- For any round-related correspondence, please utilize the following email address: jasondbarton15@gmail.com.

Background:

- I am an assistant debate coach at Albuquerque Academy in ABQ, New Mexico (mostly coaching CX and LD).

- I recently finished my Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of New Mexico. I specialize in German Idealism, hermeneutic phenomenology, and Lacanian psychoanalysis.

- I debated CX, LD, and PF (though mostly PF) in Dallas, TX and the surrounding areas throughout high school (2011-2014), and I debated on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University more recently (2015-2019). My partner and I finished second at nationals (NPTE) our senior years. I consider myself to be comfortable with traditional and progressive styles of debate.

- My pronouns are he/him/his.

Crucial Points:

- Please attempt to be as courteous to one another as possible.

- In terms of argumentation, I do not necessarily have a preference for which kinds of arguments you present (e.g., policy affirmatives, DAs, CPs, Ks, Theory, etc.), but I would like them to be thoroughly explained, well-warranted, and impacted out (including weighing/impact calculus) throughout the debate.

- I gravitate towards evaluating framework very highly in the round (e.g., sequencing claims pertaining to competing methodologies). It is very likely that, if you are winning the framework debate, you are ahead in the debate (according to my assessment).

Theory/Topicality:

- I approach theory and topicality by analyzing the interpretation/violation layer first and the standards/voters layer second. If the opposing team wins a "we meet," they have effectively no linked the argument in my judgment (and thus need not even address the standards/voters).

- In assessing the standards/voters layer of the theory/topicality debate, I am looking for (a) extensive comparison between the respective standards of the interpretation and the counter-interpretation with respect to the voters (i.e., internal link analysis) and (b) priority claims in regard to voters (How do the voters interact with one another? Does one ground the possibility of another?).

CPs/Ks:

- On CPs and Ks themselves, I would prefer clearly marked solvency for both positions (I think CP/K solvency is pretty important - especially the question of "how do you solve the aff?" if this is an aspect of your position).

- I would like K links to be specific to the affirmative as opposed to more generic K links ("you use the state/capitalism/etc.") - if that's not the case, I am receptive to "no link" arguments from the affirmative.

- I think framework debates on Ks can be really educational, and I value framework pretty highly when considering which impacts matter in the round. Root cause claims can function as tiebreakers between competing frameworks.

DAs:

- I like DAs with precise/lucid uniqueness stories and specific links to the affirmative.

- I enjoy arguments from the affirmative about how the DA links to the CP. I think some valuable offense can be garnered from these.

Perms:

- I believe perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, but I'm willing to evaluate the contrary.

- Also, if the perm text doesn't make sense (e.g., "do both" when alt text says "reject aff"), I will consider this argument in relation to the viability of the permutation.

Ryan Corso, He/Him/His

Ph.D. Student, Graduate Assistant at Wayne State University

Email: ryancorsogonzales@gmail.com

Updated Fall 2023

About me

I competed on the competitive circuit in Parliamentary debate for 5 years, from 2014-2019. I began my competitive career at Moorpark Community College. I was a two-time state champion in California and a one-time National Champion at Phi Rho Pi. From there, I completed my last three years at Concordia University Irvine. I broke at the NPDA all three years at Concordia. In my senior year, my partner Benji Lange and I took 6th at the NPDA and 4th at the NPTE national championships. I received my master's in communication from the University of Louisville; I was previously the Director of Forensics at Schreiner University, where I coached LD, Parli, IPDA, and Speech. I'm now a Ph.D. Student my studies focus heavily on Rhetoric, Neoliberalism, Assemblages, and Post-Dialectics. I am a Graduate Assistant Debate Coach at Wayne State coaching NEDA and Policy. I have competed in Parli, LD, and IPDA. I am comfortable with policy, speed, kritiks, and theory.

Debate Overview:

I like to think that I understand debate fairly well, and I consider myself a very flow-centric judge. Debate is a game; you can run what you want and do what you want in front of me. I'm open to almost all arguments, (No pro racist, homophobic, or fascists args tho) just be prepared to justify your actions and tell me where to vote (This is what the rebuttals are for). I ran every policy arg in the book, just as much as I ran Kritiks, however, I probably read theory the most.

Winning in front of me is simple, provide an ample framework, clear links, and terminal impacts. Win the flow, and collapse to the argument you believe is the clearest and most compelling path to vote on. I am open to hearing about new positions, and I will always do my best to understand the position that you're reading to the best of my ability. Debate is a game, and I believe in the multiple world's paradigm, so win the game the way you like.

Theory:

Theory should consist of a clear interp, and a unique violation (that explains the operative nature of that specific interp), standards that frame the offense and impacts. I don't default to theory being A Priori anymore and will evaluate it under either DTD or DTA, you tell me. RVI's are always illegitimate.

Kritiks:

Kritiks need a CLEAR link for me to even consider voting for it. Make sure you have specific warrants and nuance in your links to explain how it uniquely works in this specific round.

Here's a list of Kritiks that I read while I competed to give you an idea of what I'm familiar with. Off the top of my head Neoliberalism, Anarchy, Marx, Whiteness, Satire, Absurdism, Deleuze and Guattari, Fragility, Existentialism, Set Col, Feminism, Cyborg Fem, Ecocide, Baudrillard, MLM, Nietzsche, Reps, and Rhetoric.

Speaker Points:

I am not a fan of the speaker point system, as a way to evaluate rhetorical capabilities. I view speaker points as a method to reward good arguments and strategies. I give speaker points based on the idea "Whoever did the best debating".

Final notes:

* I do not know how to judge unfalsifiable arguments. ex: religion based kritiks

*I have a VERY HIGH Threshold to vote on a "Call out Kritik"... I do not feel that it is my job to determine in round who is or isn't a good person. This doesn't mean I won't vote on kritiks that call out bad rhetoric or whatever that occurred in round, because I will for an in round link is easily verifiable, while outside aspects are almost impossible.

*DO NOT belittle or demean your opponents, good debate is a genuine debate. The community is really important to maintain.

Good Luck, Have Fun!

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

Hi there! If you're reading this, it hasn't been updated since I stepped away from debate professionally. As a debater, I participated in just about every format of debate and read almost every argument I could find. As a judge, and coach, I encouraged debaters to do the same. Please ask any and all questions you might have - if I'm judging your round I'm happy to be there! :)

Email chain codygustafson97@gmail.com

Experience: Lindale HS (TX), Texas Tech University, UCLA, SDSU, UT-Tyler, Dallas UDA, Washington UDL

tl;dr: do what you do best, at whatever rate of delivery you can be clear at.

I default to evaluating the roundthrough offense/defense, which to me means I vote for whichever team has the better chance of avoiding/solving the largest impact (either pre-fiat or post-fiat, you tell me).

Read whatever arguments you would like and debate in whichever style you would like. I've judged many formats of debate throughout the years and seen many different styles and flares in them each - I am more interested in seeinggood debate rather than any particular style of debate.

I love high-quality evidence. Warrant comparison, evidence comparison, and historical examples will go a long way towards winning my ballot.

Tell me what to do - the more robust judge instruction, the less likely I am to unintentionally intervene. "Write my ballot for me", and be clear in your 2NR/2AR what the implication of winning your most important arguments is in the larger context of the debate and how it interacts with the opposing arguments in the debate.

TL;DR: Do what you want, but I have a high threshold for theoretical defenses in favor of rejecting the topic (although I'm very in favor of creative ways to endorse the topic), and I tend to hold proximal impact framing/proximal solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard as well.

While I'm open to arguments about debate being a "training ground" for personal advocacy and political change, I view debate itself as a game. This means that I view arguments very impersonally, and I care more for the strategic aspect of the game than the emotional or truth-based appeals. Those things are obviously still important, but that just means I will very likely vote for arguments that are "winning" even if I don't necessarily like them (just because of how I understand the utility of debate). For impact weighing, I probably default to magnitude>probability>timeframe unless told otherwise, so do in-depth impact comparison that includes weighing of the different metrics. I tend to hold proximal impact framing and solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard, and while I'm down to vote on proximity you should just keep in mind that I think of all of these arguments as pieces to a game, so I'm not more persuaded by proximal impacts than magnitude-based impacts absent a clear reason.

I'm fine if you want to reject the topic on the Aff, but I'll be very sympathetic to the Neg's theoretical objection to that. You can win the theory debate, but I'll have a pretty high threshold for your theory answers so just be aware of that. Impact turning theory out of the aff is fine as well, but I've found that if the Neg team wins that you shouldn't get to leverage the Aff against theory if truth-testing the aff is impossible, I'll usually evaluate the theory prior to the PMCs reasons that fairness and education are bad or impossible to access. I'm pretty indifferent about conditionality also, but will vote on theory saying it shouldn't be allowed if you win that sheet.

Also on theory, this has only mattered a couple of times, but if I'm not given a paradigm by either team I have a tendency to default to reasonability instead of competing interpretations. This is largely because (absent being told otherwise/as a default) I tend to evaluate theory as a check against abuse (i.e., should I penalize a team for doing something unfair), rather than evaluating it as the endorsement of the "ideal model" of debate, which tends to make a difference regarding how I evaluate the impact framing on the theory, but this has only ever mattered when neither team makes any of the arguments that would give me a cohesive story on theory and I'm left pretty much evaluating a non-functional/unclear interp with no voters.

I love policy debate, but I was also super into reading Ks and I dig janky stuff from obscure philosophical sources. In my opinion, I'm able to understand and follow pretty much whatever you want to throw at your opponent. On the flip-side though, that also means that you probably won't get very far with super ambiguous solvency. You need to have some kind of solvency that is (at the very least) a clearly explained mechanism that is preferably drawn from the literature that the K is based on.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in person! Good luck :)

I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA, NFA-LD, and IPDA formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.

Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu

I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you don’t have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I don’t have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.

TLDR

I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.

The quick hits of things about my judging that you might want to know before the round:Specificity wins.

1. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.
2. I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.
3. I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.
4. I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesn’t appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.
5. I don’t exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.
6. I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.
7. I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.
8. Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.
9. Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.
10. In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.
11. All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesn’t come up, but it can. Don’t say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly or vote against you.

General

Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophy’s guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).

I flow on a laptop in evidence-based formats (LD, CX, PF) and on paper in extemporaneous formats (NPDA, IPDA). If I don’t ask you to slow down, you’re fine – don’t worry about it. I don’t number arguments as I flow, so don’t expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.

One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the “pages” of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, “MAD checks” on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.

In theory debates, I’ve noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a “no condo” interp. Basically, if the aff says “you can’t do that because it is bad” and the neg says “it is not bad and, in fact, is good” I do not think the neg should have to say “yes, I can do that” (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think “some condo” interps instead of “all condo”).

I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But don’t use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.

I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.

A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if you’re neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.

NPDA

My philosophy has changed over time – especially in relation to NPDA as a format. I think you’d do well to read through this in detail if you feel like you already know me as a judge. I still want you to explore arguments you care about and are interested in, but there are new boundaries explained here that I feel are necessary to the maintenance and growth of this activity that I will not negotiate. Please, still advocate for your positions, but you may need to adapt your arguments to me more than you have in the past.

I’m going to start with the three biggest changes in my NPDA philosophy.

1. Debates need to slow down. To help enforce this rule, I am flowing on paper again. I will try to be proactive in calling speed issues early and often in rounds to help debaters who may be used to my previous threshold adapt to a slower speed threshold.
2. Affirmative teams must affirm the topic. If you “reject the topic” in the 1AC, I will vote negative on presumption. (This is explained in more detail below.)
3. NPDA should be a rigorous, extemporaneous debate format. I expect you to read new arguments that you wrote in prep that talk about the topic in some detail. Generics are a critical part of the prep process, but we should all be adapting our generics better to the specifics of each topic.

NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that author’s position or the argument you’ve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that you’re leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an “even if” argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call, and I’ll do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesn’t win evidence debates – the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.

Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds we’re in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We don’t just rely on someone else saying it – we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, let’s do that!

Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if you’ve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution. Be creative and adapt your arguments to the topic of the debate. Do not read the same, unmodified argument in every round.

Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs don’t always do that. I think “risk of solvency” only applies if I know what I’m risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff, CP, or alt does on my ballot to run that “risk” on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain “that’s a presumption trigger because…”.

I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I don’t see that contextualized well and is often just a “risk of solvency” type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.

*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a ‘we meet’ – so ‘aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive)’ is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesn’t work, read spec.

Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesn’t necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably don’t try to get me to judge kick, honestly.

I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between. At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that that I’ll intervene on T if you’ve attempted to affirm the topic; it just means you need better T answers if topics are released in advance of the tournament. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).

NFA-LD

I tend to think disclosure of affs (once you’ve read them) is good and almost necessary and that disclosure of negs is very kind, but not necessary. The more generic a neg position is, the more likely I am to want it disclosed, but I’ll never expect it to be disclosed. I won’t take a strong position on any of this – disclose what you want to disclose (or don’t disclose at all) and defend that practice if necessary.

Affirmatives should stake out specific ground in the 1AC and defend it throughout the round. I don’t care how you do this, whether it is a plan, an advocacy, a performance is up to you. I think that topical plan debate is often the easiest to access, but I don’t believe that makes it the only accessible form of debate or the only good form of debate. So, read the aff you want to read, but be prepared to defend it. Affirmative debaters can (and sometimes should) kick their advantage offense to go for offense on a neg position. I don’t see this enough, and I really wish it was more common in plan debates, especially.

Negatives should answer the aff. How you answer the aff is your business, but I like specific links for negative arguments. On case, I love a good impact turn, but I’ll settle for any offense. In terms of DA choice, I think you benefit from reading high magnitude impacts most of the time, because the aff likely outweighs systemic DAs or has systemic impacts of its own.

For criticisms, I just want to understand what is happening. Most of the time that’s not a problem, but don’t assume I’ve read your lit or understand the jargon. I would prefer if you can articulate your criticism in accessible language in CX. I tend to prefer a K with a material impact, but I can vote for impacts that are less material if they’re explained well and interact with the aff impact in a meaningful way.

Negative procedurals should be limited to topicality if possible. T isn’t a voting issue because of “rules”. It’s a voting issue because of how it impacts debates. I default to competing interps and don’t usually hear a good justification (or even definition) for reasonability. I will still weigh based on reasonability if it is explained and won.

Spec, speed bad, and norm-setting arguments (like disclosure) generally don’t appeal to me. I understand their importance in some strategies and sometimes they are required. If someone refuses to slow down, I understand the need to say speed is bad. But I don’t care about rules, I care about how people are being treated – so make speed debates be about that. Spec and norm-setting arguments should be about the impact on research practices, education, and fairness in rounds.

2AC/1AR theory is not my favorite. I want debates to be about the aff case and when the affirmative debater decides to introduce additional issues, that often takes away from discussion of the aff itself. I know sometimes people go too far, and you have to read condo or delay bad or whatever. That’s fine. But use your best judgement to avoid reading theory in unnecessary situations and when you do have to read theory, keep the debate about the aff if possible.

I expect clear interpretations and voting issues for theory shells. I’ve noticed that this is not always the case in the NFA-LD theory debates I’ve seen, and teams would benefit from a specific statement of what should and/or should not be allowed.

Negative debaters should prioritize impact framing and delineate a path to the ballot for themselves. I have seen quite a few debates where the NR gets bogged down in the line-by-line and the aff wins by virtue of contextualizing arguments just a bit. In your NRs and 2ARs, I’d like to see more comparative analysis and focus on what my ballot should say, rather than exclusively line-by-line. You still need to answer and account for arguments in the line-by-line, but absent a clear “mission statement” for your speech paired with necessary analysis, it is hard to vote for you. Aff debaters can’t go all big picture in the 2AR. You have to deal with the line-by-line. I can’t ignore the NR and let you give a 3-minute overview. Get short and sweet with your overview. Clarify your path to ballot and then execute that strategy on the flow.

IPDA

Most of the NPDA notes will tell you how I feel about extemporaneous debate formats. Here are some quick hits from my experiences with IPDA that might influence your decision-making.

1. If you read a value, you need a criterion. (The NSDA-LD section has more on this subject.)

2. I prefer more academically, and policy slanted topics, strike down accordingly.

3. Make a clear statement of why you should win. I prefer overviews to underviews and one or two sentence I win statements to a list of disconnected voting issues.

NSDA General

I’ve heard many things referred to as “cards” that are not cards. A card needs to be a direct quotation, read in part (marked by underlining and highlighting) with a citation and a tagline that explains that argument. Present it in this order: Tagline, Author/Year, Evidence. Referencing a study or article is not a “card.”

You should be reading cards in debates. And you should be prepared to share those cards with your opponents. If you’d like help learning how to cut evidence into cards and how to share those cards quickly with your opponents and judges, I’ll gladly walk you through the process – but there are many resources available to you outside of me so seek them out.

Seek out clash. Don’t say “my partner will present that later” or dodge questions. Find the debate and go to it. We’re here to answer each other’s arguments and learn from the process, so let’s do that.

Time yourselves and each other – you should keep track of your prep time and your opponent’s prep time and time every speech in the debate. This is a good habit that you need to build.

NSDA-LD

Values and value criteria are a weighing mechanism for evaluation of arguments. Winning the value debate matters because it changes how I view impacts in the round and prioritize them. I understand the idea of “upholding a value” as the end goal of an LD round, and I can buy into that as a way to win a round, too. However, if that’s what you do, I probably won’t vote for impacts outside of that framework. You should choose between (1) upholding a value as a virtue or good in itself or (2) winning impacts that you will frame using your value/criterion. Both are valid, but I am inclined toward the impact style (option 2) by default.

I tend to think of LD debates in four parts: Definitions, Value, Aff Contentions, and Neg Contentions. I think it makes sense to flow LD on three sheets: One for definitions and values, one for aff contentions, and one for neg contentions. That makes the clash in definitions and aff/neg value easier to isolate and prevents a lot of strange and usually unnecessary cross-applications. Thinking of negative values as “Counter Values” that answer the aff value makes a lot more sense to me. You don’t have to do this in your round or on your flow, but it should help you conceptualize how I think about these debates.

I have not judged many plan-focused rounds in NSDA-LD, but I’m open to that if that is your style or you want to experiment. If you do this, I’ll flow top of aff, advantages, and neg positions on separate sheets like I would in a policy debate, and you can ignore the stuff about values above.

I am open to the less traditional arguments available to you. I love to see the unique ways you can affirm or negate using different literature bases than just the core social contract and ethics grab-bag.

Public Forum

I don’t have a ton of specific notes for PF. Check out the general section for NSDA and feel free to ask questions.

I like when the aff team speaks first. It makes debates cleaner and encourages negative responsiveness to the aff. You don’t have to choose first if you’re aff and like speaking second. But keep it in mind and do what you will with that information.

I don’t flow crossfires. I pay attention, but you need to bring up relevant crossfire moments in your speech and explain why they matter for me vote for them or include them in my decisions.

EMAIL (for email chains/mid-round memes): mikayiparsons@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns! Please respect that! For example: "Mikay is drinking coffee right now. Caffeine is the only thing that gives them the will to keep flowing."

NPDA:

I debated for Lewis & Clark in parli for 4 years and coached at SDSU for 2. I liked policy and critical debate - no preferences there, read what you want to read. Some caveats: especially in K v K debates, I am prone to buy your argument more if you spend time explaining your method/advocacy, how it solves, and why it's better than the other one (hopefully with offense!). If I can't explain what your solvency mechanism is as I am writing my RFD, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on it. For theory debates, if you do not collapse and choose to go for theory and other offense, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on the theory. If you clearly win the sheet in a way that requires absolutely no intervention on my part fine, but that is highly unlikely if you are not collapsing. Be nice, have fun, and maybe read some overviews or something idk.

I've been out of the college parli world for a few years, so I do not know the current popular blocks/arguments being read. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read them; just take the extra 10 seconds to explain why you are reading what you are reading, add some warrants that others might fill in for you in their heads, etc. I am also not as fast of a flower as I was a few years ago, so I may ask you to slow down (I want to get as clean and accurate of a flow as possible!). I've outlined some more specific preferences in the high school section below, but I am happy to answer any questions you may have!

ALL HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE:

Background: I competed in high school Policy for two years on a not very good Idaho circuit, with a few LD/Pf tournaments thrown in the mix. Additionally, I competed for Lewis & Clark College in Parliamentary Debate for four years. The majority of the literature I have read involves critical feminism and queer theory and phenomenology, which makes me pretty decent at understanding the majority of critical debates. In debate, however, I probably read policy/straight up arguments at least 70% of the time, and thus can understand those debates just as well.

The way to get my ballot: I appreciate well warranted debates that involve warrant and impact comparison. Please make the debate smaller in the rebuttals and give a clear story for why you have won the debate. This limits the amount of intervention that is required of me/all judges and will make all of our lives much easier. I will auto-drop teams that yell over their competitors' speeches or belittle/make fun of the other team/me. I value debate as an accessible, educational space, and so if you prevent it from being either of those two things, I will let you know.

Speed: I was a somewhat fast debater and can typically keep up in the majority of rounds. If you are reading cards, slow down for tag lines, author affiliations, advocacies, and interpretations, because those are pretty important to get down word for word, but feel free to go fast through the rest of the card. If you are cleared/slowed by the other team and do not slow down/become more clear, I will give you low speaks (again, debate is good only insofar as it is educational and accessible - spreading people out of the debate is boring and a silly way to win).

Theory: I love theory and believe it is currently underutilized in high school debate. I appreciate well thought out interpretations and counter-interpretations that are competitive and line-up well with their standards/counter-standards, as well as impacted standards that tie in with your voters. Theory is a lot of moving parts that require you fit them together into a coherent story.

Condo: I think conditionality is very good for debate, but also love hearing a good theory debate about condo. I have a pretty level threshold for voting either way, so have the debate and I will decide from there.

Critical affs/negs: I love hearing K's that are run well, both on the aff and neg! I have voted for and run critical affirmatives, and have also run/voted on framework answers to those very affirmatives. I am about as middle of the road as you can get, so again have the debate and I will decide from there based upon the arguments presented in round.

Finally, if you've made it this far, please please please do what you can to make debate educational, accessible, and worth all of our time. Coming in and being mean/spreading out some novices will not make you better debaters, so there is no point in doing so! This activity means so much to so many people; the least we can all do is be respectful of those around us.

The allegory of the cornbread:

Debate is like a delicately constructed thanksgiving dinner. Often, if you take time to make sure you don’t serve anyone anything they’re allergic to, we can all grit it and bear it even if we really didn’t want to have marshmallows on our sweet potatoes. Mashed potatoes and gravy are just as good as cranberry relish if you make it right. Remember, If you’ve been invited to a thanksgiving dinner you should show up unconditionally unless you have a damn good excuse or your grandma got hit by a reindeer because we’re here to eat around a point of commonality unless your great uncle happens to be super racist. Then don’t go to thanksgiving. I’ll eat anything as long as you’re willing to tell me what’s in it and how to cook it. Remember, you don’t prepare stuffing by making stuffing, that’s not a recipe that’s a tautology. I eat a lot, I’m good at eating, and I’d love to help you learn how to eat and cook too.


PS: And why thanksgiving? Because you’re other options are Christmas featuring a man way too old to be doing that job asking if you’ve been naughty or nice at the hotel lobby, the Easter bunny which is just a man way older than you’d think he is in a suite offering kids his definitely-not-sketchy candy (who maybe aren’t really even old enough to be eating all that candy), or Labor Day where everyone realizes they can’t wear their hoods and be fashionable at the same time.

Updated: August 2024

In debate, the most important thing to me by far is fairness. Fairness gets a lot of lip service in debate and is frequently treated like any other piece on the game board, which is to say that it is wielded as a tool to win rounds, but that isn’t what I mean. I don’t think fairness is an impact in the same way nuclear war or even education are. Fairness is a legitimate, ethical consideration that exists on the gameboard and above it, and as such, weighs heavily in how I make decisions.

In the context of the game itself, all arguments and strategies exist upon a continuum from a mythical “completely fair” to an equally mythical “completely unfair”. I am willing to vote on the vast majority of arguments regardless of where they fall on this continuum, but it is certainly an uphill battle to win those that I perceive as falling closer to “completely unfair.” Arguments that I would say are meaningfully unfair include:

- Conditional Strategies (Especially multiple conditional advocacies)

- Untopical Affirmatives

- Vacuous Theory (think Sand paradox or anything a high school LD student would find funny)

- Arguing Fairness is bad (obvi)

- Obfuscating

In the context of things that occur above the board, I similarly observe this fairness continuum but am even less likely to vote for these unfair tactics because I view them as a conscious decision to exclude people from this space. I view the following as falling closer to the unfair part of the continuum:

- Refusing to slow down when asked to

- Using highly technical debate strategies against new debaters

- Being bigoted in any way

I tend to find myself most frequently voting for arguments that I perceive as more fair and that I understand and feel comfortable explaining in my RFD. With all of this said, I have voted on Aff Ks, theory I didn’t especially like, and conditional strategies, I just want to be upfront that those ballots are certainly more the exception than the norm.

Background: I am the Co-Director of Forensics at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school, and I coached the most successful NPDA team of all time. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

For my general paradigm:

I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be, I will default to a policymaker.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible. If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win? (hint: don't just say "That's abusive") Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for (especially in LD).

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework/a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well-fleshed-out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.


If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

David Worth – Rice

D.O.F., Rice University

Parli Judging Philosophy

Note: If you read nothing else in this, read the last paragraph.

I’ll judge based on given criteria/framework. I can think in more than one way. This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I’m concerned. My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round but I will intervene if the round demands it. There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if someone is lying). In these cases, I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.

I prefer debates that are related to the topic.

I will not vote for an argument that I don’t understand. If I can’t figure it out from what you’ve said in the round, I can’t vote on it.

I will admit that I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles. I am tired of moving symbols around on paper. Alts and plan texts that are empty phrases don’t do it for me anymore. The novelty of postmodern critique that verges on--or actually takes the leap into--nihilism has worn off. I don’t think there’s much value anymore in affirming what we all know: That things can be deconstructed and that they contain contradictory concepts. It is time for us to move beyond this recognition into something else. Debate can be a game with meaning.

Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don’t at least have some warrant behind them. You can’t say “algae blooms,” and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don’t get to just say that some counter-intuitive thing will happen. You need a reason that that lovely regionally based sustainable market will just magically appear after the conveniently bloodless collapse of capitalism. I’m not saying I won’t vote for that. I’m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an "Independent Voting Issue" that isn't an implication of a longer argument, procedural, or somehow otherwise developed. Just throwing something in as a “voter” will not get the ballot. I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won't vote on it.

Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it simply means that just saying, “oh that’s just defense,” won’t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There’s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.

You need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well. It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas. In a bind, I will vote for what’s easier to believe and/or more intuitive.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. There are days when I need you to slow down a tad. I have battled carpal/cubital tunnel off and on for a few years and sometimes my hand just does not work quite as well. I’ll tell you if you need to clear up and/or slow down, but not more than a couple of times. After that, it’s on you.

Please slow down for the alt texts, plans, advocacies, etc., and give me a copy too. If I don’t have it, I can’t vote for it.

Strong Viewpoints: I haven’t yet found "the" issue that I can’t try to see all sides of.

Points of Order: Call them—but judiciously. I’ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new. Also, if you’re clearly winning bigtime don’t call a ridiculous number of them. Just let the other team get out of the round with some dignity. If you don’t, your speaker points will suffer. It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.

If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team then be nice. I will lower your speaker points if you aren’t respectful or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it. If it’s egregious enough, you might even lose the debate.

You don’t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you’re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.

Theory: I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the day. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. I’m not going to tell you what to do. Debate is always in flux. Actually, I’ve learned or at least been encouraged to think differently about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn’t have learned, so it’s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I’d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations, but, again, I can think in more than one way.

My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.

Finally, I ask that you consider that everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some respect for that. I am serious about this and it has come to occupy a significant portion of my thinking about debate these days. In fact, I think it’s time for the in-round bullying to stop. I see too many rounds where one team’s strategy is simply to intimidate the other team. I find it strange that an activity that talks so much about the violence of language often does so in such a needlessly aggressive and violent manner. In some rounds every interaction is barbed. Flex/CX is often just needlessly aggressive and sometimes even useless (when, for example, someone simply refuses to answer questions or just keeps purposely avoiding the question when it’s obvious that they understand the question, opting instead for aggression sometimes verging on ad hominem). I see too many other rounds where everyone is just awful to each other, including the judges afterward. You can be intense and competitive without this. We are now a smaller circuit. It’s strange that we would choose to spend so much time together yet be so horrible to each other.

FOR GGI 2021

I haven't heard or flowed speed in a while, and also haven't been super involved in debate lately, so I will probably have trouble flowing top-speed. Content preferences are generally unchanged, with the exception that I now know even less about both current events and critical literature. My general inclination as a judge is to take whatever is said in-round at face value (e.g. I won't fact check warrants or scrutinize textually flawed interps unless told to do so).

Most of the below paradigm was written when I was still a competitor. Looking back, I've found that the actual process I use when judging rounds is frankly very intuition-based and not always the most technical, especially when it comes to warrants and POIs. At the end of the day, I think debate is just competitive storytelling. And personally, I prefer Ancient Aliens to C-SPAN.

OLD PARADIGM (mostly still applies)

TL;DR: Go nuts (but please don't be rude/horrible to your opponents).

The round is yours. I prefer a well-executed strategy more than anything else. For some background, I competed in NPDA at Berkeley for three years (graduated in 2020). As a competitor, the arguments I most commonly collapsed to were Theory, Buddhism, Anthro, Politics, and Dedev.

Here are some general thoughts/preferences:

Case/Disads: I love to see good case debate. I'm not particularly well versed in what's going on in the world, so if the case debate is getting messy then some top-level overviews and explanation are probably helpful. I don't care if you read generics. I like good politics debates.

Counterplans: I have no preferences on issues like conditionality, PICs, delay, consult, negative fiat, etc.. I'll vote for it if I think you're winning it, and I'll vote for them if I think they're winning a theoretical objection. By default, I assume negative advocacies are conditional.

Kritiks: If you're reading something complicated, overviews/explanation are super appreciated. Words like ontology, epistemology, etc. don't mean that much to me in a vacuum, so it's good to read implications to arguments when extending them. K affs are fine, I don't have much attachment to the topic (although I'm happy to vote on framework-T too if won).

Theory: I think it can be a strategic tool in addition to a check on abuse. I default to competing interpretations and drop the team. Will evaluate an RVI if you read a justification. Proven abuse is unnecessary, but you can make arguments why it should be necessary and I'll listen to them. If reasonability doesn't have a brightline or some explanation of what it means to be reasonable, then I'll just disregard it.

Presumption/tricks: I believe in terminal defense. By default, I think presumption goes neg. In general, I don't mind voting on tricksy arguments as long as they're sufficiently explained when gone for.

Point of orders: Feel free to call them. I'll try and protect, but I think they're still good to call just in case I'm missing something. I will also try to protect from shadow-extensions.

Out-of-round stuff: I'm pretty sympathetic towards arguments calling for content/trigger warnings before the round.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts.