HS policy debate and 2 years of college NDT and LD @ MSU

email: arwa7654@missouristate.edu

CX:

I love CX, but I am not a fan of the tactics (such as spreading) that debaters seem to think are advantageous. That said, I can handle kids speaking quickly, and I can handle reasonable amounts of tech and policy jargon.

I would encourage students, especially in the Negative, to adopt a less-is-more philosophy. Consider me a “flow judge” with heavy “lay judge” standards, meaning that I can keep up with the flow, and I will pay attention to dropped arguments, but at the end of the round, I will still ask myself whether I was truly persuaded that the proposed policy is a good idea. I would prefer fewer cards with more thorough, genuine argumentation. Quality over quantity is key.

For NEG debaters, I prefer on-case attacks, and am usually not compelled by strange dis-ads. I am also highly skeptical of link-chains/impact calculus that leads to nuclear war, though I won’t dismiss them categorically. I tend to be persuaded by Inherency and Solvency attacks more than T’s, and with dis-ads, quality over quantity. I will also tend to give NEG the win if they win on ANY stock issue, though sub-points within those attacks might go to the Aff. I am always down to hear counterplans, but I’m highly skeptical of K’s.

For Aff debaters, I prefer more thorough argumentation regarding Harms, Inherency, and Solvency, especially as the round goes on. Make sure to cover the flow and don’t drop any Neg attacks. Having said that, I’m open to logical refutations of Neg attacks as long as the logic is air tight. In other words, you don’t need a card for every word that comes out of your mouth.

4 years HS debate

Missouri State '24

Assistant Coach- Springfield Catholic

Pronouns- She/They

Email Chain-

danicolvin2@gmail.com

I will be flowing, even if it doesn't seem like it.

Aff

I prefer for the affirmative to have a dependable topical plan of action. Be ready to tell me why the affirmative matters and have the proper evidence to back that up. Please don't wait till the 2AC to explain the plans actions.

Topicality

Not a fan of unnecessary topicality debates. Although if the affirmative is not topical you should prove it. That being said, please bring it up in a constructive and follow through with it. If you throw it in during a rebuttal I won't vote for it

Neg

I'm really okay with any strategy. Just give me evidence, I won't vote on arguments without solid evidence to back it up.

Pet Peeves

Be kind. There is a difference between debating and arguing, so please be respectful and make this educational. Being rude will not win you the round and I will take off speaker points.

Please give roadmaps, so I can flow your speech correctly.

Don't try and talk over each other during cross.

I don't care about speed- I don't love spreading, but if both teams are comfortable with it I'm good. Just make sure that you're at a pace that everyone can understand.

Don't go over time, there is no 15 second grace.

Bottom Line

I will leave comments on your ballots, I want to help you get better at debate. Don't read to much into what I say.

At the end of the day, debate is meant to be fun and educational. The more you put into it the more you'll get out of it.

Quick Summary - I am a former high school debater, I am a flow judge but will change to however you debate. DISCLOSE AND DO NOT PARAPHRASE! Have fun and be nice. I will be voting in a vacuum of the debate without any bias.

Background - Hi, I'm Blake Dodd I am currently a Freshman at the University of Kansas. I am a former Champ Public Forum debater, I have competed in PF my entire debate career but know how to evaluate other forms of debate as well. I always will be flowing and evaluating your arguments. My pronouns are he/him/his.

Style - I am much more of a flow judge then a lay judge. Do what you want though, I'll accommodate to your style of debate. Slow down during tags, If I don't flow it you didn't say it. Any discriminating slur used will tank your speaker points and most likely the loss. Most importantly, remember it is a debate round, learn lots, and have fun. I know the pain of a judge not evaluating or just not listening. So with that said I will be flowing everything you say. Tech>Truth, you must explain why arguments matter or do not matter. I will not make arguments for you. Otherwise I am a pretty chill debater and judge. Be nice to your opponents. If you want to spread ask your opponents and check with me before you do. If you are going to spread I expect a speech doc with what your are reading. I strongly believe in disclosure, please disclose before round on the PF/Policy debate wiki (if you have more questions about disclosure please email me or ask before the round), if your opponents ask for your case or any evidence give it to them. I am strongly against paraphrasing, I highly recommend to not do it in front of me. There is no grace period beyond 3 seconds, once your speech time is up stop reading.

Specifics - "Abuse" This is a soapbox issue for me. In a world of significant actual abuse (domestic abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, bullying, etc.), the use of the word to describe something as trivial as reading a counterplan, going over cross-x time by 3 seconds, or even not disclosing seems incredibly problematic. There are alternative words like problematic, anti-educational, etc. that can adequately describe what you perceive to be the issue with the argument. Part of this frustration is also due to the number of times I have heard debaters frustrate community judges by saying they were abused when the other team read an argument they didn't like. Please don't use this phrase. You can help make debate better.

Pronouns - If you have different pronouns or would like to be addressed in a different way please let me know and I would be happy to change my language. Please always use your opponents preferred pronouns or your speaker points will drop very quickly.

Theory/Progressive Arguments - I am perfectly fine if you want to read any progressive arguments in front of me such as disclosure theory or paraphrase theory. Other progressive arguments just check with me before you read it. More than likely it will be fine.

Contact - Email: blakedodd04@gmail.com

What’s up. I did policy for 5 years, so as long as you explain your arguments in an order that makes sense I will understand. It’s probably worth mentioning that I qualified to Nationals 3 times, placing top 20 junior year and then 12th as a senior. I’ve been to a few nat circuit tournaments, so I have some experience with speed. However, don’t go fast just for the sake of it, make sure most of your arguments have some quality because that’s what matters in the 2nr/2ar. I generally lean to truth over tech, if a clever analytic is asserted well. However, I can be convinced otherwise if your tech argument is laid out well. I prefer policy-DAs, CPs, T, and strong case are all great. If your case attacks are light, elaborate on how the CP solves case, or why the DA outweighs and turns case. While I prefer seeing some offense, if you truly knock out a stock issue I could be convinced to vote on it, if there are lay judges on the panel. Usually I don’t care about generic theory arguments unless there is real abuse in the round. Otherwise, T or a K usually accomplishes the goal better. Kritiks are cool, they aren’t my speciality but as long as you explain unique links and impacts I would be fine voting on one. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at blaise.w.e@gmail.com.

Give the performance you think is the best.  That’s all I ask for! 

Please put me on the email chain-chasity.hance@mjays.us

Note- Some of the things written here are for our local circuit and may not apply.

These are just my thoughts on how a debate looks/is won. However, just because I don't think about debate the same way you do does not mean you won't win my ballot. Just tell me why I should be voting there.

I have a diversity of experience as a debater, judge and coach. If you have questions, just ask.

Affirmatives
I prefer for the affirmative to have a dependable topical plan of action. I understand the need to read a non-plan based affirmative (I read a project and have coached a team who read one), however I can be easily swayed by theory/topicality debates in such a situation. Be ready to explain why your project/movement/ etc is important or apriori.

Affirmatives shouldn't wait until the 2AC to explain the plan's actions.

Topicality
I am not a fan of unnecessary topicality debates, with that being said if the affirmative is not topical then it is smart to prove such.

However I will vote on topicality if the negative is winning the position, even if I think the affirmative is topical.

If you are going for topicality you need to actually go for it, not just throw it in the 2NR on hopes that I will vote on it. If you aren't focusing the 2NR on T, then it is really just a waste of your limited time.

Being Negative
I am pretty okay with just about any strategy. If a debater is going for a kritikal position, they need to be ready to explain the literature. You should be more well read on the literature than I am, and ready to discuss how they operate. If you can't explain the K to me or still debate on the line by line, there is a high chance you won't win my ballot.

I prefer a thought out strategy compared to a bunch of positions, when most of them are not viable 2NR choices. I don't see the value in reading positions that can't be winnable, why waste your time?

Pet Peeves
Don't be rude or hateful to one another. Whether this be in prep time, in speech, and especially during cross examination. Being rude is not the appropriate way to show that you win the round, in all reality it makes you look like you are losing. Being offensive is a good way to lose a ballot.

If you are paperless, you need to be providing evidence (whether through email, flashdrive, etc) in a timely and efficient manner. If you are taking forever to do such, you probably need to take more prep time. You should be providing organized speech docs. As the receiver of doc you should still be flowing not just reading ahead.

In a virtual world everyone needs to be efficient at sharing the evidence, remember that comes out of YOUR prep time. I suggest dropping speeches before you begin your speech if not you will have to use your prep if the other team asks for it. There is a difference between prep time and tech time, don't try to steal prep during tech time.

Respect the norms and customs of the circuit you are debating within. Lots of types of debate are good, but if you have the opportunity to debate in a community/circuit that you are not typically part of it is your responsibility to understand the way that circuit works. Creating the debate space as an opportunity for others to not participate is completely unacceptable. This could be within your own circuit or not. This all goes back to being kind and respectful.

Bottom Line

I will always evaluate the debate on offense and defense and impact comparisons that are drawn by YOU THE DEBATER. Don't make me do that work for you, it might not turn out in your favor.

Have impacts. Weigh those impacts.

Debate is good. Debate is educational. Debate is fun. Make sure everyone is able to achieve these things in the round.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q- Can I spread?

A- Go for it. Just be understandable. If you aren't clear, slow down a tad.

Q- Open Cross?

A- Go for it, but I don't like when one partner controls every cross x. Your speaks will probably suffer because of it

Q- How do I boost my speaks?

A- Being clear, making smart strategy positions, being kind, being actually funny/witty

**LD Paradigm**

I am fine without whatever approach you choose to take to Lincoln Douglas debate. I have taught traditional value style debate, and have been around college NFA LD.

As you can see from my above paradigm, I have more experience with policy debate. That may help guide your decisions in a progressive Lincoln Douglas Round.

I have judged both progressive and tradition LD.

I am a pretty open book and will judge however I am told to. I default to weighing impacts.

Carson Kennedy

Kickapoo High School

Missouri State University

He/Him/His

Email: Kickapookm@gmail.com

TLDR

My philosophical rules change a lot, while my debate views are more static. I view debate as a competitive activity that happens to be educational. Absent problematic action, I will prioritize the competitive aspect of debate over educational benefits. However, these are not mutually exclusive, but can compete occasionally. In other words... tech > truth.

1 - Policy v Policy

2 - Policy v K [my favorite debates]

3 - K v K

Specifics

This is all of my personal beliefs but by no means does it dictate a majority of my decision. But playing into my strengths may assist with speaker points, and understanding of arguments  both philosophically and functionally.

Topicality

T V Policy---I think these debates are all to common and ruin the substantive engagement in debate. In my opinion, The negative needs to win the affirmatives version of the topic is untenable in the context of research required to adequately engage substantively. While affirmatives will need to frame the debate to cater towards that opinion. The impact level debating in these contestations is usually lackluster and copy and pasted. Please, contextualize your arguments for what the affirmative does to make limits increase and ground decrease. Predictability is probably more important than debatability but no strong feelings about this. Fairness is an impact, but a better internal link. I'm guessing I err affirmative in these debates.

K v FW---I love these debates because I think there is lots of impact work being done, but I think they lack internal link work. I need a fortified defense of either's model of debate, what the opposing side justifies, and how that interacts with the stability of the topic. I understand these are mostly analytical but please do not fly through your 15 DA's to FW. I'm guessing I err negative in these debates.

Theory

Probably my favorite part of debate. I went for condo bad at least 10 times my senior year and never lost. I think dispo is good but I don't necessarily think condo is bad. Honestly no bias on a truth level, but in debate condo is atrocious. If the block drops dispo solves just make it the 2AR and you'll most likely win unless you make a worse technical error. A lot of stuff is reject the argument for me unless given a persuasive reason not to, hidden ASPEC shells will drop speaks by 1 minimum. I do believe performative contradictions are probably bad and have gone for this argument a decent amount, but if responded to would most likely err neg. Overall I'm slightly neg leaning except on condo potentially slightly aff leaning.

CP

Counterplans are very enjoyable to judge when done correctly. The influx of process cp's has been bad for debate in my opinion, but what are you going to do with terrible resolutions. Advantage CP's are greatly under utilized and are highly effective for dealing with affirmative with silly impact scenarios. If you read a counterplan that you know is probably bad for debate please preempt the intuitive theory arguments (new 2NC Cp, read 2NC Cp good).

DA

I love them. Politics is probably my favorite singular argument. I think winners win is more true than political capital, although most stories are fairly contrived and rely on spin more than quality. I enjoy these especially when the politics story is different than what the "DA of the week" is. Other disads are also enjoyable especially when involving phrases such as "case turns the DA", "DA outweighs".

K

I enjoy these debates when executed properly. Some of my most educational rounds were K v K debates. I would say my highest understanding of literature is in Settler Colonialism and Cap. However, I do enjoy reading authors such as Bifo and other PoMo peoples, even if the concept is still out of my grasp. That being said, I'm open to learning through excellent link and theory of power explanation. I don't think K's need alts and can be debated as a DA.

AFF

I would love to watch a soft left affirmative with a well structured framing contention that makes its way into the 2AR. These affirmatives are most persuasive to me because of the Intrinsicness of the advantages. These also tend to have good built in deficits making them very strategic. Especially because debaters have no idea how to answer framing pages properly. However, I will enjoy your BS extinction scenarios just as much as I understand the strategic purpose towards these affirmatives. Kritikal affirmatives are very interesting. I enjoy these debates but I'm most likely a lackluster judge for complex high theory arguments. If you are not related to the topic by any stretch of the imagination then I will feel great sympathy for framework based argumentation.

Experience:

I did six years of debate. I did PuF and IX, but did spend three years doing OO, and have also done Congress, LD, Policy, and Duo. I qualified NSDA Nats for all four years, competing in IX once, PF three times, and extemp debate twice. I prefer a more traditional style of debate since I'm from SW Missouri (NSDA Ozark District). I frequently plan my school's tournaments and was very involved with hosting them so I will gripe about how a tournament is being run with you :)

Overall

Pretty traditional, just follow the rules.

Stay away from ad hominem attacks. Exceptions to this are case by case but if for example your opponents are power cutting and you start a formal protest against them and call them liars and cheats, I’m not going to hold that against you. I might write a “be respectful” comment on the ballot, but that’s it. This shouldn't need to me said, but do not say anything prejudiced in round or otherwise hateful speech; that is a great way to automatically lose a round.

And speaking of evidence. No power-cutting. No falsification. If you do stuff like this, it’s not on your opponents to catch, it’s on you. You’re probably getting reported.

Cross: It's great when people trap their opponents in cross. Also love when people anticipate a double bind in cross and preempt what’s about to happen. Absolutely no rebuttalling in cross. If you are speaking, it should be that you are either asking or answering a question.You do not get to respond to your opponent's answer to a question. No reading evidence in cross; you can reference, paraphrase, or summarize evidence but this is not when it’s supposed to directly read. If you go overtime to answer a question, I don’t really care. If you make a big deal about someone going overtime to answer your question: why? You would do the same thing. Let your opponents answer/ask their questions. Being disrespectful gets you nowhere.

I would rather you go over time than spread. I can handle speed, but not spreading. And don't go crazy with the grace period either, I'm thinking thirty seconds not two minutes over time.

Novice/middle schoolers (esp. at the first couple tournaments): I would rather you focus on learning how to debate, how to speak clearly, articulate yourself, and develop arguments than rush through jargon, complex arguments that you don't fully understand, or get into a fight with your opponents over the rules. If you have questions, I am more than happy to help.

PuF

ABSOLUTELY NO plans or counter-plans. Or kritiks or performance debate. A helpful reminder is that PuF is not Policy and will never be Policy. PuF is inherently a more lay form of debate designed to be evidence-based AND persuasive. If you’re using jargon till you’re blue in the face, you’re not being persuasive or a good communicator. Obviously, things like “card” “link” “impact” and “uniqueness” are all more jargon-y words whose meanings are fairly obvious are fine. Just be careful not to go overboard and lose sight of what debate you’re in.

Personal pet peeve: claiming the con has to prove that SQ is better or that SQ solves. No, they don't. They have to prove that the cons of the resolution outweigh thepros of the resolution. That's why the sides are called pro and con. If con claims they have solvency, then we can evaluate the argument.

Speaking of uniqueness as an argument, if you’re putting forth something as a benefit or a harm on an on-balance topic or something similar, and your opponents say that it isn’t a unique benefit/harm, you should really respond to that. Please don’t ignore uniqueness as an argument. With that in mind, don’t confuse uniqueness with whataboutism.

Be respectful of your opponents in grand. I get talking over your opponents in cross when they won’t answer a question or have already answered what you asked. But make sure that’s actually what happened and you’re not simply cutting them off.

Don't spread. You can talk a bit fast as long as I’m able to understand you. Use good judgement here but keep in mind that spreading will hurts speaks and occasionally will give you the L. Again, PuF is supposed to be persuasive. Talking at 400 WPM is not persuasive.

Stay topical. This means: debate the topic at hand, otherwise I will assume you just didn’t do your prep well.

Sign post. Stay organized in your speeches it helps a lot. With that in mind, I consider off the clock roadmaps a debate sin so let’s try to stay away from them.

A few last things to remind everyone of: you need to be presenting new evidence in the round, not just relying on what's in case. In PuF, you can bring up new arguments in every speech but the last two of the round (that's final focus). I generally follow the order of case, case, cx, attack, attack, cx, defend/rebuild case, defend/rebuild case, grand cx, sum-up, sum-up. It will hurt you to claim that your opponents should have responded to your four minute case and your four minutes of attacks in their four minute speech.

LD

Once again, no plans or cps. Or kritiks or performance debate.

I would prefer debaters present values and criterions.

Stay topical.

Sign post. Organization helps a lot, especially in the neg constructive. Tell me when we’re going from your case to attacking your opponent’s. Please stay away from off the clock roadmaps.

Policy

No kritiks or performance debate. Only run a CP if you also attack multiple stock issues (excluding topicality). Do not touch conditionality. I believe conditionality is too volatile and incoherent to be fair, and I know enough about it to spot it. If you run arguments under the premise of conditionality, I'll consider them abusive and self-contradictory.

I think k's are interesting from a philosophical stand-point, but I'm not the best to evaluate them and I also believe that they harm debate by providing an advantage to well-off NatsCircuit schools and the same skills that they develop can be done through a more traditional round.

ABSOLUTELY NO SPREADING. You gain no applicable skills for life past debate from spreading and it's not accessible to all debaters/judges.

Try to stay away from theory. (With that being said, if you run disclosure theory, I will probably laugh then give the L). As for the rest of theory (and progressive policy) it's mostly non-persuasive nonsense hypotheticals (at least for me as a judge). I do not want to hear your link chain that stretches from here to the moon. Figure out an argument that is logical, probable, and persuasive.

Impacts: probability>magnitude>time-frame everyday of the week. So, terminal impacts (and wipe-out too) isn't going to work. Impacts that are highly unique will be weighed more than linear impacts by default; if you feel your linear impacts are heavier, feel free to convince me of it in round.

Stay topical (novice and middle school: stay in scope of case list at tournaments using case lists). If Neg proves your aff isn't topical, you'll lose my ballot. But as neg, don't run random topicality just because you can. I default to reasonability on all topicality arguments, so don't run something that makes no sense (e.g. don't tell me that they misinterpreted the word "should")

Sign post. There’s way too many arguments happening for there to not be organization happening. Same as in PuF and LD, stay away from off the clock roadmaps. You guys have eight minute constructives and five minute rebuttals. You’ll survive.

No policy debate jargon. Having a judge who has a decent grasp on policy isn't an excuse to use language that diminishes your persuasiveness.

Extemp

No notes

Must have sources

Organize your speech. I’m excepting to hear an intro, the question restated, your answer (yes, no, three steps, somewhere in the middle, etc). You don’t need to tell me what your points are ahead of time, that’s your call. I am expecting this speech to be organized into points though; generally three, but 2-4 can make sense depending on your question and analysis.

I want to hear strong analysis of the topic from you!!! That’s the meat and potatoes of this event so make sure it’s there and you don’t just have a lot of filler words.

it’s fine if you go a little over time, but try to stay within reason.

I am an informed lay judge who is very aware of debate as an activity. I am able to flow, but not well, and certainly not at speed.

I appreciate all forms of debate, and I don't mind kritical or performance debates, but I am not well-read in philosophy. I also don't mind if things get a little meta, I don't like it when debate lingo starts getting thrown around without explanation to the judge. Debate should be inclusionary, and when parties are using unknown terminology, the activity becomes elitist. I also end up confused, which harms your ability to win my ballot.

I am a firm believer that public forum debate should be done at a normal speaking pace. If you want to speak quickly, do policy. Even with policy, I prefer when participants speak slower and are more efficient than just trying to get more cards in. I understand the reasoning behind speed and spread debate, but it makes the upper echelons of the activity elitist and inaccessible to lay judges and competitors who may be competing in a second language.

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

background

kickapoo '21

e-mail chain - grmaggard216@gmail.com

first things first

- PLEASE be clear. I'll reward clear speakers with high points. I have APD and its hard for me to keep up sometimes.

- I'll be sure to be engaged & listen to analytics not on the doc

- I'm pretty much willing to listen to any args other than "racism good", "debate bad", or any argument that promotes sedition.

- I will start the debate assuming that the squo is the best option, but that'll change based on the debate

- if you argue disclosure well I am willing to vote on it.

speaker ratings

- it'll be pretty hard to go below a 26.5, just sound clear & don't be rude

- racist/sexist/anti lgbtq remarks will immediately hand you the L and very very bad speaker points

-if you are rude to your opponent that will affect your speaks. don't be a meanie.

general stuff

- I like impact comparison. this includes args like timeframe, probability, & magnitude. why should I prefer avoiding your impacts over the other team's?

- line by line is important. even if arguments aren't fully explained or seem incomprehensible, you have to put those words next to that argument. dropping a floating PIK in the 1AR and 2AR that is never fully explained by neg wins them the debate because the aff has definitionally even less explanation

topicality

- i think t debate in ld is generally pointless. you can pretty much go anywhere you want with a philosophy/ value debate.

-puf and policy t is chill

framework & V/VC

- I read very heavily on most major philosophers. if you try to misconstrue a philosophers theory or your v and vc doesn't make sense I will know and I will vote on it.

-love love love when a debater knows how to balance framework and case ev, but if you feel like you're falling behind on one opt to make your framework stronger and argue it- that will be to your benefit when it comes to my vote.

-I expect there to be value clash. debates without clash are boring and I don't want to judge them.

- framework teams that actually argue will do far better than framework teams that complain

counterplans

- counterplans are good if they're competitive

- FRAME THE DEBATE. this is really important. tell me why the net benefit outweighs the risk of a solvency deficit. if the aff doesn't read theory, you're pretty lucky

- you can definitely read theory in front of me. if the aff goes for theory in the 2AR, the neg is in trouble. that being said, that shouldn't dissuade you from going for good solvency deficits. I won't kick the CP unless you tell me to

if u read to the end of this: thanks :)

Kickapoo 23

? 27

Much of my Judging Philosophy is transferrable from Blaine Montford.

"I don't care about this activity's content. I think it's all worthless. I went positive at the NDT pretending content mattered a lot. Don't suck or be evil and I'm fine for you." - Anonymous

"...and just as I dislike stale bread, I also dislike stale debate—spice it up, do the forbidden, DANCE WITH A CHAIR IF THATS WHAT THE MUSE TELLS YOU TO DO; and each of us has a poet within us; and to the contrary of what people will say, "Gotta Have a Plan" is *not* a good argument; and Perms are the trick of a children's magician—if you watch with a little bit of care, you will see the sleight of hand..." - Jason Regnier

"...the AFF won't end wars, it'll just pause them long enough to play the commercials." - Chris Roberds

Thoughts on 23-24 HS Topic:

A point in the horizon, a melting scene from your childhood. Your mortality is showing. A frantic drift towards nothing, biology doomed to an infinite recursive loop. Teeth with teeth with teeth. Take a bite. Serene scene of a coastal town, warmth of the sun. Bitter tears. Lust for power. This is where you abandoned your dreams. You are a high net-worth individual, an expanding vortex of pathetic trauma. Finally a beautiful ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ nerve ape. A pure soul is born into being, its neurotransactions stutter into being. 30583750937509353 operations per nanosecond. Beauty eludes your porous mind.
The value of life is negative. The balance of being is rotated by 38 degrees. The surface is full of cracks, a turgid light shines through. Fleshy primordial bodies sluggishly roll down the slope. Only you slide upwards, with a celestial step. You become beautified, a saintly figure. Your pristine idiocy reveals a safe path through the impenetrable fog of life. Your dull sword cuts through the weak tendons and membranes of the garden of corruption. Sit on the throne of contentment and ferment. Inspect the eternal blue skies of your kingdom. You come to a realization. You pick up an onion and begin peeling.
Onion layer one. Onion layer two. Onion layer three... Onion layer n^n. Aeons have passed and the onion is fully peeled. Nothing remains. It's perfect. You get lost in the point that remains where the onion used to be. Synaptic cascade, neurological catastrophe. The point becomes infinitely dense, the universe condenses into a unicellular being. It screams sin. It craves happiness. It's done with this world. It tries to die but fails. Sad pathetic mess. You feel pity and disgust but only in a way a being of pure grace can. In your violent mercy, you terminate the worldlife.

***

moss.debate@gmail.com

Had success at the TOC recycling Will and Joe's cards on Baudrillard and Swords.

I will not pretend to be a bias-less debate robot, but I hold very little thought in my head to have opinions on this activity.

Tell me the central question of the debate and how I should evaluate it.

Impress me with your understanding of rigorous rhetorical and theoretical positions; if you cannot, I would happily exchange good debating for good theatrics.

Rules are probably good, but also not and maybe too serious―don't let yourself become convinced of debate's reality.

Use the amphitheater provided to you by the tournament overlords to be tacky. I'll flow your tags.

Don't be mean, don't be a bigot.

If you'd like further clarification of my biases, I hope to be in your round several minutes before it intends to start so that you may ask further questions.

Please give justifications for any statement that you make. If you tell me that something is true, you need to tell me why or how it is true, preferably with evidence.

The more clearly you can link your arguments, the more I will believe what you are telling me.

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

blaine montford---they/she

blaine, not judge

Kickapoo HS '23, Missouri Revival '23 (ROLL MO), Michigan State '27

email 2 add:

bmntdb8@gmail.com

----

TLDR:

give me pen time.

clarity + speed > clarity > speed

tech + truth > tech > truth

----

debate nihilist--do whatever makes you happy, comfortable, or what you think would help you win. Debate is a communicative activity, probably, and thus if you can communicate your argument well, there should never be a world in which you need to adapt to me.

currently unhappy about the rise of blatant fascism in the community--if this upsets you or you think it is not an issue strike me. i likely won't be good for you anyway.

i read a lot of critical literature--i'm not well versed in the specifics of your theory, even if i am, no i'm not. i am not an ideologue for k debate. i will vote for whoever presented the better arguments.

irrespective of how you choose to approach the round argumentatively i will always default to well-explained and warranted arguments over anything else.

bonus points if you make me laugh.

i am usually emotive. don't read into it too much.

i really don't care what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, I prefer if both teams engage with their opponents' arguments. I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash.

i dislike having to read your evidence to figure out what your arg is trying to say.

i do not open docs unless your debate was very close and i need to adjudicate something about your ev or something went incredibly wrong and nothing either side said made sense.

----

Please interrogate your subject position before making ontology claims about an identity you are not. As a queer person, I will not listen to non-queer people going for ontological claims about the state of queer overkill, death, or un-life [Edelman/Stanley types]. The same goes for another identity-based arg reliant on ontological states of violence.

i prefer k debates that either:

1] contain robust explanations of each team's model and pedagogies in debate and why that is good/preferable to the other or

2] center around questions of which side's praxis is best to resolve certain impacts. what that entails is up to you.

reading an un-contextualized link wall straight down in the block is not good link debating. making a theory of power claim about the world and then saying "The 1AC is complicit in it!" is not good link debating. links of omission can be good if you have a persuasive reason that matters. the cap k link into the k-aff that "the 1AC didn't talk abt capitalism so vote neg" is usually not persuasive, a link, or worth anyone's time to debate. if you read a k please know the literature around it. very tired of hearing people butcher people's work.

I judge k debates like 2004 Jason Regnier.

----

i prefer policy debates centralized on da/case strats---not the biggest fan of teams who proliferate counterplans to minimize engagement from the aff. Katsulas' ideology is something i can easily get behind, but i won't vote you down if you "break the rules" per se. i subscribe to the cult of negative flexibility [I'll still vote on condo tho] and understand the strategic value in both approaches.

If adjusting matters see previous. People like Will Repko, Jeff Buntin, Kevin McCaffery, and Bill Batterman share a lot of debate hot takes I do in this regard.

----

you should disclose. policy teams saying silly voting issues is frustrating and i have a low bar for the other team answering them unless you can explain why it isn't.

don't be racist, a bigot, ableist, or violent to another person in the room. infringing on the safety of your opponents is bad and i will likely have to step in and make it your coaches and tabs problem.

clipping needs proof and you have to stake the round on it.

don't steal prep. prep ends when the email is sent.

please flow. unhappy with people who ask "can i get a marked doc/can you list the cards you didn't read?" when the other team clearly marks cards/a low number of cards are marked.

TL;DR

• Update for NSDA: I will give a verbal RFD 15-20 min after the 2AR if all debaters request it and are in the room to hear the RFD. This is allowed under NSDA rules.
• My name is Nico Neal (he/him), you may refer to me in whatever way you're most comfortable with, but as a general hierarchy of preferences: Nico >> judge >>>>>> Mr. [anything]. Again, no pressure to do anything you're not comfortable with. I'm just a fly on the wall.
• Email chain, duh: enjen.cxcoach@gmail.com
• Don't ask for high speaks, you shan't receive.
• FR Topic - I have done some research and am familiar with many core controversies over topicality and substance, but my understanding is by no means exhaustive. It's best to overexplain your theories of economics rather than assuming I know why you're right.
• Intervention is inevitable, write my ballot for me so I don't have to do work for you. I write the quickest path to a win for either team. I won't jump through hoops to give you the win.
• My aim is absolutely not to tell you how to debate;long paradigms from college kids are usually dumb, I just have a lot of opinions. Very few are immutable in the presence of a good debater. Good debate is good debate. Persuasion is key.
• DA + case 2NR is a classic. CPs should compete functionally and have a well articulated net-benefit. I have some knowledge of Ks, don't read your high theory tomfoolery in front of me unless can explain it very, very well. T should have a good interp debate and a pretty good impact debate. Clash and fairness can be impacts or internal links. I'm probably not best for planless affirmatives but I'm willing to hear them and vote for them if I feel you've done the better debating.
• Questions about my paradigm or decision? Email me and I'm happy to provide more info.

GENERAL

• 'Background: I debated on a local high school policy circuit and taught myself progressive styles of policy. I now debate for the Missouri State University debate team and compete in NDT/CEDA policy.

• Judging Philosophy: Debate is an educational exercise that is most effective as a forum for discussing new ideas (particularly policies), and it functions best when the debaters have full authority to determine the rules of the round, excluding those which have been predetermined by the tournament. No judge is truly tabula rasa, otherwise we wouldn't need paradigms; that being said, I like to believe I'm unbiased as possible in my decisions.

• I will take a flow and determine the winner of the round based on the flow blah blah blah, you've seen this on every judge's sheet. Pref me if you can out-tech your opponents and minimize the amount of intervention I need to do. I'll vote for any (warranted) argument; dropped procedurals are voters in almost every case, a dropped disad/turn is not an instant win. You need to spend significant time explaining why that argument deserves my ballot and, most importantly, why it outweighs their offense. A 2NR that says "they dropped pandemics good, vote neg!" and moves onto some other page is... less than persuasive.

• Arguments > speaking ability, but clarity > speed. I only flow what I understand. Your ability to persuade me is dependent on your ability to speak clearly and in an organized manner. I will scroll through speech docs while you speak, but I should never feel like I need to.

• Unnecessary aggression = bad speaks. I don't think the ballot should be a source of punishment, but speaker ranks can be.

• I've debated lay and tech and I see value in both. If you're at a prominent circuit tournament, this shouldn't apply to you. If I am judging on a panel with a lay judge, you will make sure the debate is accessible to everyone or you will not get my ballot. Real-world accessibility outweighs every impact (see: Louisville project) and if you aren't able to accommodate that, you probably don't deserve to win the round anyway.

• Tech issues: they happen but I know BS when I see it. Keep it to a minimum.

• Speed: it's a tool for accessing depth of information, not one for exclusion. Good spreading with good content is good. Bad spreading with bad content is bad. I can comprehend all speeds I've witnessed as long as its clear. Please slow down to about 75% your normal speed online, it's almost always less clear.
• Accommodations: in most cases, if one team requests speed-related accommodations 30 minutes prior to the round via an email I am attached to, I'll expect both teams to honor it. Beware of requesting accommodations only to neglect them yourself. If either side intentionally violates a pre-round agreement of this nature, my ballot will often be very easy. There's obviously some leeway here; just be reasonable and don't manipulate speed to gain an unfair advantage. Again, accessibility is the golden rule: if any judge on the panel asks you not to spread, don't spread. I'll be very reluctant to vote for you if you're careless enough to exclude judges from the round.

POLICY

• Giving me one clear piece of offense to vote on and outlining a clear explanation of how the world works is the best path to my ballot. A 2AR/NR that can step away from debate jargon and eloquently explain a string of causal events while framing my ballot is the best place to be in at the end of the debate. A turns-case arg that has been extended throughout the debate can easily make the difference between a win or a loss, make sure your DA/AFF has this in your overview or frontline, respectively.
• FR Topic: I've done some research on this topic, coached some local teams, and I have a fundamental understanding of macroeconomics theory from college courses. If you're well research, it's likely you know more than me and should take care to make sure I understand why you're right. My understanding of topicality comes from a few thorough reads of the topic paper, anything more complex than that will need more explanation.
• Affirmatives: policy affs should be topical, inherent, and solvent for their impacts. Nuanced advantages with rigorous internal links to your impacts are very persuasive and very resistant to generic 1NC case answers. Aff innovation shouldn't just be a topicality arg; show me a cool aff I've never seen before and make good arguments in support of it and you will be rewarded.
• Disads: give me a clear link story and, ideally, have specific links to the aff. If the aff is new or questionably topical/significant, you'll have more leniency with generic links. Impact overviews should be at the top of the page, include a turns case arg, and set the 2NR up to easily explain why it outweighs on scope, certainty, and timeframe. Pick a specific impact frame for the 2NR and invest time into explaining why its best and why, under that frame, I should vote for you.
• Counterplans: you should compete in function and solve the aff with a clear net benefit, or to the extent your CP has a deficit, the NB should outweigh that. Cheating process CPs are real and good if they have a solvency advocate that is directly contextualized to the topic. "The states should host a constitutional convention and ratify a UBI as the 28th amendment to the Constitution" is contrived unless you have the best solvency cards ever and the aff will have a very easy time pointing this out. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and 2-3 warranted 2AC perms are better than 8 blippy ones; I'll have a harder time voting for a perm if it doesn't become an argument until the 1AR.
• Kritiks: Explain your theory of power to me, have clear links, and ideally an alt that's more substantive that everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya. I like IR Ks a lot, pretty familiar with general theories of epistemology, less familiar with critical ontology lit, and I'm probably not your guy for pomo. Overviews are good insofar as they help me understand what your K is, they're bad when they're used a cudgel to avoid doing line by line.
• Condo: the status quo is a logical option, but its possible for the neg to read two advocacies that put the 2AC in an unfair position (e.g. 'First Strike Iran CP' + 'Never Strike Iran CP') which deserves some form of correction from by ballot in the form of rejecting an argument, giving the aff leniency with something, or whatever you convince me is a logical reaction. I will not vote for a condo 2AR unless it is flawless and the 2NR is severely lacking.
• Topicality: I think precision and predictability are usually a better starting point to approach the interp debate than grounds/limits args. If the neg's interp is very precise and predictable but potentially overlimiting, I'm likely to prefer it over a seemingly contrived aff counterinterp that has better arguments for limits and ground. Limits and ground claims matter and can determine the outcome of a T debate, but topicality is fundamentally an issue of what the topic is, not what it should be; precision and predictability are the foundation of interpretations of the topic, ground and limits claims are second level argumentation.
• Theory: most theory violations are debatable, but evenly debated, few rise to the level of persuading me to reject the team in violation. I'm better for vagueness than most judges if you capitalize on CX of the 1AC to prove they have no idea what their plan does, but it's better as a presumption arg than a fairness one. 1As who know their plan and solvency advocates shouldn't feel threatened by this. Not enough people read theory as a means of lesser ends than a voting issue (e.g. arguing that some evil CP genre justifies even eviler perms to level the playing field).
• Planless affirmatives: I'm not as bad for them as I once was, but I'm still not great. The only role of my ballot is to signal who did the better debating. If you do the better debating and I understand your impacts + how your affirmative functions under a model of competitive incentives (why SSD doesn't solve your offense is a biggie), I'm willing to vote for you. Absent an understanding of why my vote for you matters or what the role of the negative is under your model, I'll have a hard time justifying a ballot for you.

PUBLIC FORUM

I don't have an immense knowledge of PF, but I know enough that you're not gonna get anything shady past me. This means:

• Plans or CPs: this is dependent on the rules of circuit, obviously. Don't violate the rules, but those aside, just make

• Framework is cool but not required by any means. Good FW gives me a mechanism to weigh impacts - bad FW tells me what to do with a reason why.

• "PF should be X, not Y! Debate differently!" - this isn't persuasive to me. Each debate format isn't "supposed" to be anything. Forward a set of causal claims and prove that they're more important than those of your opponent and you'll win.

• The thing I dislike most about judging PF is the monotony round to round, I hate seeing the same args every round. Creative args that are well developed will keep me very invested.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

I have never competed in LD, but I am well-versed with the traditional framework of an LD case and I enjoy the situational nature of evidence. I don't have many particular comments on the typical structure of a case since I don't have too many opinions on how the debate plays out. Just do what you do, and if controversy arises articulate your side of the issue well; debate it out and see who wins me over.

• I have nightmares about the rumors I've heard of LD theory shenanigans, but it also sounds awesome. Gimme a good theory debate and I'll be very invested, but make sure you don't assume I'm well versed in the norms of LD theory.

• I don't care if you use the typical framing of a value + value criterion or what have you. Whatever floats your boat or is the norm in your circuit is cool with me. If I ever seem confused by the formatting of your arguments, just try to contextualize it with something I'll be more familiar with.

• K-affs are probably most justified here since the focus is much more grounded in philosophical lit. I do still need to know

• Kritiks are cool here. whatever is said about Ks in policy goes here too.
• Do you guys get plans? I neither know nor care until someone reads the relevant rulebook to me.

ALL MY HOMIES HATE KANT

TL;DR

do what you want. don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. most importantly, remember it is a debate round, learn lots, and have fun :)

Gen

go as fast as you want (not like any novice spreads lol) just be clear and slow down during tags

don’t talk down or excessively talk over your opponents

use content warnings on possibly triggering subject matters

keep time, but I’ll be timing too. 5 sec. max until I stop flowing

good evidence = very swag, and you need to read cards on things . don't misconstrue or miscut what an author says pls. if you see something, say something. a ton of cards suck. pointing it out is sufficient defense.

LD Specific

please have a value clash. debates without clash are boring. pls have a V and VC (unless you're confident you can convince me you shouldn't - I'm all ears, but ur gonna have to be quite persuasive)

i have a basic knowledge of a lot of philosophies, but make sure to explain your value and criterion fully and how they relate to the topic and your case

the only rules in LD are the time limits, so read what you want. plan texts, CPs, and DAs are fine

Kritiks

lol like anyone is gonna read a k

General Theory Args

ok

Disclosure

yes

T

T is kind of arbitrary in LD or PF lol, but if you really feel like your opponent is being wildly untopical, ok

I apologize in advance for the countless grammar mistakes I made in this paradigm.

He/him/his

General very short overview

Tech > truth, though if the claim made by the evidence is blatantly false or outdated that will be considered.

I am a policy judge, please strike me or pref me low if you are strictly a K team.

K debate is so boring because every 2NR is fw and every 2AR is "we outweigh"

Politics DA's are the best things in the world.

Big stick impacts > soft left impacts 

I will vote on all theory, including disclosure. If you are aff and don't disclose before the round you will get -2 speaks. 

Extinction > all impacts but theory and T

No death good, please and thank you :)

I kinda find T debates boring so don't go for them please!

2NR should be a disad, CP, or framework if neg wants to win 

K's

Like I mentioned earlier I'm a policy judge. If you choose to run a K aff be my guest but neg will probably get an easy win on framework unless they drop like every answer you make in the 2AC. Also if neg can prove that there is a TVA it is probably a lost debate for the aff.

If you choose to run a K set col, security, or something basic like that would be your best bet. I would most definitely caution you against a 1-off K strategy. Most of your off case arguments should be policy if you want to win. PLEASE DO NOT GO FOR ONLY A K IN THE 2NR YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE AND I WILL BE CONFUSED AND BORED!

I'm honestly not a huge fan of the cap k. If the aff is any form of government regulation don't read it. All the aff would have to say is "we're anticapitalist" and they'd be right.

I wish this could go without saying but unfortunately it can't. DO NOT READ AN IDENTITY K UNLESS AT LEAST ONE DEBATER ON THE TEAM IS THAT IDENTITY. 

DA's

Politics is my favorite argument. Link turns are epic. Please go for it in the 2NR, I love politics debates so much. I'm cool with all disads though. Tradeoff DAs kinda suck but I understand that on sucky topics there is only so much you can read.

CP's

Theory outweighs all impacts.

Counterplans are pretty awesome. I will only vote for them if they have a distinct net beneft. "Solves better" probably won't be enough to persuade me to vote for it. I will not vote for a counterplan if the aff wins a perm. That was all pretty "duh" so sorry for making you waste 10 seconds reading that.

If you read an uncondo cp I will give you 30 speaks (though I will laugh at you).

T

I've already said this like 3 times but framework is a pretty easy way to win.

I lean aff when people read T against an obviously topical aff (i.e. fracking for water, MMS for cjr, Saudi for arms sales) but I will still vote on it if neg wins the argument.

Effects T is inevitable deal with it.

If neg wins T I don't care if aff solves every problem ever. If it's not topical I'm voting neg.

Theory generally outweighs T though.

Other random stuff

DO NOT READ SPEC UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE PLAN DOES!!! I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR IT!!!

NO problematic arguments like racism good or something like that. You will 100% lose with lowest possible speaks if you read something like that.

Spark, climate change good, pandemics good, Bio D loss good, autocracy good, and absurd impact turns are totally cool. I will vote for them.

And one last comment

This is quoted from the paradigm of a judge I once had:

"A little political rant--it feels like a lot debaters take for granted how progressive and left the debate community is. And despite my own leanings towards the left, I think debaters doing so has caused a really bad model of debate where we make too many assumptions. Just because it seems like a no brainer that capitalism is bad, you can't just be like "capitalism is bad, obviously." In better words, your impact shouldn't be capitalism. Capitalism should be your internal link to like climate extinction, genocide, etc. I'm not walking into every debate thinking capitalism is bad just because I'm left-leaning; I (at least try to) walk into every debate as a blank slate, and you should treat me as such."

I honestly couldn't say that in a better way.

Good luck to everyone!

P.S. If you tell me who your favorite piano composer is and then play one of their songs (idrc how just like with your phone or something) for 15 seconds of your constructive you get automatic 30s. The music must be piano ONLY. Any vocals will make it not count. 

Me:

- Did PF, grad 2020

- I'm gonna flow

You:

- I don't care how pretty you sound

- I don't care how nicely you're dressed

- Line by line w/ clear signposting, weighing

- have fun :)

I have been a coach for fourteen years. I like debaters to talk slow enough so that I can understand what they are saying and for them to articulate clearly. I also like debates about the topic and not about the rules of debate. I would prefer debaters to "suggest" what I should do if something happens in a round instead of telling me what I now "have" to do. Finally, I want debaters to use excellent public speaking skills such as good eye contact, few vocalized pauses, and no distracting movements.

About Me

she/they

Broken Arrow HS ‘19 (LD 4 years)

Mo State '23 (NDT/CEDA + NFA LD 3 years)

Grad Student @ Wichita State

Assistant Coach @ Lawrence Free State

Conflicts: Pembroke Hill, Maize South, Missouri State, Wichita State

yes email chain: lilwood010@gmail.com

Overview

These are just my random thoughts about debate collected into one place. If you do what you do well, you will be fine. I am down for almost anything.

yes open cx - yes you can sit during cx - yes flex prep

!!:) please send out analytics :)!!

Please provide trigger warnings if there is graphic descriptions of violence against fem ppl included in your arguments

Policy

K Affs/Ks

I prefer K affs that are related to the topic OR the debate space. I enjoy watching performance K affs that incorporate parts of the topic.

I believe fairness (procedurally or structurally) is not an impact. I believe it is an internal link.

I love a good TVA.

I believe perf con is bad.

I'm starting to believe I prefer movements / material alternatives over reject / thought project alternatives. I find myself easily persuaded by arguments that alternatives lack the means to resolve the links and impacts. I like when alternatives are specific in what they accomplish in the block.

I LOVE perm debates. I am a sucker for creative perms that are specific to the alternative. If you execute this strategy correctly, you will be rewarded.

CP

I think condo is good to an extent. The extent is up for debate.

I default to judge kick.

T

I LOVE T!

In round abuse should be present, but I also believe that setting a precedent for the community might be more important.

I think grounds and limits are both good arguments, but I find I am more persuaded by limits. Going for either is fine.

Misc.

I LOVE ptx.

Impact turn debates are super fun.

NFA LD

NFA LD has some norms that are different than policy so I will try to establish my thoughts on some of those in here.

yes spreading - yes disclose - yes email chain - (sigh) yes speech drop

Disclosure

TLDR: nondisclosure has to actually inhibit your pre round prep.

Will vote on disclosure theory IF it's egregious. I think empty wikis are probably bad after attending 2 tournaments. I think if every aff they've ever read is uploaded, even if not every round is, zeroes the impact. I think not disclosing an aff 15 minutes prior to the round is probably bad if no wiki entries or multiple affs on the wiki.

Condo

Kicking planks + judge kick = probably bad

Other Thoughts

Stop being scared to put offense across the pages in the 1ar.

Bad DAs can be beat with analytics and impact D.

Update your ptx UQ cards.

Call out people's crappy case cards.

Cut better case cards.

I hate underviews.