lack of time to pursue literally anything else in college), which makes me basically not believe most policy debate education arguments. All of that being said, K affs focusing on debate bad still have to win. I know these perspectives in debate are rare, with many viewing policy debate education as being worth power, time, and energy trade-offs, but I've only seen these issues exacerbated in recent years. Policy snobs (myself included) need to either modify the activity to help with these issues or embrace other forms of debate. That likely makes me more malleable to arguments that break "the rules," such as form or content differences, because anything else is debate fascism.
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.
I did high school Policy debate with Kingsley Area Schools from 2010 - 2015 with Hahna Martinez as my coach. For two years after that I assisted in coaching the Kingsley High School team. I competed at Leagues in Northern Michigan and Tournaments in the south of the state. I have not competed since 2015, but I do judge Policy and LD tournaments on occasion.
There are no arguments I will not inherently go for. I try to be as tabula-rosa as I possibly can. If you can explain it to me, and explain why I should vote on it, it's as good as anything else in the round. I love nonconventional arguments, but do not assume I know the acronyms or jargon specific to your argument. The more unconventional or fringe the argument is, the more you will have to make sure it is sufficiently explained. If I can't understand it, I won't vote on it.
If you are going to use abuse as a voting issue (or reverse voting issue) please make sure you take the time to tell me exactly what is abusive in this specific round.
I really appreciate strong impact calculus in your rebuttals.
I am confident with speed, but make sure you give me a roadmap for your speech, you are signposting as you go, and that you slow down and make your tags extra clear. Only go fast if you can be clear. If I can't understand you I will let you know by saying "clear."
I have a general understanding of this year's topic because nuclear war is a common impact, but I haven't spent a lot of time with the topic itself. Do not assume I know acronyms or specific arguments even if you've heard them all year.
I am a college debater at Hobart and William Smith Colleges with four years of high school policy debate at Petoskey High School.
Short Version of my paradigm:
I will do my best, like most judges, to adjudicate based on the arguments presented in the round and the framework you wish me to evaluate them with. I generally prefer intelligent arguments (understood by the people arguing for them) to joke arguments and generic material. That being said, I'll generally vote for anything regardless of my actual opinion on the subject matter as long as it's argued well.
Long Version:
Topicality:
- I'll evaluate it like any argument with competing offense and defense.
- I lean aff on reasonability. It is easy to persuade me even if you might not meet their interpretation that centering a debate around minor definitional issues is worse.
-That should not prevent negs from running T. Limits and education are some of my favorite arguments on T. If the aff is clearly not topical, then run T. Just please don't run more than three or so violations except in cases of serious violations of the resolution.
Theory:
- I rarely find myself moved by theory except in cases of the team running it wins it by a substantial margin.
- That being said, if a team is running say, 5 CP's and 2 K's all conditionally, a condo-bad theory shell would be more convincing than if a team ran 1 conditional argument.
Kritiks:
- I am not the best person to judge K's. I'm not terrible, I just have little experience judging them.
- Don't run them for the sake of running them. A good link story will go a long way.
- Originality is appreciated but if you don't understand the K yourself, don't expect me to.
- There are some great K's out there so run the ones that best fit the aff you are running them against.
Kritikal affirmatives:
- I have debated against a few K affs however my experience judging these is non-existent. If you MUST run them, you might have to work a bit harder at justifying its inclusion in the debate round.
- Articulate your points well and I'll judge accordingly.
Counter-plans:
- I liked running these in high school and welcomed them run against me. CP's are a great way to test the merits of the plan and benefit both sides.
- The more specific the better. A good solvency scenario generally makes for a debate with good clash on both sides.
- I typically find condo unconvincing unless the volume of CP's run is excessive.
- In round abuse claims are infinitesimally better than potential abuse claims.
Disadvantages:
- The more specific the DA/link, the more convincing I find the arguments.
- If you wish to argue that it outweighs or turns the case, please explain why.
- I will give the neg a higher burden than most judges when it comes to any PTX DAs. Other than that one, I love DAs and find them important to debate rounds.
Cross-examination:
- Please don't scream at your opponent during CX (or really at all in the round.) Be nice to your opponents.
- Yes I'm listening during CX and I will most likely hold you accountable for what you say.
Speed:
- I am fine with it as long as you are saying words and not a string of phonics. (Speak quickly but clearly)
- I will flow as well as I can, but if I miss it, I won't judge it later.
- Distinguish your tags and cites from the body of your evidence.
Paperless:
- Flashing is not prep until I get annoyed with what appears to be basically prep-stealing.
- I prefer flashing to email chains as internet connections can be spotty.
- If your computer breaks, too bad. You took the risk by bringing it.
- You must provide a viewing screen to paper teams.
Misc.
- Ethos is important but should be used occasionally.
- Impact calc can make or break a round.
- Line by line is great if you can
- Don't forget to extend your arguments, I won't do the work for you.
- Cap Ks are less convincing coming from paperless teams (so are Anthro Ks)
If I missed anything or if you have specific questions, ask away!
I debated for 4 years in High School at Ann Arbor Community high (until 1993), and Policy and LD at CMU for 2 1/2 years, EMU for 1 year, went to Nationals once with Policy debate and Twice with LD. I also coached a high school team at Kingsley High School for a few years.
I am definitely a more old-school/policy-maker/impact calc. kind of judge. I do my best to be tabula rosa/have no preconceptions about anything when judging and will "buy" any argument that you make a convincing debate about, as long as I understand it and you explain why you should win the round with you (I won't do that for you).
I haven't judged in awhile and I am getting older, so please check your speed, speak clearly and slow down on the tags. Please use "and" or "next", etc. so that you make sure I am getting your arguments. I am decent at flowing, but if I am not writing, or if I say "clear" or "speed", take heed. I judge off the flow, so if I can't write it you didn't say it.
I have a general understanding of the topic (since every year nukes are discussed quite a bit), but am unfamiliar with this specific topic/arguments this year, as I have not judged at all recently. Don't assume I know what your acronym's mean, especially if they are "newer" ideas. Please do not assume that I am going to understand your Ks/philosophy. I am not unwilling to vote on K's or performance arguments, but they are definitely not my favorite arguments and I am not very familiar with them, so if you run them make sure you assume I know nothing about them, explain them well and tell me WHY they should make you win the round.
Pet Peeves: People who are RUDE to their opponents (I will dock your speaker points). People who run non traditional arguments but don't explain them well or tell me why they should impact the round.
I am fairly new judge and find myself generally apathetic towards many things, as such I have very few strong opinions about most topics usually covered in these pages.
I debated for 4 years at Dexter High School and currently debate at Wayne State University
At Dexter I read exclusively traditional policy affs and at Wayne both traditional policy aff and more left affs.
I may make faces during the round that may either mean that I am not a fan of what you are doing or I am tired and cursing myself for getting out of bed that morning. Regardless don't let that deter you from "doin' you."
Short version:
Do whatever you want (there are exceptions dictated below), explain it well, tech over truth, and if both sides have similar qualities of evidence I default to spin.
Longer version:
As an important note to begin that while these opinions may influence how I perceive and think about the round, they are not the end of the discussion. I will do my best to evaluate the round as it happened based on my flow. Just do whatever it is that you want to do, your goal is to convince me that your line of argumentation is best and that as a result I should vote for you.
I tend to default to an Offense/Defense paradigm due to reasons of laziness, however I tend to think it is not a particularly useful way of thinking about things. A simplified version of what I think may be better is to consider risk. This involves a threshold where I think that sufficient defense can convince that something is just as likely not to happen as it is to happen. Slightly more bluntly, a reasonable to high risk of a non extinction event can outweigh a low to minuscule risk of extinction. This also means that with sufficient defense, a more nebulous ontological impact can outweigh even the aff's "seven extinctions."
Case -
Love big case debates - perhaps my favorite strategy while debating is the super specific case turn or the generic but classic impact turn - these debates show off your research, indepth topic/aff knowledge, and are super clash heavy. Pulling this off successfully is to me very impressive. For the aff - I expect y'all to understand the strategy of your aff - I am sure that you put together the 1ac the way you did for a reason, now use it throughout the rest of the debate. My single pet peeve on this front is when 2As just read a large block of text to extend their entire 1ac rather than taking the opportunity to point out strategic points like concessions or flow interactions/tricks - unless you are making good strategic arguments or nuances this overview extension is probably just on my flow as "extend 1ac." Other than that I assume that y'all will just be doing whatever it is you normally do so just do it well.
T v. USFG Plan Action -
I have not really judged many rounds where an attempt was made to turn T into a viable strategic option. In the instance that some attempt was made, it has been too surface level. Given that I haven't seen many of these debate really play out, I don't know exactly what I find compelling - I think that the impact portion of the T debate should be handled much like a disad. You have internal links to an impact based on an interpretation of a word/s of the resolution. This is basically always Fairness or Education in some form. K's of T are fine is handled along the lines of my other thoughts on Kritiks. In this instance though a way I am probably more persuaded by an explanation of how the Kritik of their interpretation affects their Fairness and Education claims.
Also here are one of the above exceptions to the "Do whatever you want" rule - NEVER attempt to make T a RVI (you smirk, you laugh, but enough have tried it in front of me that I feel the need to mention this), the aff has the burden to prove that they are topical is the neg brings it up - I am leaning toward the not even requiring negs to answer it - you will lose speaks, end of discussion.
T v. Not USFG Plan Action -
Similar story as above but I tend to err aff as most neg teams seem to be too whiny or simply lack sufficient defense to aff offense - I find that the most compelling args have to do with policy simulation (not roleplay) good and am potentially willing to buy a big fairness push if it moves beyond the usual tagline "but it is unpredictable and makes it impossible to be neg," this will also require that you answer any access arguments the aff may have. Agonism based Framework arguments are also becoming something that I tend to agree with, but I am still trying to organize my thoughts about this.
In the instance that the aff chooses to K the negs interp, I simply ask that you impact it in a way that makes sense for a procedural question of "whether this debate ought to have occurred." (Yes obvious, but again teams have read them and never explained why it actually answers the negs interp).
Ks -
I have begun to enjoy these debates more now that I am out of high school - I still am not a perfect judge for these debates given that I am not super well read in the various literature - I do know some of it, but it would be better if you assume that I don't get it and then explain arguments rather than blast through with buzz words and other jargon. I tend to think that the neg is well suited by using specific parts of the aff speeches and evidence to help their link/impact story. Framework is very important for both sides, I am lazy, so with out it I find that I default to "well extinction is super bad and stuff." I also can be fairly easily convinced that the K doesn't need to prove that it solves all of the real world issues of X but that it is a better understanding of X and proves that the aff doesn't access said good stuff thus the aff should lose.
DAs -
Super awesome - I think the Link and Internal Link are the most important and often under-utilized part of the debate (I have certainly been guilty of this myself). Not much else to say, I think.
CPs -
Also pretty great - I tend to think that most CPs are fine, this however depends on the topic/aff. CPs like Word PICs and the "Do the aff minus 1 person/penny" are also usually stupid/probably illegitimate. Specific literature goes a long way toward proving CP legitimacy in my mind, at least in terms of Consult and Conditions CPs. In terms of other sorts of questionably legitimate CPs I don't really have many thoughts but in general the further away from aff/topic specific literature the more accepting of aff theory/perm legitimacy I become.
In terms of competition I don't have a ton of thoughts assuming for all other intents and purposes that the CP is legitimate. I think that it is burden of the neg to prove a meaningful opportunity cost to voting aff, which means y'all definitely have to win something more than just a nebulous "solves enough of the aff and I guess makes a sad child slight less sad."
Theory -
I think one or two conditional options are acceptable, any more and I am more receptive to theory arguments. This is magnified if they contradict. Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument or a justification for some other potentially objectionable argument. However conditionality is always a reason to reject the team, the "reject the arg not the team" is nonsensical to me.
Misc -
I really don't want to be at all responsible for timing anything - time yourselves, be honest, I will be upset if have to find a timer or use my phone's timer (it kind of sucks)
Ethics stuff - less serious, stealing prep, first time it is a warning then it comes out of your prep time (which the other team gets to time) and hurts your speaks - more serious, clipping and the like, I will not tape nor call you out on it. If the other team thinks you clipping they can challenge you on it, I will stop the round and ask for a recording and speech doc to determine the validity of the challenge. If I think that you are clipping (consistent, lines - not just you didn't say a word like "a") you will lose the round and recieve zero speaker points, and vis-versa if I think that you are not clipping.
Offensive actions or language or any other type of harassment will also not be policed by myself but the other team may ask to stop the round to address it. It can/should be remedied (in terms of the ballot) with an apology (also assuming it was not intentional/severity) - if the language continues then you may face consequences depending on severity of the action/language.
Be nice (or at least professional/courteous toward your partner and opponents), be smart, and have fun.
Piper Meloche [she/her, last name rhymes with "josh" not "brioche"]
Incoming 1L at Harvard Law School. If you have any questions about law school admissions, please reach out!
pipermeloche@gmail.com [all email chains, questions]
grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com [high school only]
NCFL Note
I am able and willing to listen to any argument at any speed. As a default, I decide debates based on technical choices and concessions. Please let me know if I am judging your last debate. I would love to give you a little congratulations and speaker point boost. Good luck and take advantage of the small amount of prep you have!
---------------
What I expect from you
1. Non-negotiables - Racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, or other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated. Nor will cheating. Unless the tournament rules tell me otherwise, I will not let an ethics challenge be "debated out." If there is an instance of discrimination in a round I am judging, I will allow the impacted person to decide whether the debate continues. I cannot adjudicate what I did not directly witness.
2. Strong preferences - flow, keep your own time, and frame my ballot at the top of the late rebuttals. Whenever possible, prioritize evidence quality - good cards and smart re-highlights will be rewarded with high speaks.
3. Be nice to each other and have fun - the people we meet and the ideas we learn in debate are far more important than the result of any individual round, tournament, season, or career. I am very sensitive to condescending and rude cross-ex questions - especially when the two students have a power imbalance.
What to expect from me
1. Tech over truth - but the two are far more interwoven than many debaters think. I often grow frustrated when teams give their opponents' best arguments the same attention as their opponents' worst arguments. Truth exists and should determine how you execute tech. Arguments also must not be morally repugnant - death good, oppression good count as morally repugnant, and hot take, global warming good is pushing it. All below preferences assume equal debating.
2. Much better for policy arguments - I was a K debater in high school, but my research now exclusively focuses on the policy side of college and high school topics. The purpose of this paradigm is not to constrain what you do in front of me but to give you the most accurate understanding of my predispositions and how I try to judge debates.
Topic Things
College --
1. D4/5 will be my first time judging this semester. If some community norm about the coolest cards to read or the worst advantages has developed since then, please take the time to explain that to me.
2. Many debates on the college topic will be an assurance or deterrence disad against an aff claiming to solve these impacts. Love that for y'all, but you need to do more link comparison. Asserting that you clearly solve prolif, but your opponent clearly doesn't without warrants gives the same vibes as "I know you are, but what am I?" and almost forces me to intervene.
High School --
1. FSPEC...I don’t get it. SPEC arguments are likely only true if dropped unless you can convince me I’m missing something.
Whatever happened to strategically vague plan texts?! Funding mechanism advantages are whatever, but you are opening yourself up to annoying PICs and process counterplans that change one tiny thing about that funding mech you specified in your plan text or in cross ex! “Normal means” is the best answer to “how is the aff funded” because “Perm: do the counterplan” is the best answer to counterplans that change funding in a way that still results in a JG, BI, or social security expansion.
2. Love that people are going for T, but I think there are more convincing options than “taxes and transfers.” I am unconvinced that the word “and” can never mean “or.” Piper likes to eat chicken shawarma sandwiches with extra garlic and mint chocolate chip ice cream. Did you read that as I like to put ice cream on my chicken shawarma sandwiches with extra garlic? I sure hope not. In this instance, “and” does mean “or.”
Policy v. Policy
1. The politics disad is good, actually. It's only "bad" if you're bad at storytelling. Know the major political figures and forces involved in the disad.
2. A smartly constructed advantage counterplan can solve most affs.
3. Counterplans should compete. Creative permutations can and should check counterplans that do not compete.
4. Conditionality is good, and all other theory is a reason to reject the argument. Conditionality ends after the 2NR if there is equal debating on judge kick or everyone is silent on the issue.
Clash
I'm far more familiar with identity Ks than Baudrillard and friends.
K affs v. Topicality --
1. Neg teams should answer case.
2. K affs should have a substantial tie to the topic.
3. Creative TVAs are an underrated part of the T debate - they should be something you actively research, not an afterthought.
4. I would prefer that aff teams provide and defend a clear counter-interpretation for the topic.
5. Everyone should avoid making gross exaggerations on the topicality page. K affs, for example, will not cause everyone to quit the activity.
Policy affs v. K --
1. Aff teams are most successful in these debates when they invest time in link comparison and flesh out the perm.
2. Neg teams are usually in a better spot when they prove that the aff is worse than the status quo and invest a substantial amount of time into the alternative.
K v. K
I have not judged enough of these rounds to give insight into how I evaluate them. Please prefer and provide judge instruction accordingly.
Random Hot Takes
1. The state of the high school and college wikis is disheartening. If you are scared that your entire strategy will collapse if others have your evidence, your evidence is probably not that good to begin with.
I think posting cites instead of Open Source is perfectly fine. BUT you have to check that you’re uploading complete cites! That includes the full tag, author, date, qualifications, a link to where we can access the text if available, and the first and last 3 words of your card.
2. Inserting rehighlights is *usually* good practice - read better evidence if this makes you sad. Rehighligted evidence will only be considered to the extent that it is explained. "Meloche goes neg" is not an explanation. At some point, introducing excessive rehighlights makes the level of explanation I need impossible.
3. A phenomenal 2AR cannot make up for a 2AC with sloppy mistakes - taking a few seconds of 2AC prep to make sure everything is in order is more valuable than saving those 15 seconds for the 2AR.
4. Your breath control sucks - easiest way to fix it is to try and take breaths at the end of sentences like we do in normal conversations. You'll sound and feel better.
5. After each tournament, I check how the points I gave compared to those received by the teams I judge throughout the weekend. This is my attempt to keep up with point inflation, but it doesn't always work.
6. Death by a Thousand Cuts is a fantastic Taylor Swift song - it is a mediocre neg strategy.
7. I am judging how easy to read, quickly sent, and aesthetically pleasing your judge doc is. Not in a win/loss way, but in a "I'm keeping a mental tier-list" way.
8. https://twitter.com/mcfuhrmann/status/1362452482165768193/photo/1
----
- I've been trying to delete this numbered list for like 20 mins and gave up :(
Oakland University - PhD Applied Mathematics (2017)
U of M - Dearborn - BSE Computer Engineering & Engineering Mathematics (2011)
I debated for Groves High School for two years, U of M - Dearborn for one year, and I debated for U of M - Ann Arbor for one year. I have been coaching at Groves High School since August 2007, where I am currently Co-Director of Debate.
Please include me on the email chain: ryannierman@gmail.com
Please also add the email grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain.
Top Level: Do whatever you want. My job is to evaluate the debate, not tell you what to read.
Speed: Speed is not a problem, but PLEASE remain clear.
Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. There needs to be specific explanations of your standards and why they are better than the aff's or vice versa. Why does one standard give a better internal link to education or fairness than another, etc?
CPs: I am willing to listen to any type of CP and multiple counterplans in the same round. I also try to remain objective in terms of whether I think a certain cp is abusive or not - the legitimacy of a counterplan is up for debate and thus can vary from one round to the next.
Disads: Sure. There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. The overviews should focus in on why your impacts outweigh and turn case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line.
Kritiks: Sure. I enjoy a good kritik debate. Make sure that there is a clear link to the aff. This may include reading new link scenarios in the block. There should also be a clear explanation of the impact with specific impact analysis. Spend some time on the alternative debate. What is the alt? Does it solve the aff? What does the world of the alternative look like? And finally, who does the alternative? What is my role as the judge? The neg should also isolate a clear f/w - why does methodology, ontology, reps, discourse, etc. come first?
Theory: I don't lean any particular way on the theory debate. For me, a theory debate must be more than just reading and re-reading one's blocks. There needs to be impacted reasons as to why I should vote one way or another. If there are dropped independent voters on a theory debate, I will definitely look there first. Finally, there should be an articulated reason why I should reject the team on theory, otherwise I default to just rejecting the argument.
Performance: Sure. I prefer if the performative affirmation or action is germane to the topic, but that is up for debate. I am certainly willing to listen to your arguments and evaluate them fairly.
Paperless Debate: I do not take prep time for emailing your documents, but please do not steal prep. I also try to be understanding when tech issues occur, but will honor any tech time rules established and enforced by the tournament. I will have my camera on during the round. If my camera is off, please assume that I am not there. Please don't start without me.
Other general comments:
Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.
Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.
I do not feel comfortable voting on issues that happen outside the round.
You should read rehighlightings.
Don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is.
Cross-x is a speech - it should have a clear strategy and involve meaningful questions and clarifications.
Have fun!
Email: shannonnierman@gmail.com
I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School for four years, debated for 3 years at MSU, and currently coach at Groves.
Topicality: I’m not opposed to voting on T, but rereading T shells is insufficient. There needs to be substantial work on the interpretations debate from both teams, in addition to the standards and voters debate, i.e. education and fairness. As long as the aff is reasonably topical and it is proven so, T is probably not a voter. Also, if you are going for T in the 2NR, go for only T, and do so for all 5 minutes.
Counterplans: Any type of counterplan is fine; however, if it is abusive, do not leave it for me to decide this, make these arguments.
Disads: Any type of DA is fine. A generic link in the 1NC is okay, but I think that throughout the block the evidence should be link specific. When extending the DA in the block, an overview is a must. The first few words I should here on the DA flow is “DA outweighs and turns case for X and Y reasons.”
Kritiks: I will vote on the K, but I often find that in the K rounds people undercover the alternative debate. When getting to this part of the K, explain what the world of the alternative would look like, who does the alternative, if the aff can function in this world, etc. I am well versed in psychoanalytic literature i.e. Zizek and Lacan and I do know the basis of a plethora of other Ks. This being said, I should learn about the argumentation in the round through your explanation and extrapolation of the authors ideas; not use what I know about philosophy and philosophers or what like to read in my free time. Read specific links in the block and refrain from silly links of omission.
Theory: I am not opposed to voting on theory, but it would make my life a lot easier if it didn’t come down to this. This is not because I dislike the theory debate rather I just believe that it is hard to have an actual educational and clear theory debate from each side of the debate. Now, this said, if a theory argument is dropped, i.e. conditionality bad, by all means, go for it!
Performance: An interesting and unique type of debate that should still relate to the resolution. As long as there is substantive and legitimate argumentation through your rapping or dancing and whatever else you can come up with, I am willing to vote on it. Even if you are rapping, I would prefer to have a plan text to start.
*As technology is vital in our life, many of us have switched toward paperless debate. I do not use prep for flashing, because I have also debated both off of paper and paperlessly in debate and I understand that technology can sometimes be your opponent in the round, rather than the other team. I am being a nice and fair judge in doing this, so please do not abuse this by stealing prep, because I will most likely notice and take away that stolen prep.
FAQs: Speed – I’m okay with speed as long as you are clear!
Tag teaming - I’m okay with it as long as it’s not excessive.
Things not to do in rounds I’m judging: go for RVIs, go for everything in the 2NR, and be mean. Believe it or not, there is a distinction between being confident and having ethos vs. being rude and obnoxious when you don’t have the right to be.
Daniel Oleynik
Experience: I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School (2011-2015), debated for 1.5 years at MSU, and currently a graduate student at UCF studying physics.
Admittedly, it's been a while since I've participated in the debate community (Tabroom has me last judge in 2017) so I'm a bit rusty. However, everything under this introduction should still be accurate. As long as you explain your arguments and debate well, there should be no problem.
COVID-era Disclaimer: With everything being online, I feel its's pertinent to mention I am hard-of-hearing, and wear hearing aids, and that's how I'll hear you (They act as headphones, so all sound goes through them). I will be fine, and I've both debated and judged at the national level, but do with this information what you'd like.
Pre-round
-
I’m a fan of all arguments and there’s nothing I won’t vote on. On that note, I’m a large fan on Ks and non-traditional arguments, though I don’t mind a good T debate every now and then.
-
I see too many teams doing tagline extensions of cards and think that means they extended the warrants as well, if you want to make a good argument, don’t just extend the card, but make some warranted analysis as well.
-
Use Cross-Ex well, but there’s a brightline between a sassy C/X and a rude one.
-
Analytics are pretty under-used as arguments, a good analytic can beat evidence a good amount of time
-
I don’t take prep for flashing
-
Tag-teaming is fine, just don’t let it get abusive or excessive.
-
Having debated for Groves, both JL and Ryan influenced me in the opinion of tech vs. truth. I usually prefer tech debates, and will vote on that, but I can be persuaded truth debates are better (though that takes techiness as well…) And if an argument is dropped or conceded, that argument gains full weight unless the team can give me a valid reason why not
-
I’m a very clear judge, in the idea that, when speeches will be going, I’ll be making facial expressions and looks. If you see me making a confused look, either move on or provide more explanation for me to get it. If you see me making a pleased face, keep going.
Clipping Cards
Clipping cards is cheating, and any recorded act of it happening will be met with an L and reduced speaker points.
Bad Arguments
I’m not a fan of bad arguments, but at the same time, if a team loses it on because they failed to flow it, and doesn’t answer it throughout the whole speech, that’s on them more than me. To answer bad arguments, just say something along the lines of “this is silly” and move on.
Bad arguments include, but are not limited to: Time Cube CP/K, FIAT solves the link, Plan is bottom of the docket, any of the specification arguments that aren’t ASPEC.
Regarding the top, there are some arguments I will not vote on regardless of concessions or not: Racism/Sexism/Discrimination Good, Torture Good, and RVIs.
Being AFF
Make sure both the 2AC and the 1AR do effective line by line and don’t concede a negative argument.
Case debates are pretty nice, debating the effects of the plan are what the case debate should be about, if the debate becomes more about the impacts and less about the plan, something’s gone wrong.
I have a high threshold for allowing dropped arguments past the 1AR and doing work for the affirmative in pulling across impacts from the 2AC to the 2AR. If you can give me a reason why I should, I’ll look at it, otherwise, make sure 1AR does everything they need to.
Framework
As a former K debater, I’m not a fan of framework debates and I won’t be happy, but I’ll evaluate them the same as any other argument. As long as you win the flow, I see no reason you don’t win the debate.
Fairness and Educations are good, but they’re not specific reasons to vote one side or the other. You’ve got to impact both of them, and give me reasons why your fairness/education is better than the other teams, whether it be decision making, portable skills, ect.
Kritiks
Having read kritiks for most, if not all, of my varsity debate career I’m pretty familiar with most of the literature out there. In terms of authors.
COVID-Updates:
The only small update, is with time, I haven't interacted with these arguments as much. I love DnG and Butler still, but I don't know the "debate" version of them. In that regard, just move all down a rank. Really Familiar is now Familiar, Familiar is now Familiar-ish, ect.
________________
Really Familiar (these are arguments that I can not only follow jargon wise, but I’ll understand a lot of the arguments really well)
DnG, Zizek, Fanon, Lacan, Saldahna, Butler (grievability ethics)
Familiar (these are arguments I’m familiar with, but I’m not exactly perfect on, may need a little more explanation)
Wilderson, Agamben, Foucault, Puar, Heidegger, Butler (feminism)
Familiar-ish (these are arguments that I’m only slightly knowledgeable in, good amount of explanation will be needed)
Baudrillard, Negri, Nietzsche, Wendy Brown, Derrida, Antonio, Camus
Who? (these are arguments where I’ve heard of the person, or have a slight idea of their arguments, otherwise, a lot of explanation needed.)
Mignolo, Deloria, Hardt, (others I haven’t heard of…)
Quick side note: If you have an author, and you’re thinking I’ve never heard of ‘em, at least ask me before the round, I may have forgotten somebody.
Now that that’s out of the way, general idea of kritiks.
These are my favorite arguments and I really enjoy both debating and listening to them.
Notes for Aff
Read a perm
Watch out for arguments like Root Cause, Floating PIKs, Serial Policy Failure and Error Replication arguments, dropping these usually means game over for the aff.
The easiest, and weakest part of the Kritik is the alternative, make sure you try to take it out.
Notes for Neg
Use your link arguments well, they’re usually able to be independent reasons to vote neg.
No matter if I know the argument or the author, you should still explain what the Kritik does, explanation only helps you.
Specific links to the aff make it easier to win the Kritik, but are not necessary to win the Kritik.
Disads
I’m ok with them, don’t love them, don’t hate them.
On DAs, there’s usually three types of debaters I see.
-
They spend too much time on Link/Uniqueness/Internal Link and not enough time on impact analysis
-
They spend too much time explaining the impact and don’t bother doing any link/uniqueness work.
-
They explain all the parts of the Disad equally, with warranted analysis.
Be the third debater.
While I’m not a fan of politics, I like Case Specific DAs, really use these to your advantage and turn the case with them.
Don’t forget to do impact overviews: Mag, Probability, Timeframe, and why DA turns case.
CPs
Counterplans are fine, like with the DA, I’ll evaluate them. I don’t love them, don’t hate them.
Out of all counterplans, I think Process CPs are probably the best, while Agent CPs are my least favorite, but I’m always ready to hear theory arguments debating why I should/shouldn’t listen to either one.
If the counterplan, not including advantage, that relies on a possibility of resulting in the Aff instead of a 100% risk, I’ll evaluate with caution, and this will usually be my last-choice argument. Make sure there’s at least one argument that makes the case that the CP will result in the Aff.
I’ll listen to all theory arguments equally, but conditionality is usually is the most persuasive, especially if the Neg has more than 3 conditional advocacies.
I’m fine with PICs, but make sure you’re ready for theory arguments if they come up.
Topicality
Ironically enough, even as a K debater, I enjoy debating T. Not enough people know how to do it effectively, so a good topicality debate is pretty fun to watch.
If it’s conceded, I’ll default to reasonability and topicality is not a voter, make sure not to concede these.
If topicality is going to get developed, both sides should give examples of bad/absurd affs that one can read on the other’s interpretation.
SPECIFIC TO NON-PLAN AFFS - If debating topicality, or on that note framework, the negative should make sure to make a topical version of the plan. Affirmative should give at least one reason why the topical version doesn’t solve.
Non-Traditional Affs
I’m a fan of watching non-traditional arguments, especially with debate flooded with policy aff after policy aff.
Same with the Kritik, make sure to explain how your plan functions and any jargon that might be involved.
If I, as the judge, can’t understand how the plan solves the impacts or how the solvency mechanism operates because of a lack of bad explanation, I will default Neg to presumption. However, I have a high threshold for what constitutes a “bad explantion”
Aff - Read a role of the ballot, if the neg concedes it, you know have a much better chance of winning this debate.
Speaker Points
Humor is good, the more you can brighten up a judge’s mood, the better.
A lot of it will rely on good ethos moments and how you do on the flow. If you can keep up and not drop/concede key arguments, it’ll go better for you.
Don’t be offensive/rude, this shouldn’t have to be said…
I know that speaks matter, so if you want to know, ask me after the round individually and I’ll happily tell you what you got. It’s not that big of a deal to me.
Seem knowledgeable about the literature base that you’re reading and about the aff.
Specific things to up speaks
Related to humor: make me laugh
Bad puns, bad jokes, making fun of someone you think I know, all will probably make me laugh.
If you do something risky and it works, I’ll reward you.
Debate Background: I debated for four years at Petoskey High School, and I am currently a sophomore at University of Michigan; I debated at U of M my freshman year. I am more used to policy arguments, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on critical stuff, that just means you will have to explain it more depth.
Philosophy: I will vote on pretty much any argument, but you need to tell me what the role of the ballot is. I need to know how I should frame the debate in order to vote properly. If no one tells me what the role of the ballot is I will default to the team that I think debated the best. So tab.
Specific Arguments:
1) Theory- I generally think theory debates are boring, and either side should only go for theory when absolutely necessary. If it is argued well and has warrants I will vote on it, but I'm not a huge fan.
2) Kritiks- Kritiks are fine arguments, but make sure I understand it, and you understand it. At some point you will need to give me a coherent explanation of the K, and the alt. K affs are fine as well, but I will probably be inclined to vote neg on T if it is brought up and argued well. Other psuedo-kritikal arguments should just be explained well then I don't care if you run it. P.S. you have to win framework if it is brought up in order to win the K.
3) Counterplans- Counterplans are great. Have a net benefit, and win the perm debate and you will probably win the round. Delay, consult and other PICs of the like can be annoying, but like I said, just win the perm debate :)
4) Topicality- Don't go for topicality unless they completely drop it OR the plan REALLY isn't topical.
5) Disadvantages- Great. Do it. I will vote on it.
6) Case- Good clash on case makes me happy. A negative can't win on just case defense though for the most part. In that situation I usually would give some risk of solvency or some risk of the impacts, so have offense on case or a DA, CP or Alt on a K as well as case defense.
In round Conduct: Be respectful. Nothing irritates me more than when people are rude to their opponents, or yell at each other in cross-ex. This is a debate round not a middle school cafeteria.
Prep/speech Time: I will keep you speech and prep time, and my time counts, not yours. Also don't steal prep. That's not a cool thing to do. I don't take prep for flashing or emailing, but if I notice you steal prep time you will lose speaks.
CX: If you make an argument in CX you have to bring it up in a constructive or rebuttal speech in order for it to be weighed in the round. Good CX questions and answers = good speaks.
Speed: Speed is necessary in the way that policy debate has evolved, but make sure you are clear. If you aren't clear I won't yell at you, but I might not hear your argument to flow it, and if I don't flow the argument then it doesn't exist. It helps if you start a little slower than your top speed at the beginning of your first speech that way I can get used to your style. Another note: double breathing annoys me so much, try not to do it please and if you do don't be obnoxious about it.
Other: I'm generally tech over truth, BUT truth outweighs when both sides are similar technically. Also, if either side says something extremely inappropriate along the lines of racist, homophobic, transphobic, ablest etc. speech, then I will give that team VERY VERY low speaks. Be respectful and not a bigot, thanks. If you have any questions, just ask.
Zachary Rich
Affiliation: Wayne State University
Long story short - I like debates where there is clash on both sides. Give me a road map and follow it. Please be sure to signpost so that I know on which flow I am looking/writing. Give me the line-by-line and tell me when your opponent has dropped an argument. If you are rude to me, I can let it go pretty easily. If you are rude to the other team, I will get upset. If you are rude to your partner, I will be livid.
Spreading is fine as long as you are sure to enunciate important parts of arguments and do not lose your clarity. I will give one verbal warning per person throughout the debate, but that is it.
Topicality - T is always a voter, but only if there is a good argument on it or it is dropped by the AFF. If you are just throwing out a T argument for funsies and to waste the AFF's time, I will not like that.
BTW - no voters read = no vote on T.
Kritiks - I need a link in order to vote NEG on the K. I do not want a flimsy card as your only part of the link, I want a solid argument on it. A good link debate can change my mind on the K. However, if the AFF does not address the link at all, I will give it more weight.
Theory - Theory is a voter if it is not addressed by the other side. Just... do not drop theory. While I will vote on it, I will not like doing so. Conditionality: One conditional K and/or CP is not too much for a 2AC to take care of. Anything more than 4 is REALLY pushing it. 5-off is abusive.
Speaker Points - I typically give points from 27 to 29.5. I echo Brad Meloche when I say that, "Points below 27.0 are reserved for 'epic fails' in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial[, and other,] slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that)". Puns and pop culture references are cool. While this will not affect my overall decision on the round, it makes the debate more fun and will incline me to give you more speaker points.
Time Keeping - I urge you to keep your own time, however, I have the official clock for the round. I will start CX time as soon as the speech is over and will start prep time as soon as CX is over. If debating paperless, I will not take prep time for flashing or email, but I need to know when this is happening. Finally... DO NOT STEAL PREP.
Any other questions, please just ask.
I am a former debater of Groves High School and a Spartan Debate Institute Alum. I recently graduated with a master's degree in Human Development and Family Studies at MSU. My educational background has taught me to consider not only impacts themselves, but for whom they are relevant. I am more likely to vote based on policy options when a team is able to convince me of the social justice impacts of said policy option. That said, I will consider framework when voting if a team convinces me that the debate should be evaluated a certain way.
As a general rule, I do not vote on kritiks unless the alternative is well-articulated and there is a clear link to the plan or status quo. I especially do not appreciate alternatives that involve doing nothing unless there is clear, convincing evidence as to why that should be done.
I will vote on topicality, but only if there is a clear violation (which rarely occurs). Debates would be better served by focusing on the core issues rather than arguing about the rules of debate unless it relates to how the round should be evaluated overall.
Please be aware that it has been some time since I last judged a round, so I would appreciate debaters slowing down during speeches.
Philosophies are tricky gizmos. They can be helpful only to a degree because judging paradigms frequently change often without the adjudicator realizing his or her stance on the particular issue has shifted. Additionally, the major premise is that the judge has a paradigm and is capable of articulating it. I am not that reflective, certain, or good. I will try to be fair and do the best I can.
If you are affirmative debating in front of me, you probably want to keep the debate as small as possible. If the 2AR can get away with explaining why the affirmative outweighs the negative and answers any tricks that that might the 2NR might have gone for, it should be a clean win.
If you are negative debating in front of me, you probably need to explain the weight of your impacts in relation to the affirmative. It is probably not enough to simply extend the tag. In your calculus, you probably should tell me what key responses were dropped and what those concessions gain you. You will also need to answer any arguments from 1AR. AND close all the doors you can.
While it probably seems obvious, debates are rarely that easily constructed. The mess around the margins is what makes them interesting. Your ability to navigate through the mess in the end will determine the winner of the round.
I think that that I am open to all arguments but some have a higher threshold than others. I think for example that conditionality (maybe all theory) is a tough sell. It is important that the abuse becomes clear whether it is potential abuse or abuse in the round.
Debate is probably a game but it certainly is not one with a single set of rules. You can make them up as we go along. Feel free to make it up as you go along.
It may be interesting to note that I question whether or not debate is the forum for all arguments. I am particularly referring to performance Affs that fail to advocate for a plan and perhaps even the resolution. I think that I would be open to some sort of fairness argument especially if you can win that debate is essentially a game or something like a game that must be fair for all actors. I worry about the sophistry a bit--doing anything for a ballot might violate the theroy of forms that debate may or may not ascribe to.
Realizing of course that the predisposition at least in part contradicts what I said about listening to all arguments, it is not at all beyond the realm of possibilty that I will vote for anything--I suppose. Debate is large, in contains world of contradictions and I will never be smart enough to fully distinguish between the world ofthe debate round and the world outside of it.
Another bias perhaps pet peeve you might want to be aware of is that I believe that there is cliamet change occuring in the squo. Those ice age authors for example seem fairly pathetic at this point in time. Pointing out that these scienctists work for oil interests is a fairly compelling argument for me. However, it is still conceiveable that I will vote on ice-age stuff. I will wince when I do it, but I will buy it.
Most of the time I try to have a pretty low threshold for new in the 2AR. If the 2NR tells me something was dropped and asks me to allow for no new responses or some version of that scenario, I will agree if I can't find it in the 1AR. On the other hand, the better is the speaker is at creating pathos, the more likely I am going to be tricked into buying that it wasn't new.
I am not especially technical when I evaluate rounds, so try to keep the round as small as possible when you rae winning. I think if you are losing the round, you might be smart to muddle the debate as much as you can to force me to work my way through the decision, but that would never be a prefered coursed of action if it can be avoided.
As far as points go, I think in most varsity rounds, I start at 28. 29's are fairly rare. In novice debate I will start at 27. I will give 28's for good debates much more readily in novice than I would give a 29 in varsity.
At the end of the round, when you ask me questions about my decision, please be nice. I am doing the best I can to process what I experienced. I will be as objective as I can be but I am far from perfect. I have been coaching for a long time. I generally have someone with me like Brad (if you know who Seaholm is, you knw Brad) who does the varsity work, and I generally focus on the novices. If I were to grade myself as a judge, I would probably give myself a C/C+ on a good day.
Please make sense of your arguments and ask for a ballot. I want to do the least work possible as a judge to determine an rfd.
10+ years as a judge. Debate is a game among other things. At this point, I'm pretty soulless and I don't know what more to say than that. The rounds that I enjoy the most are well organized and the debaters attempt to inform clear decisions on how the game should be won.
Fine with all kinds of debate and arguments
Sup, I'm Janai (if you're here you probably know that lol).
I debated in high school for Groves, in college for Wayne State University and coached High school policy and some middle school PF.
Basically, do what you do best and trust that will carry you!
Please try your very best not to say anything offensive: racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-queer, homophobic, ableist, xenophobic, classist, etc.
Im fine with every traditional and non-traditional thing we do in debate... dont be rude, debate the best you can, don't drop content if possible, have fun learning new ideas, do you with confidence!
David Zin
Debate Coach, Okemos High School
debate at okemosk12.net
Quick version: If you want to run it, justify it and win it and I'll go for it. I tend to think the resolution is the focus (rather than the plan), but have yet to see a high school round where that was a point with which anybody took issue or advantage. I like succinct tags, but there should be an explanation/warrant or evidence after them. I do pine for the days when debaters would at least say something like "next" when moving from one argument to another. If you run a critical argument, explain it--don't assume I understand the nuances or jargon of your theory. Similarly, the few critical debaters who have delivered succinct tags on their evidence to me have been well-rewarded. Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I can't flow your 55-70 word tag, and the parts I get might not be the parts you want. I think all four debaters are intelligent beings, so don't be rude to your opponent or your partner, and try not to make c-x a free-for-all, or an opportunity for you to mow over your partner. I like the final rebuttals to compare and evaluate, not just say "we beat on time-frame and magnitude"--give me some explanation, and don't assume you are winning everything on the flow. Anything else, just ask.
The longer version: I'm a dinosaur. I debated in college more than 30 years ago. I coached at Michigan State University for 5 years. I'm old enough I might have coached or debated your parents. I got back into debate because I wanted my children to learn debate.
That history is relevant because I am potentially neither as fast a flow as I used to be (rest assured, you needn't pretend the round is after-dinner speaking) and for years I did not kept pace with many of the argumentative developments that occurred. I know and understand a number of K's, but if you make the assumption I am intimately familiar with some aspect of of your K (especially if it is high theory or particularly esoteric), you may not like the results you get. Go for the idea/theme not the author (always more effective than simply saying Baudrillard or Zizek or Hartman or Sexton). If you like to use the word "subjectivity" a lot on your K argumentation, you might explain what you mean. Same thing for policy and K debaters alike when they like to argue "violence".
Default Perspective:
Having discussed my inadequacies as a judge, here is my default position for judging rounds: Absent other argumentation, I view the focus of the round as the resolution. The resolution may implicitly shrink to the affirmative if that is the only representation discussed. If I sign the ballot affirmative, I am generally voting to accept the resolution, and if the affirmative is the only representation, then it is as embodied by the affirmative. However, I like the debaters to essentially have free rein--making me somewhat tabula rosa. So if you prefer a more resolution focus rather than plan focus, I'm there. I also like cases that have essential content and theory elements (stock issues), but if one is missing or bad, the negative needs to bring it up and win it to win. I do generally view my role as a policy maker, in that I am trying to evaluate the merits of a policy that will be applied to the real world--but that evaluation is being done in a format that has strong gamelike aspects and strong "cognitive laboratory" aspects. A policymaker perspective does not preclude examining critical/epistemological questions...but ultimately when I do so, I feel it's still through some sort of policy making perspective (educational policy, social policy, or "am I thinking about this correctly" when considering my view on the policy question: if my epistemology is a geocentric universe and the plan wants to send a mission to Mars, do I have the right knowledge system to guarantee the rocket arrives in the right place). I will accept counter-intuitive arguments (e.g. extinction is good) and vote on them--although you will have to justify/win such an approach if it is challenged and in many cases there is a bit of a natural bias against such arguments.
I say "absent other argumentation" because if you want me to use another process, I all ears. I'm pretty open-minded about arguments (even counter-intuitive ones), so if you want to run something, either theoretical or substantive, justify it, argue it, and if you win it, I'll vote for it.
Weighing Arguments:
The biggest problem I observed when I did judge college rounds, and at the high school level, is that debates about how I should evaluate the round are often incomplete and/or muddled, such as justifying the use of some deontological criteria on utilitarian grounds. While such consequentialism is certainly an option in evaluating deontological positions, I struggle to see how I'm not ultimately just deciding a round on some utilitarian risk-based decision calculus like I would ordinarily use. I've had this statement in my philosophy for years and no one seems to understand it: if I reject cap, or the state, or racism, or violations of human rights, or whatever because it leads to extinction/war/whatever, am I really being deontological--or just letting you access extinction via a perspective (using utilitarian consequences to justify your impacts, and some strategy or rhetoric to simply exclude utilitarian impacts that might counter your position). That fine if that's why you want it, but I think it makes "reject every instance" quite difficult, since every instance probably has solvency issues and certainly creates some low internal link probabilities. If you do truly argue something deontologically, having some sort of hierarchy so I can see where the other team's impacts fit would be helpful--especially if they are arguing an deontological position as well. Applying your position might be helpful: think how you would reconcile the classic argument of "you can't have rights if you are dead, yet many have been willing to give their life for rights". Sorting out that statement does an awful lot for you in a deontology vs. utilitarianism round. Why is your argument the case for one or the other?
Given my hypothesis-testing tendencies, conditionality can be fine. However, as indicated above, by default I view the round as a policy-making choice. If you run three conditional counterplans, that's fine but I need to know what they are conditional upon or I don't know what policy I am voting for when I sign the ballot—or if I even need to evaluate them. I prefer, although almost never get it, that conditionality should be based on a substantive argument in the round, preferably a claim the other team made. Related to that, you can probably tell I'm not a fan of judge kick for condo. If you have it in 2NR, my perspective is that is your advocacy option...and if it isn't internally consistent, you may have problems. Similarly, if you are aff and your plan merely restates the resolution but your solvency evidence and position clearly are relying on something more nuanced (and obviously you don't have it in your plan), you make it difficult for me to give you a lot of solvency credibility if the neg is hitting you hard on it (if they aren't, well that's their poor choice and you get to skim by).
Theory and K's:
I can like both theory args, especially T, when the debate unfolds with real analysis, not a ton of 3-5 word tags that people rip through. Theory arguments (including T) can be very rewarding, and often are a place where the best debaters can show their skills. However, debaters often provide poorly developed arguments and the debate often lacks real analysis. I do not like theory arguments that eliminate ground for one side or the other, are patently abusive, or patently time sucks. I like theory arguments but want them treated well. Those who know me are aware I like a good T argument/debate more than most...I'm just complaining that I rarely see a good T debate.
I'm not a fan of K's, but they definitely have a place in debate. I will vote on one (and have voted for them numerous times) if two things happen: 1) I understand it and 2) you win it. That's a relatively low threshold, but if you babble author names, jargon, or have tags longer than most policy teams' plans, you make it much harder for me.
Style Stuff:
As for argument preferences, I'll vote on things that do not meet my criteria, although I dislike being put in the position of having to reconcile two incomprehensible positions. I'll vote on anything you can justify and win. If you want me in a specific paradigm, justify it and win that I should use it. I like a 2ar/2nr that ties up loose ends and evaluates (read: compares)--recognizing that they probably aren't winning everything on the flow.
I don't like to ask for cards after the round, or reviewing the evidence in pocketbox, etc. and will not ask for a card I couldn't understand because you were unintelligible. If there is a debate over what a card really says or signifies, or it seems to contain a nuance highlighted in the round that is worth checking, I may take a look at the evidence.
I traditionally rely on providing nonverbal feedback—if I'm not writing anything, or I'm looking at you with a confused expression, I'm probably not getting what you are saying for one reason or another.
Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute. If I missed something in your speech, that is your fault--either because you did not emphasize it adequately in the round or you were unintelligible. If you are a gasper, you'll probably get better points if you slow down a bit. I tend to dislike prompting on content, but keeping your partner on pace is fine. I'd prefer you ask/answer your own c-x questions. I like numbering and organization, even though much has apparently died. At this point, even hearing "next" when going to the next tag would be a breath of fresh air (especially when it isn't being read off of a block). Similarly, I'll reward you if you have clear tags that would fit on a bumper sticker I could read without tailgating. Humor is a highly successful way to improve your speaker points. If you are organized, intelligible and funny, the much-sought-after 30 is something I have given. I haven't given many, but that reflects the debaters I've heard, not some unreasonable predisposition or threshold.
If you have questions about anything not on here, just ask.