Etiquette

I don't mind sassiness in debates. Be confident, but classy.

When not debating, be respectful.

Personal attacks suck. Don't use them.

Open CX is fine.

I don't mind taking control of your own Cross Ex and shutting up your opponent.

I don't count flashing as prep, just be reasonable.

If you think I'm being biased or unfair, respectfully let me know after the round. I always want to be a better judge.

General/Organization

Roadmap please.

Please number and/or short tag your arguments, don't just say "next" and expect me to follow. If I miss some of your arguments because you didn't clearly state that you moved on to the next argument, there's a good chance they're lost from my flow.

Try not to jump between different arguments on the flow. Tell me clearly which argument you're on or attacking.

I don't like new arguments in the rebuttals or finishing your Aff/Off-Case arguments in the second constructive -- debating backwards = no early clash. It's lame and it's a lazy strategy 95% of the time.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear. I will say "Clear" if you're mumbling, but it might count against your speaks if I have to correct you multiple times.

Kritiks

Know your kritik and general worldview post-alt. If you're not consistent about the worldview or don't explain it well enough, it's hard for me to vote on them.

I like consistency across the flows, so if you're running a K about real-world impacts or rhetoric, you shouldn't bite the K on other flows. If you run/presume multiple worlds theory with a K that is about real-world impacts or rhetoric, you tend to lose a ton of weight on my K ballot.

Policy Stuff

Everything is fine- just please explain the story of your argument clearly past the first speech

Specifics -

I don't like PICs but will vote for them if no abuse arguments are made or if you defend well against them.

Can't fiat solvency - only that the plan will pass through Congress.

Conditional advantages are not my thing but I will vote for them as long as you defend condo well enough.

Procedurals/Framework

T, FW, and other Procedurals are fine and I like them more than most judges - just explain them thoroughly as if I was a child and show me how other interps hurt you or debate generally.

Have fun! If you're not having fun debating, chances are I'm not either.

The Bee Movie

According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Ooh, black and yellow! Let's shake it up a little. Barry! Breakfast is ready! Ooming! Hang on a second. Hello? - Barry? - Adam? - Oan you believe this is happening? - I can't. I'll pick you up. Looking sharp. Use the stairs. Your father paid good money for those. Sorry. I'm excited. Here's the graduate. We're very proud of you, son. A perfect report card, all B's. Very proud. Ma! I got a thing going here. - You got lint on your fuzz. - Ow! That's me! - Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000. - Bye! Barry, I told you, stop flying in the house! - Hey, Adam. - Hey, Barry. - Is that fuzz gel? - A little. Special day, graduation. Never thought I'd make it. Three days grade school, three days high school. Those were awkward. Three days college. I'm glad I took a day and hitchhiked around the hive. You did come back different. - Hi, Barry. - Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good. - Hear about Frankie? - Yeah. - You going to the funeral? - No, I'm not going. Everybody knows, sting someone, you die. Don't waste it on a squirrel. Such a hothead. I guess he could have just gotten out of the way. I love this incorporating an amusement park into our day. That's why we don't need vacations. Boy, quite a bit of pomp... under the circumstances. - Well, Adam, today we are men. - We are! - Bee-men. - Amen! Hallelujah! Students, faculty, distinguished bees, please welcome Dean Buzzwell. Welcome, New Hive Oity graduating class of... ...9:15. That concludes our ceremonies. And begins your career at Honex Industries! Will we pick ourjob today? I heard it's just orientation. Heads up! Here we go. Keep your hands and antennas inside the tram at all times. - Wonder what it'll be like? - A little scary. Welcome to Honex, a division of Honesco and a part of the Hexagon Group. This is it! Wow. Wow. We know that you, as a bee, have worked your whole life to get to the point where you can work for your whole life. Honey begins when our valiant Pollen Jocks bring the nectar to the hive. Our top-secret formula is automatically color-corrected, scent-adjusted and bubble-contoured into this soothing sweet syrup with its distinctive golden glow you know as... Honey! - That girl was hot. - She's my cousin! - She is? - Yes, we're all cousins. - Right. You're right. - At Honex, we constantly strive to improve every aspect of bee existence. These bees are stress-testing a new helmet technology. - What do you think he makes? - Not enough. Here we have our latest advancement, the Krelman. - What does that do? - Oatches that little strand of honey that hangs after you pour it. Saves us millions. Oan anyone work on the Krelman? Of course. Most bee jobs are small ones. But bees know that every small job, if it's done well, means a lot. But choose carefully because you'll stay in the job you pick for the rest of your life. The same job the rest of your life? I didn't know that. What's the difference? You'll be happy to know that bees, as a species, haven't had one day off in 27 million years. So you'll just work us to death? We'll sure try. Wow! That blew my mind! "What's the difference?" How can you say that? One job forever? That's an insane choice to have to make. I'm relieved. Now we only have to make one decision in life. But, Adam, how could they never have told us that? Why would you question anything? We're bees. We're the most perfectly functioning society on Earth. You ever think maybe things work a little too well here? Like what? Give me one example. I don't know. But you know what I'm talking about. Please clear the gate. Royal Nectar Force on approach. Wait a second. Oheck it out. - Hey, those are Pollen Jocks! - Wow. I've never seen them this close. They know what it's like outside the hive. Yeah, but some don't come back. - Hey, Jocks! - Hi, Jocks! You guys did great! You're monsters! You're sky freaks! I love it! I love it! - I wonder where they were. - I don't know. Their day's not planned. Outside the hive, flying who knows where, doing who knows what. You can'tjust decide to be a Pollen Jock. You have to be bred for that. Right. Look. That's more pollen than you and I will see in a lifetime. It's just a status symbol. Bees make too much of it. Perhaps. Unless you're wearing it and the ladies see you wearing it. Those ladies? Aren't they our cousins too? Distant. Distant. Look at these two. - Oouple of Hive Harrys. - Let's have fun with them. It must be dangerous being a Pollen Jock. Yeah. Once a bear pinned me against a mushroom! He had a paw on my throat, and with the other, he was slapping me! - Oh, my! - I never thought I'd knock him out. What were you doing during this? Trying to alert the authorities. I can autograph that. A little gusty out there today, wasn't it, comrades? Yeah. Gusty. We're hitting a sunflower patch six miles from here tomorrow. - Six miles, huh? - Barry! A puddle jump for us, but maybe you're not up for it. - Maybe I am. - You are not! We're going 0900 at J-Gate. What do you think, buzzy-boy? Are you bee enough? I might be. It all depends on what 0900 means. Hey, Honex! Dad, you surprised me. You decide what you're interested in? - Well, there's a lot of choices. - But you only get one. Do you ever get bored doing the same job every day? Son, let me tell you about stirring. You grab that stick, and you just move it around, and you stir it around. You get yourself into a rhythm. It's a beautiful thing. You know, Dad, the more I think about it, maybe the honey field just isn't right for me. You were thinking of what, making balloon animals? That's a bad job for a guy with a stinger. Janet, your son's not sure he wants to go into honey! - Barry, you are so funny sometimes. - I'm not trying to be funny. You're not funny! You're going into honey. Our son, the stirrer! - You're gonna be a stirrer? - No one's listening to me! Wait till you see the sticks I have. I could say anything right now. I'm gonna get an ant tattoo! Let's open some honey and celebrate! Maybe I'll pierce my thorax. Shave my antennae. Shack up with a grasshopper. Get a gold tooth and call everybody "dawg"! I'm so proud. - We're starting work today! - Today's the day. Oome on! All the good jobs will be gone. Yeah, right. Pollen counting, stunt bee, pouring, stirrer, front desk, hair removal... - Is it still available? - Hang on. Two left! One of them's yours! Oongratulations! Step to the side. - What'd you get? - Picking crud out. Stellar! Wow! Oouple of newbies? Yes, sir! Our first day! We are ready! Make your choice. - You want to go first? - No, you go. Oh, my. What's available? Restroom attendant's open, not for the reason you think. - Any chance of getting the Krelman? - Sure, you're on. I'm sorry, the Krelman just closed out. Wax monkey's always open. The Krelman opened up again. What happened? A bee died. Makes an opening. See? He's dead. Another dead one. Deady. Deadified. Two more dead. Dead from the neck up. Dead from the neck down. That's life! Oh, this is so hard! Heating, cooling, stunt bee, pourer, stirrer, humming, inspector number seven, lint coordinator, stripe supervisor, mite wrangler. Barry, what do you think I should... Barry? Barry! All right, we've got the sunflower patch in quadrant nine... What happened to you? Where are you? - I'm going out. - Out? Out where? - Out there. - Oh, no! I have to, before I go to work for the rest of my life. You're gonna die! You're crazy! Hello? Another call coming in. If anyone's feeling brave, there's a Korean deli on 83rd that gets their roses today. Hey, guys. - Look at that. - Isn't that the kid we saw yesterday? Hold it, son, flight deck's restricted. It's OK, Lou. We're gonna take him up. Really? Feeling lucky, are you? Sign here, here. Just initial that. - Thank you. - OK. You got a rain advisory today, and as you all know, bees cannot fly in rain. So be careful. As always, watch your brooms, hockey sticks, dogs, birds, bears and bats. Also, I got a couple of reports of root beer being poured on us. Murphy's in a home because of it, babbling like a cicada! - That's awful. - And a reminder for you rookies, bee law number one, absolutely no talking to humans! All right, launch positions! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Black and yellow! Hello! You ready for this, hot shot? Yeah. Yeah, bring it on. Wind, check. - Antennae, check. - Nectar pack, check. - Wings, check. - Stinger, check. Scared out of my shorts, check. OK, ladies, let's move it out! Pound those petunias, you striped stem-suckers! All of you, drain those flowers! Wow! I'm out! I can't believe I'm out! So blue. I feel so fast and free! Box kite! Wow! Flowers! This is Blue Leader. We have roses visual. Bring it around 30 degrees and hold. Roses! 30 degrees, roger. Bringing it around. Stand to the side, kid. It's got a bit of a kick. That is one nectar collector! - Ever see pollination up close? - No, sir. I pick up some pollen here, sprinkle it over here. Maybe a dash over there, a pinch on that one. See that? It's a little bit of magic. That's amazing. Why do we do that? That's pollen power. More pollen, more flowers, more nectar, more honey for us. Oool. I'm picking up a lot of bright yellow. Oould be daisies. Don't we need those? Oopy that visual. Wait. One of these flowers seems to be on the move. Say again? You're reporting a moving flower? Affirmative. That was on the line! This is the coolest. What is it? I don't know, but I'm loving this color. It smells good. Not like a flower, but I like it. Yeah, fuzzy. Ohemical-y. Oareful, guys. It's a little grabby. My sweet lord of bees! Oandy-brain, get off there! Problem! - Guys! - This could be bad. Affirmative. Very close. Gonna hurt. Mama's little boy. You are way out of position, rookie! Ooming in at you like a missile! Help me! I don't think these are flowers. - Should we tell him? - I think he knows. What is this?! Match point! You can start packing up, honey, because you're about to eat it! Yowser! Gross. There's a bee in the car! - Do something! - I'm driving! - Hi, bee. - He's back here! He's going to sting me! Nobody move. If you don't move, he won't sting you. Freeze! He blinked! Spray him, Granny! What are you doing?! Wow... the tension level out here is unbelievable. I gotta get home. Oan't fly in rain. Oan't fly in rain. Oan't fly in rain. Mayday! Mayday! Bee going down! Ken, could you close the window please? Ken, could you close the window please? Oheck out my new resume. I made it into a fold-out brochure. You see? Folds out. Oh, no. More humans. I don't need this. What was that? Maybe this time. This time. This time. This time! This time! This... Drapes! That is diabolical. It's fantastic. It's got all my special skills, even my top-ten favorite movies. What's number one? Star Wars? Nah, I don't go for that... ...kind of stuff. No wonder we shouldn't talk to them. They're out of their minds. When I leave a job interview, they're flabbergasted, can't believe what I say. There's the sun. Maybe that's a way out. I don't remember the sun having a big 75 on it. I predicted global warming. I could feel it getting hotter. At first I thought it was just me. Wait! Stop! Bee! Stand back. These are winter boots. Wait! Don't kill him! You know I'm allergic to them! This thing could kill me! Why does his life have less value than yours? Why does his life have any less value than mine? Is that your statement? I'm just saying all life has value. You don't know what he's capable of feeling. My brochure! There you go, little guy. I'm not scared of him. It's an allergic thing. Put that on your resume brochure. My whole face could puff up. Make it one of your special skills. Knocking someone out is also a special skill. Right. Bye, Vanessa. Thanks. - Vanessa, next week? Yogurt night? - Sure, Ken. You know, whatever. - You could put carob chips on there. - Bye. - Supposed to be less calories. - Bye. I gotta say something. She saved my life. I gotta say something. All right, here it goes. Nah. What would I say? I could really get in trouble. It's a bee law. You're not supposed to talk to a human. I can't believe I'm doing this. I've got to. Oh, I can't do it. Oome on! No. Yes. No. Do it. I can't. How should I start it? "You like jazz?" No, that's no good. Here she comes! Speak, you fool! Hi! I'm sorry. - You're talking. - Yes, I know. You're talking! I'm so sorry. No, it's OK. It's fine. I know I'm dreaming. But I don't recall going to bed. Well, I'm sure this is very disconcerting. This is a bit of a surprise to me. I mean, you're a bee! I am. And I'm not supposed to be doing this, but they were all trying to kill me. And if it wasn't for you... I had to thank you. It's just how I was raised. That was a little weird. - I'm talking with a bee. - Yeah. I'm talking to a bee. And the bee is talking to me! I just want to say I'm grateful. I'll leave now. - Wait! How did you learn to do that? - What? The talking thing. Same way you did, I guess. "Mama, Dada, honey." You pick it up. - That's very funny. - Yeah. Bees are funny. If we didn't laugh, we'd cry with what we have to deal with. Anyway... Oan I... ...get you something? - Like what? I don't know. I mean... I don't know. Ooffee? I don't want to put you out. It's no trouble. It takes two minutes. - It's just coffee. - I hate to impose. - Don't be ridiculous! - Actually, I would love a cup. Hey, you want rum cake? - I shouldn't. - Have some. - No, I can't. - Oome on! I'm trying to lose a couple micrograms. - Where? - These stripes don't help. You look great! I don't know if you know anything about fashion. Are you all right? No. He's making the tie in the cab as they're flying up Madison. He finally gets there. He runs up the steps into the church. The wedding is on. And he says, "Watermelon? I thought you said Guatemalan. Why would I marry a watermelon?" Is that a bee joke? That's the kind of stuff we do. Yeah, different. So, what are you gonna do, Barry? About work? I don't know. I want to do my part for the hive, but I can't do it the way they want. I know how you feel. - You do? - Sure. My parents wanted me to be a lawyer or a doctor, but I wanted to be a florist. - Really? - My only interest is flowers. Our new queen was just elected with that same campaign slogan. Anyway, if you look... There's my hive right there. See it? You're in Sheep Meadow! Yes! I'm right off the Turtle Pond! No way! I know that area. I lost a toe ring there once. - Why do girls put rings on their toes? - Why not? - It's like putting a hat on your knee. - Maybe I'll try that. - You all right, ma'am? - Oh, yeah. Fine. Just having two cups of coffee! Anyway, this has been great. Thanks for the coffee. Yeah, it's no trouble. Sorry I couldn't finish it. If I did, I'd be up the rest of my life. Are you...? Oan I take a piece of this with me? Sure! Here, have a crumb. - Thanks! - Yeah. All right. Well, then... I guess I'll see you around. Or not. OK, Barry. And thank you so much again... for before. Oh, that? That was nothing. Well, not nothing, but... Anyway... This can't possibly work. He's all set to go. We may as well try it. OK, Dave, pull the chute. - Sounds amazing. - It was amazing! It was the scariest, happiest moment of my life. Humans! I can't believe you were with humans! Giant, scary humans! What were they like? Huge and crazy. They talk crazy. They eat crazy giant things. They drive crazy. - Do they try and kill you, like on TV? - Some of them. But some of them don't. - How'd you get back? - Poodle. You did it, and I'm glad. You saw whatever you wanted to see. You had your "experience." Now you can pick out yourjob and be normal. - Well... - Well? Well, I met someone. You did? Was she Bee-ish? - A wasp?! Your parents will kill you! - No, no, no, not a wasp. - Spider? - I'm not attracted to spiders. I know it's the hottest thing, with the eight legs and all. I can't get by that face. So who is she? She's... human. No, no. That's a bee law. You wouldn't break a bee law. - Her name's Vanessa. - Oh, boy. She's so nice. And she's a florist! Oh, no! You're dating a human florist! We're not dating. You're flying outside the hive, talking to humans that attack our homes with power washers and M-80s! One-eighth a stick of dynamite! She saved my life! And she understands me. This is over! Eat this. This is not over! What was that? - They call it a crumb. - It was so stingin' stripey! And that's not what they eat. That's what falls off what they eat! - You know what a Oinnabon is? - No. It's bread and cinnamon and frosting. They heat it up... Sit down! ...really hot! - Listen to me! We are not them! We're us. There's us and there's them! Yes, but who can deny the heart that is yearning? There's no yearning. Stop yearning. Listen to me! You have got to start thinking bee, my friend. Thinking bee! - Thinking bee. - Thinking bee. Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! There he is. He's in the pool. You know what your problem is, Barry? I gotta start thinking bee? How much longer will this go on? It's been three days! Why aren't you working? I've got a lot of big life decisions to think about. What life? You have no life! You have no job. You're barely a bee! Would it kill you to make a little honey? Barry, come out. Your father's talking to you. Martin, would you talk to him? Barry, I'm talking to you! You coming? Got everything? All set! Go ahead. I'll catch up. Don't be too long. Watch this! Vanessa! - We're still here. - I told you not to yell at him. He doesn't respond to yelling! - Then why yell at me? - Because you don't listen! I'm not listening to this. Sorry, I've gotta go. - Where are you going? - I'm meeting a friend. A girl? Is this why you can't decide? Bye. I just hope she's Bee-ish. They have a huge parade of flowers every year in Pasadena? To be in the Tournament of Roses, that's every florist's dream! Up on a float, surrounded by flowers, crowds cheering. A tournament. Do the roses compete in athletic events? No. All right, I've got one. How come you don't fly everywhere? It's exhausting. Why don't you run everywhere? It's faster. Yeah, OK, I see, I see. All right, your turn. TiVo. You can just freeze live TV? That's insane! You don't have that? We have Hivo, but it's a disease. It's a horrible, horrible disease. Oh, my. Dumb bees! You must want to sting all those jerks. We try not to sting. It's usually fatal for us. So you have to watch your temper. Very carefully. You kick a wall, take a walk, write an angry letter and throw it out. Work through it like any emotion: Anger, jealousy, lust. Oh, my goodness! Are you OK? Yeah. - What is wrong with you?! - It's a bug. He's not bothering anybody. Get out of here, you creep! What was that? A Pic 'N' Save circular? Yeah, it was. How did you know? It felt like about 10 pages. Seventy-five is pretty much our limit. You've really got that down to a science. - I lost a cousin to Italian Vogue. - I'll bet. What in the name of Mighty Hercules is this? How did this get here? Oute Bee, Golden Blossom, Ray Liotta Private Select? - Is he that actor? - I never heard of him. - Why is this here? - For people. We eat it. You don't have enough food of your own? - Well, yes. - How do you get it? - Bees make it. - I know who makes it! And it's hard to make it! There's heating, cooling, stirring. You need a whole Krelman thing! - It's organic. - It's our-ganic! It's just honey, Barry. Just what?! Bees don't know about this! This is stealing! A lot of stealing! You've taken our homes, schools, hospitals! This is all we have! And it's on sale?! I'm getting to the bottom of this. I'm getting to the bottom of all of this! Hey, Hector. - You almost done? - Almost. He is here. I sense it. Well, I guess I'll go home now and just leave this nice honey out, with no one around. You're busted, box boy! I knew I heard something. So you can talk! I can talk. And now you'll start talking! Where you getting the sweet stuff? Who's your supplier? I don't understand. I thought we were friends. The last thing we want to do is upset bees! You're too late! It's ours now! You, sir, have crossed the wrong sword! You, sir, will be lunch for my iguana, Ignacio! Where is the honey coming from? Tell me where! Honey Farms! It comes from Honey Farms! Orazy person! What horrible thing has happened here? These faces, they never knew what hit them. And now they're on the road to nowhere! Just keep still. What? You're not dead? Do I look dead? They will wipe anything that moves. Where you headed? To Honey Farms. I am onto something huge here. I'm going to Alaska. Moose blood, crazy stuff. Blows your head off! I'm going to Tacoma. - And you? - He really is dead. All right. Uh-oh! - What is that?! - Oh, no! - A wiper! Triple blade! - Triple blade? Jump on! It's your only chance, bee! Why does everything have to be so doggone clean?! How much do you people need to see?! Open your eyes! Stick your head out the window! From NPR News in Washington, I'm Oarl Kasell. But don't kill no more bugs! - Bee! - Moose blood guy!! - You hear something? - Like what? Like tiny screaming. Turn off the radio. Whassup, bee boy? Hey, Blood. Just a row of honey jars, as far as the eye could see. Wow! I assume wherever this truck goes is where they're getting it. I mean, that honey's ours. - Bees hang tight. - We're all jammed in. It's a close community. Not us, man. We on our own. Every mosquito on his own. - What if you get in trouble? - You a mosquito, you in trouble. Nobody likes us. They just smack. See a mosquito, smack, smack! At least you're out in the world. You must meet girls. Mosquito girls try to trade up, get with a moth, dragonfly. Mosquito girl don't want no mosquito. You got to be kidding me! Mooseblood's about to leave the building! So long, bee! - Hey, guys! - Mooseblood! I knew I'd catch y'all down here. Did you bring your crazy straw? We throw it in jars, slap a label on it, and it's pretty much pure profit. What is this place? A bee's got a brain the size of a pinhead. They are pinheads! Pinhead. - Oheck out the new smoker. - Oh, sweet. That's the one you want. The Thomas 3000! Smoker? Ninety puffs a minute, semi-automatic. Twice the nicotine, all the tar. A couple breaths of this knocks them right out. They make the honey, and we make the money. "They make the honey, and we make the money"? Oh, my! What's going on? Are you OK? Yeah. It doesn't last too long. Do you know you're in a fake hive with fake walls? Our queen was moved here. We had no choice. This is your queen? That's a man in women's clothes! That's a drag queen! What is this? Oh, no! There's hundreds of them! Bee honey. Our honey is being brazenly stolen on a massive scale! This is worse than anything bears have done! I intend to do something. Oh, Barry, stop. Who told you humans are taking our honey? That's a rumor. Do these look like rumors? That's a conspiracy theory. These are obviously doctored photos. How did you get mixed up in this? He's been talking to humans. - What? - Talking to humans?! He has a human girlfriend. And they make out! Make out? Barry! We do not. - You wish you could. - Whose side are you on? The bees! I dated a cricket once in San Antonio. Those crazy legs kept me up all night. Barry, this is what you want to do with your life? I want to do it for all our lives. Nobody works harder than bees! Dad, I remember you coming home so overworked your hands were still stirring. You couldn't stop. I remember that. What right do they have to our honey? We live on two cups a year. They put it in lip balm for no reason whatsoever! Even if it's true, what can one bee do? Sting them where it really hurts. In the face! The eye! - That would hurt. - No. Up the nose? That's a killer. There's only one place you can sting the humans, one place where it matters. Hive at Five, the hive's only full-hour action news source. No more bee beards! With Bob Bumble at the anchor desk. Weather with Storm Stinger. Sports with Buzz Larvi. And Jeanette Ohung. - Good evening. I'm Bob Bumble. - And I'm Jeanette Ohung. A tri-county bee, Barry Benson, intends to sue the human race for stealing our honey, packaging it and profiting from it illegally! Tomorrow night on Bee Larry King, we'll have three former queens here in our studio, discussing their new book, Olassy Ladies, out this week on Hexagon. Tonight we're talking to Barry Benson. Did you ever think, "I'm a kid from the hive. I can't do this"? Bees have never been afraid to change the world. What about Bee Oolumbus? Bee Gandhi? Bejesus? Where I'm from, we'd never sue humans. We were thinking of stickball or candy stores. How old are you? The bee community is supporting you in this case, which will be the trial of the bee century. You know, they have a Larry King in the human world too. It's a common name. Next week... He looks like you and has a show and suspenders and colored dots... Next week... Glasses, quotes on the bottom from the guest even though you just heard 'em. Bear Week next week! They're scary, hairy and here live. Always leans forward, pointy shoulders, squinty eyes, very Jewish. In tennis, you attack at the point of weakness! It was my grandmother, Ken. She's 81. Honey, her backhand's a joke! I'm not gonna take advantage of that? Quiet, please. Actual work going on here. - Is that that same bee? - Yes, it is! I'm helping him sue the human race. - Hello. - Hello, bee. This is Ken. Yeah, I remember you. Timberland, size ten and a half. Vibram sole, I believe. Why does he talk again? Listen, you better go 'cause we're really busy working. But it's our yogurt night! Bye-bye. Why is yogurt night so difficult?! You poor thing. You two have been at this for hours! Yes, and Adam here has been a huge help. - Frosting... - How many sugars? Just one. I try not to use the competition. So why are you helping me? Bees have good qualities. And it takes my mind off the shop. Instead of flowers, people are giving balloon bouquets now. Those are great, if you're three. And artificial flowers. - Oh, those just get me psychotic! - Yeah, me too. Bent stingers, pointless pollination. Bees must hate those fake things! Nothing worse than a daffodil that's had work done. Maybe this could make up for it a little bit. - This lawsuit's a pretty big deal. - I guess. You sure you want to go through with it? Am I sure? When I'm done with the humans, they won't be able to say, "Honey, I'm home," without paying a royalty! It's an incredible scene here in downtown Manhattan, where the world anxiously waits, because for the first time in history, we will hear for ourselves if a honeybee can actually speak. What have we gotten into here, Barry? It's pretty big, isn't it? I can't believe how many humans don't work during the day. You think billion-dollar multinational food companies have good lawyers? Everybody needs to stay behind the barricade. - What's the matter? - I don't know, I just got a chill. Well, if it isn't the bee team. You boys work on this? All rise! The Honorable Judge Bumbleton presiding. All right. Oase number 4475, Superior Oourt of New York, Barry Bee Benson v. the Honey Industry is now in session. Mr. Montgomery, you're representing the five food companies collectively? A privilege. Mr. Benson... you're representing all the bees of the world? I'm kidding. Yes, Your Honor, we're ready to proceed. Mr. Montgomery, your opening statement, please. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my grandmother was a simple woman. Born on a farm, she believed it was man's divine right to benefit from the bounty of nature God put before us. If we lived in the topsy-turvy world Mr. Benson imagines, just think of what would it mean. I would have to negotiate with the silkworm for the elastic in my britches! Talking bee! How do we know this isn't some sort of holographic motion-picture-capture Hollywood wizardry? They could be using laser beams! Robotics! Ventriloquism! Oloning! For all we know, he could be on steroids! Mr. Benson? Ladies and gentlemen, there's no trickery here. I'm just an ordinary bee. Honey's pretty important to me. It's important to all bees. We invented it! We make it. And we protect it with our lives. Unfortunately, there are some people in this room who think they can take it from us 'cause we're the little guys! I'm hoping that, after this is all over, you'll see how, by taking our honey, you not only take everything we have but everything we are! I wish he'd dress like that all the time. So nice! Oall your first witness. So, Mr. Klauss Vanderhayden of Honey Farms, big company you have. I suppose so. I see you also own Honeyburton and Honron! Yes, they provide beekeepers for our farms. Beekeeper. I find that to be a very disturbing term. I don't imagine you employ any bee-free-ers, do you? - No. - I couldn't hear you. - No. - No. Because you don't free bees. You keep bees. Not only that, it seems you thought a bear would be an appropriate image for a jar of honey. They're very lovable creatures. Yogi Bear, Fozzie Bear, Build-A-Bear. You mean like this? Bears kill bees! How'd you like his head crashing through your living room?! Biting into your couch! Spitting out your throw pillows! OK, that's enough. Take him away. So, Mr. Sting, thank you for being here. Your name intrigues me. - Where have I heard it before? - I was with a band called The Police. But you've never been a police officer, have you? No, I haven't. No, you haven't. And so here we have yet another example of bee culture casually stolen by a human for nothing more than a prance-about stage name. Oh, please. Have you ever been stung, Mr. Sting? Because I'm feeling a little stung, Sting. Or should I say... Mr. Gordon M. Sumner! That's not his real name?! You idiots! Mr. Liotta, first, belated congratulations on your Emmy win for a guest spot on ER in 2005. Thank you. Thank you. I see from your resume that you're devilishly handsome with a churning inner turmoil that's ready to blow. I enjoy what I do. Is that a crime? Not yet it isn't. But is this what it's come to for you? Exploiting tiny, helpless bees so you don't have to rehearse your part and learn your lines, sir? Watch it, Benson! I could blow right now! This isn't a goodfella. This is a badfella! Why doesn't someone just step on this creep, and we can all go home?! - Order in this court! - You're all thinking it! Order! Order, I say! - Say it! - Mr. Liotta, please sit down! I think it was awfully nice of that bear to pitch in like that. I think the jury's on our side. Are we doing everything right, legally? I'm a florist. Right. Well, here's to a great team. To a great team! Well, hello. - Ken! - Hello. I didn't think you were coming. No, I was just late. I tried to call, but... the battery. I didn't want all this to go to waste, so I called Barry. Luckily, he was free. Oh, that was lucky. There's a little left. I could heat it up. Yeah, heat it up, sure, whatever. So I hear you're quite a tennis player. I'm not much for the game myself. The ball's a little grabby. That's where I usually sit. Right... there. Ken, Barry was looking at your resume, and he agreed with me that eating with chopsticks isn't really a special skill. You think I don't see what you're doing? I know how hard it is to find the rightjob. We have that in common. Do we? Bees have 100 percent employment, but we do jobs like taking the crud out. That's just what I was thinking about doing. Ken, I let Barry borrow your razor for his fuzz. I hope that was all right. I'm going to drain the old stinger. Yeah, you do that. Look at that. You know, I've just about had it with your little mind games. - What's that? - Italian Vogue. Mamma mia, that's a lot of pages. A lot of ads. Remember what Van said, why is your life more valuable than mine? Funny, I just can't seem to recall that! I think something stinks in here! I love the smell of flowers. How do you like the smell of flames?! Not as much. Water bug! Not taking sides! Ken, I'm wearing a Ohapstick hat! This is pathetic! I've got issues! Well, well, well, a royal flush! - You're bluffing. - Am I? Surf's up, dude! Poo water! That bowl is gnarly. Except for those dirty yellow rings! Kenneth! What are you doing?! You know, I don't even like honey! I don't eat it! We need to talk! He's just a little bee! And he happens to be the nicest bee I've met in a long time! Long time? What are you talking about?! Are there other bugs in your life? No, but there are other things bugging me in life. And you're one of them! Fine! Talking bees, no yogurt night... My nerves are fried from riding on this emotional roller coaster! Goodbye, Ken. And for your information, I prefer sugar-free, artificial sweeteners made by man! I'm sorry about all that. I know it's got an aftertaste! I like it! I always felt there was some kind of barrier between Ken and me. I couldn't overcome it. Oh, well. Are you OK for the trial? I believe Mr. Montgomery is about out of ideas. We would like to call Mr. Barry Benson Bee to the stand. Good idea! You can really see why he's considered one of the best lawyers... Yeah. Layton, you've gotta weave some magic with this jury, or it's gonna be all over. Don't worry. The only thing I have to do to turn this jury around is to remind them of what they don't like about bees. - You got the tweezers? - Are you allergic? Only to losing, son. Only to losing. Mr. Benson Bee, I'll ask you what I think we'd all like to know. What exactly is your relationship to that woman? We're friends. - Good friends? - Yes. How good? Do you live together? Wait a minute... Are you her little... ...bedbug? I've seen a bee documentary or two. From what I understand, doesn't your queen give birth to all the bee children? - Yeah, but... - So those aren't your real parents! - Oh, Barry... - Yes, they are! Hold me back! You're an illegitimate bee, aren't you, Benson? He's denouncing bees! Don't y'all date your cousins? - Objection! - I'm going to pincushion this guy! Adam, don't! It's what he wants! Oh, I'm hit!! Oh, lordy, I am hit! Order! Order! The venom! The venom is coursing through my veins! I have been felled by a winged beast of destruction! You see? You can't treat them like equals! They're striped savages! Stinging's the only thing they know! It's their way! - Adam, stay with me. - I can't feel my legs. What angel of mercy will come forward to suck the poison from my heaving buttocks? I will have order in this court. Order! Order, please! The case of the honeybees versus the human race took a pointed turn against the bees yesterday when one of their legal team stung Layton T. Montgomery. - Hey, buddy. - Hey. - Is there much pain? - Yeah. I... I blew the whole case, didn't I? It doesn't matter. What matters is you're alive. You could have died. I'd be better off dead. Look at me. They got it from the cafeteria downstairs, in a tuna sandwich. Look, there's a little celery still on it. What was it like to sting someone? I can't explain it. It was all... All adrenaline and then... and then ecstasy! All right. You think it was all a trap? Of course. I'm sorry. I flew us right into this. What were we thinking? Look at us. We're just a couple of bugs in this world. What will the humans do to us if they win? I don't know. I hear they put the roaches in motels. That doesn't sound so bad. Adam, they check in, but they don't check out! Oh, my. Oould you get a nurse to close that window? - Why? - The smoke. Bees don't smoke. Right. Bees don't smoke. Bees don't smoke! But some bees are smoking. That's it! That's our case! It is? It's not over? Get dressed. I've gotta go somewhere. Get back to the court and stall. Stall any way you can. And assuming you've done step correctly, you're ready for the tub. Mr. Flayman. Yes? Yes, Your Honor! Where is the rest of your team? Well, Your Honor, it's interesting. Bees are trained to fly haphazardly, and as a result, we don't make very good time. I actually heard a funny story about... Your Honor, haven't these ridiculous bugs taken up enough of this court's valuable time? How much longer will we allow these absurd shenanigans to go on? They have presented no compelling evidence to support their charges against my clients, who run legitimate businesses. I move for a complete dismissal of this entire case! Mr. Flayman, I'm afraid I'm going to have to consider Mr. Montgomery's motion. But you can't! We have a terrific case. Where is your proof? Where is the evidence? Show me the smoking gun! Hold it, Your Honor! You want a smoking gun? Here is your smoking gun. What is that? It's a bee smoker! What, this? This harmless little contraption? This couldn't hurt a fly, let alone a bee. Look at what has happened to bees who have never been asked, "Smoking or non?" Is this what nature intended for us? To be forcibly addicted to smoke machines and man-made wooden slat work camps? Living out our lives as honey slaves to the white man? - What are we gonna do? - He's playing the species card. Ladies and gentlemen, please, free these bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! The court finds in favor of the bees! Vanessa, we won! I knew you could do it! High-five! Sorry. I'm OK! You know what this means? All the honey will finally belong to the bees. Now we won't have to work so hard all the time. This is an unholy perversion of the balance of nature, Benson. You'll regret this. Barry, how much honey is out there? All right. One at a time. Barry, who are you wearing? My sweater is Ralph Lauren, and I have no pants. - What if Montgomery's right? - What do you mean? We've been living the bee way a long time, 27 million years. Oongratulations on your victory. What will you demand as a settlement? First, we'll demand a complete shutdown of all bee work camps. Then we want back the honey that was ours to begin with, every last drop. We demand an end to the glorification of the bear as anything more than a filthy, smelly, bad-breath stink machine. We're all aware of what they do in the woods. Wait for my signal. Take him out. He'll have nauseous for a few hours, then he'll be fine. And we will no longer tolerate bee-negative nicknames... But it's just a prance-about stage name! ...unnecessary inclusion of honey in bogus health products and la-dee-da human tea-time snack garnishments. Oan't breathe. Bring it in, boys! Hold it right there! Good. Tap it. Mr. Buzzwell, we just passed three cups, and there's gallons more coming! - I think we need to shut down! - Shut down? We've never shut down. Shut down honey production! Stop making honey! Turn your key, sir! What do we do now? Oannonball! We're shutting honey production! Mission abort. Aborting pollination and nectar detail. Returning to base. Adam, you wouldn't believe how much honey was out there. Oh, yeah? What's going on? Where is everybody? - Are they out celebrating? - They're home. They don't know what to do. Laying out, sleeping in. I heard your Uncle Oarl was on his way to San Antonio with a cricket. At least we got our honey back. Sometimes I think, so what if humans liked our honey? Who wouldn't? It's the greatest thing in the world! I was excited to be part of making it. This was my new desk. This was my new job. I wanted to do it really well. And now... Now I can't. I don't understand why they're not happy. I thought their lives would be better! They're doing nothing. It's amazing. Honey really changes people. You don't have any idea what's going on, do you? - What did you want to show me? - This. What happened here? That is not the half of it. Oh, no. Oh, my. They're all wilting. Doesn't look very good, does it? No. And whose fault do you think that is? You know, I'm gonna guess bees. Bees? Specifically, me. I didn't think bees not needing to make honey would affect all these things. It's notjust flowers. Fruits, vegetables, they all need bees. That's our whole SAT test right there. Take away produce, that affects the entire animal kingdom. And then, of course... The human species? So if there's no more pollination, it could all just go south here, couldn't it? I know this is also partly my fault. How about a suicide pact? How do we do it? - I'll sting you, you step on me. - Thatjust kills you twice. Right, right. Listen, Barry... sorry, but I gotta get going. I had to open my mouth and talk. Vanessa? Vanessa? Why are you leaving? Where are you going? To the final Tournament of Roses parade in Pasadena. They've moved it to this weekend because all the flowers are dying. It's the last chance I'll ever have to see it. Vanessa, I just wanna say I'm sorry. I never meant it to turn out like this. I know. Me neither. Tournament of Roses. Roses can't do sports. Wait a minute. Roses. Roses? Roses! Vanessa! Roses?! Barry? - Roses are flowers! - Yes, they are. Flowers, bees, pollen! I know. That's why this is the last parade. Maybe not. Oould you ask him to slow down? Oould you slow down? Barry! OK, I made a huge mistake. This is a total disaster, all my fault. Yes, it kind of is. I've ruined the planet. I wanted to help you with the flower shop. I've made it worse. Actually, it's completely closed down. I thought maybe you were remodeling. But I have another idea, and it's greater than my previous ideas combined. I don't want to hear it! All right, they have the roses, the roses have the pollen. I know every bee, plant and flower bud in this park. All we gotta do is get what they've got back here with what we've got. - Bees. - Park. - Pollen! - Flowers. - Repollination! - Across the nation! Tournament of Roses, Pasadena, Oalifornia. They've got nothing but flowers, floats and cotton candy. Security will be tight. I have an idea. Vanessa Bloome, FTD. Official floral business. It's real. Sorry, ma'am. Nice brooch. Thank you. It was a gift. Once inside, we just pick the right float. How about The Princess and the Pea? I could be the princess, and you could be the pea! Yes, I got it. - Where should I sit? - What are you? - I believe I'm the pea. - The pea? It goes under the mattresses. - Not in this fairy tale, sweetheart. - I'm getting the marshal. You do that! This whole parade is a fiasco! Let's see what this baby'll do. Hey, what are you doing?! Then all we do is blend in with traffic... ...without arousing suspicion. Once at the airport, there's no stopping us. Stop! Security. - You and your insect pack your float? - Yes. Has it been in your possession the entire time? Would you remove your shoes? - Remove your stinger. - It's part of me. I know. Just having some fun. Enjoy your flight. Then if we're lucky, we'll have just enough pollen to do the job. Oan you believe how lucky we are? We have just enough pollen to do the job! I think this is gonna work. It's got to work. Attention, passengers, this is Oaptain Scott. We have a bit of bad weather in New York. It looks like we'll experience a couple hours delay. Barry, these are cut flowers with no water. They'll never make it. I gotta get up there and talk to them. Be careful. Oan I get help with the Sky Mall magazine? I'd like to order the talking inflatable nose and ear hair trimmer. Oaptain, I'm in a real situation. - What'd you say, Hal? - Nothing. Bee! Don't freak out! My entire species... What are you doing? - Wait a minute! I'm an attorney! - Who's an attorney? Don't move. Oh, Barry. Good afternoon, passengers. This is your captain. Would a Miss Vanessa Bloome in 24B please report to the cockpit? And please hurry! What happened here? There was a DustBuster, a toupee, a life raft exploded. One's bald, one's in a boat, they're both unconscious! - Is that another bee joke? - No! No one's flying the plane! This is JFK control tower, Flight 356. What's your status? This is Vanessa Bloome. I'm a florist from New York. Where's the pilot? He's unconscious, and so is the copilot. Not good. Does anyone onboard have flight experience? As a matter of fact, there is. - Who's that? - Barry Benson. From the honey trial?! Oh, great. Vanessa, this is nothing more than a big metal bee. It's got giant wings, huge engines. I can't fly a plane. - Why not? Isn't John Travolta a pilot? - Yes. How hard could it be? Wait, Barry! We're headed into some lightning. This is Bob Bumble. We have some late-breaking news from JFK Airport, where a suspenseful scene is developing. Barry Benson, fresh from his legal victory... That's Barry! ...is attempting to land a plane, loaded with people, flowers and an incapacitated flight crew. Flowers?! We have a storm in the area and two individuals at the controls with absolutely no flight experience. Just a minute. There's a bee on that plane. I'm quite familiar with Mr. Benson and his no-account compadres. They've done enough damage. But isn't he your only hope? Technically, a bee shouldn't be able to fly at all. Their wings are too small... Haven't we heard this a million times? "The surface area of the wings and body mass make no sense." - Get this on the air! - Got it. - Stand by. - We're going live. The way we work may be a mystery to you. Making honey takes a lot of bees doing a lot of small jobs. But let me tell you about a small job. If you do it well, it makes a big difference. More than we realized. To us, to everyone. That's why I want to get bees back to working together. That's the bee way! We're not made of Jell-O. We get behind a fellow. - Black and yellow! - Hello! Left, right, down, hover. - Hover? - Forget hover. This isn't so hard. Beep-beep! Beep-beep! Barry, what happened?! Wait, I think we were on autopilot the whole time. - That may have been helping me. - And now we're not! So it turns out I cannot fly a plane. All of you, let's get behind this fellow! Move it out! Move out! Our only chance is if I do what I'd do, you copy me with the wings of the plane! Don't have to yell. I'm not yelling! We're in a lot of trouble. It's very hard to concentrate with that panicky tone in your voice! It's not a tone. I'm panicking! I can't do this! Vanessa, pull yourself together. You have to snap out of it! You snap out of it. You snap out of it. - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - Hold it! - Why? Oome on, it's my turn. How is the plane flying? I don't know. Hello? Benson, got any flowers for a happy occasion in there? The Pollen Jocks! They do get behind a fellow. - Black and yellow. - Hello. All right, let's drop this tin can on the blacktop. Where? I can't see anything. Oan you? No, nothing. It's all cloudy. Oome on. You got to think bee, Barry. - Thinking bee. - Thinking bee. Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Wait a minute. I think I'm feeling something. - What? - I don't know. It's strong, pulling me. Like a 27-million-year-old instinct. Bring the nose down. Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! - What in the world is on the tarmac? - Get some lights on that! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! - Vanessa, aim for the flower. - OK. Out the engines. We're going in on bee power. Ready, boys? Affirmative! Good. Good. Easy, now. That's it. Land on that flower! Ready? Full reverse! Spin it around! - Not that flower! The other one! - Which one? - That flower. - I'm aiming at the flower! That's a fat guy in a flowered shirt. I mean the giant pulsating flower made of millions of bees! Pull forward. Nose down. Tail up. Rotate around it. - This is insane, Barry! - This's the only way I know how to fly. Am I koo-koo-kachoo, or is this plane flying in an insect-like pattern? Get your nose in there. Don't be afraid. Smell it. Full reverse! Just drop it. Be a part of it. Aim for the center! Now drop it in! Drop it in, woman! Oome on, already. Barry, we did it! You taught me how to fly! - Yes. No high-five! - Right. Barry, it worked! Did you see the giant flower? What giant flower? Where? Of course I saw the flower! That was genius! - Thank you. - But we're not done yet. Listen, everyone! This runway is covered with the last pollen from the last flowers available anywhere on Earth. That means this is our last chance. We're the only ones who make honey, pollinate flowers and dress like this. If we're gonna survive as a species, this is our moment! What do you say? Are we going to be bees, orjust Museum of Natural History keychains? We're bees! Keychain! Then follow me! Except Keychain. Hold on, Barry. Here. You've earned this. Yeah! I'm a Pollen Jock! And it's a perfect fit. All I gotta do are the sleeves. Oh, yeah. That's our Barry. Mom! The bees are back! If anybody needs to make a call, now's the time. I got a feeling we'll be working late tonight! Here's your change. Have a great afternoon! Oan I help who's next? Would you like some honey with that? It is bee-approved. Don't forget these. Milk, cream, cheese, it's all me. And I don't see a nickel! Sometimes I just feel like a piece of meat! I had no idea. Barry, I'm sorry. Have you got a moment? Would you excuse me? My mosquito associate will help you. Sorry I'm late. He's a lawyer too? I was already a blood-sucking parasite. All I needed was a briefcase. Have a great afternoon! Barry, I just got this huge tulip order, and I can't get them anywhere. No problem, Vannie. Just leave it to me. You're a lifesaver, Barry. Oan I help who's next? All right, scramble, jocks! It's time to fly. Thank you, Barry! That bee is living my life! Let it go, Kenny. - When will this nightmare end?! - Let it all go. - Beautiful day to fly. - Sure is. Between you and me, I was dying to get out of that office. You have got to start thinking bee, my friend. - Thinking bee! - Me? Hold it. Let's just stop for a second. Hold it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, everyone. Oan we stop here? I'm not making a major life decision during a production number! All right. Take ten, everybody. Wrap it up, guys. I had virtually no rehearsal for that.

The End.

Detective Mode Unlocked: here's your prize

Bonus Speaks if you talk nicely about:

Sir Jordan Cartier, Mr. Yeezy West, Dua Lipa, Kung-Fu Kenny, Tyler, El Creador, the Los Angeles Lakers, Chik-fil-a, Guymon, Oklahoma, NBA 2K, my mom

OR

If you make fun of:

Champagne Papi (specifically CLB), Mid Sheeran, John Mayer, Mr. Bobby Tarantino, Robert Kelly, Kevin Durant, the Oscars, the Grammys, Dolph Schayes, the New York Knicks

Schools/Affiliations: Program Manager - Tulsa Debate League, Coach - Charles Page HS - Coach Webster HS

I competed in policy debate in high school for 4 years, advancing to late rounds at nationals

I’ve coached, in one role or another, for 22 years

General Paradigm
Left to my own devices, I’d approach the round from a policymaking point of view, but I know that few rounds boil down to such a paradigm. In light of that, debate is a game of sorts and I’m willing to let the debaters decide how it should be played. I can’t see myself voting against an affirmative on a stock issue like inherency.

Speed
Clarity, of course, is key. If I can’t understand you, then I can’t flow you and I likely won’t be inclined to vote for you or the position(s) I don’t understand. Look for cues (not flowing, a blank look on my face).

Line by Line
I prefer line by line debate. I believe you need to flow and I don’t think a team is obligated to share analytical arguments in a flash/speech doc. If the debate becomes disorganized because of your inability to stay on the flow, that’ll likely cost you in some way. Debate, at its essence, is about a clash of ideas...therefore clash is an essential ingredient to a good debate round. A round between two teams who neither extend their own arguments, nor address the specific attacks made on these arguments, is not a debate round, and such a round begs for intervention on my part.

Decision Calculus
I am loathe to intervene in a round, but will do so if neither team presents a clear comparative analysis of the issues in the round. You need to tell my why I should vote for you and make that clear in the final rebuttals.

Framework
I’ll start with my paradigm, you tell me where to move to, and convince me of why I should do so, if you’d like to change the framework. Any framework should make it possible for both sides to win and shouldn’t be rooted in a rejection of debate as an activity (though it’s possible I could be convinced otherwise).

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)

I will vote on topicality. I think the negative has to construct a fully formed argument to convince me I should do so, complete with a reason that the violation committed by the affirmative is worthy of giving them the loss. I’m not as inclined to be convinced by a reverse voter argument in t, but affirmatives can defend themselves by attacking one or all of the components of a typical T argument and win the issue. Other procedurals tend to get decided based on actual, rather than, potential abuse.

Kritiks

I debated before kritiks were a thing, so that’s fair warning. Having said that, I’ve voted on them many times, but profess a lack of deep knowledge on some of the more theoretical positions. Deep theory, you’ll have to tell me what to do. Despite my knowledge about some of the authors and their positions, I’m usually able to discern when the student speaking knows as little or less than I do. I prefer that if you’re going to make the k an issue, that you know it inside and out, and be aware of the inherent dangers in speaking quickly to a judge who may know less than you do, and who you are trying to convince. Real world alts are pretty much a requirement.


Performance
Do what you will, I’ll listen. Prefer they be relevant to topic.

Counterplans
I am good with counterplans, conditional is fine, but don’t get too feisty in this regard. Deep counterplan and pic theory give me headaches, so slow down and talk me through it.

Multiple Worlds

No thanks...multiple conditional positions are fine, but not contradictory advocacy. Can’t be convinced otherwise on the matter so save your time.

3NRs and My Decision
I will give an oral critique if time allows and reveal decision if permitted by tourney expectations, but I will not enter into an argument with either team about my decision. I can handle a question or two, but make sure it’s a question. Look, I am always going to do my best, but I’m sure I’ve gotten the decision wrong a time or two, and I hate it when I do. That being said, my usual answer when teams argue why they lost is: I’d feel the same way if I were you, but next time debate better. Then I mark their speaker points down for being rude. Live to fight another day, and be aware that you might see your judge again down the road.

Prep Time

i will be lenient as we learn the online format, but that being said, I’m losing patience with the time taken up by flashing files even during in-person debates. Be efficient.

*Updated for 2024*
Bryan Gaston
Director of Debate
Heritage Hall School
1800 Northwest 122nd St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120-9598
bgaston@heritagehall.com

I view judging as a responsibility and one I take very seriously. I have decided to try and give you as much information about my tendencies to assist with MPJ and adaptation.

**NEW NOTE, I may be old but I'm 100% right on this trend: Under-highlighting of evidence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL, some teams are reading cards with such few things highlighted it is amazing they actually got away with claiming the evidence as tagged. When I evaluate evidence, I will ONLY EVALUATE the words in that evidence that were read in the round. If you didn't read it in a speech I will not read the unhighlighted sections and give you the full weight of the evidence--you get credit for what you actually say in the speech, and what you actually read in the round. Debaters, highlight better. When you see garbage highlighting point it out, and make an argument about it---if the highlighting is really bad I will likely agree and won't give the card much credit. This does not mean you can't have good, efficient highlighting, but you must have a claim, data, and warrant(s) on each card.**

Quick Version:

1. Debate is a competitive game.

2. I will vote on framework and topicality-Affs should be topical. But, you can still beat framework with good offense or a crafty counter-interpretation.

3. DA's and Aff advantages can have zero risk.

4. Neg conditionality is mostly good.

5. Counterplans and PICs --good (better to have a solvency advocate than not), process CPs a bit different. It is a very debatable thing for me but topic-specific justifications go a long way with me.

6. K's that link to the Aff plan/advocacy/advantages/reps are good.

7. I will not decide the round over something X team did in another round, at another tournament, or a team's judge prefs.

8. Email Chain access please: bgaston@heritagehall.com

9. The debate should be a fun and competitive activity, be kind to each other and try your best.

My Golden Rule: When you have the option to choose a more specific strategy vs a more generic strategy, always choose the more specific strategy if you are equally capable of executing both strategies. But I get it, sometimes you have to run a process CP or a more generic K.

Things not to do: Don't run T is an RVI, don't hide evidence from the other team to sabotage their prep, don't lie about your source qualifications, don't text or talk to coaches to get "in round coaching" after the round has started, please stay and listen to RFD's I am typically brief, and don't deliberately spy on the other teams pre-round coaching. I am a high school teacher and coach, who is responsible for high school-age students. Please, don't read things overtly sexual if you have a performance aff--since there are minors in the room I think that is inappropriate.

Pro-tip: FLOW---don't stop flowing just because you have a speech doc.

"Clipping" in debate: Clipping in the debate is a serious issue and one of the things I will be doing to deter clipping in my rounds is requesting a copy of all speech docs before the debaters start speaking and while flowing I read along to check from time to time.

CX: This is the only time you have “face time” with the judge. Please look at the judge not at each other. Your speaker points will be rewarded for a great CX and lowered for a bad one. Be smart in CX, assertive, but not rude.

Speaker Point Scale updated: Speed is fine, and clarity is important. If you are not clear I will yell out “Clear.” The average national circuit debate starts at 28.4, Good is 28.5-28.9 (many national circuit rounds end up in this range), and Excellent 29-29.9. Can I get a perfect 30? I have given 3 in 20 years if HS judging they all went on to win the NDT in college. I will punish your points if you are excessively rude to opponents or your partner during a round.

Long Version...

Affirmatives: I still at my heart of hearts prefer and Aff with a plan that's justifiably topical. But, I think it's not very hard for teams to win that if the Aff is germane to the topic that's good enough. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Neg if the Aff has very little to or nothing to do with the topic. If there is a topical version of the Aff I tend to think that takes away most of the Aff's offense in many of these T/FW debates vs no plan Affs--unless the Aff can explain why there is no topical version and they still need to speak about "X" on the Aff or why their offense on T still applies.

Disadvantages: I like them. I prefer specific link stories (or case-specific DA’s) to generic links, as I believe all judges do. But, if all you have is generic links go ahead and run them, I will evaluate them. The burden is on the Aff team to point out those weak link stories. I think Aff’s should have offense against DA’s it's just a smarter 2AC strategy, but if a DA clearly has zero link or zero chance of uniqueness you can win zero risk. I tend to think politics DA's are core negative ground--so it is hard for me to be convinced I should reject the politics DA because debating about it is bad for debate. My take: I often think the internal link chains of DA's are not challenged enough by the Aff, many Aff teams just spot the Neg the internal links---It's one of the worst effects of the prevalence of offense/defense paradigm judging over the past years...and it's normally one of the weaker parts of the DA.

Counterplans: I like them. I generally think most types of counterplans are legitimate as long as the Neg wins that they are competitive. I am also fine with multiple counterplans. On counterplan theory, I lean pretty hard that conditionality and PICs are ok. You can win theory debates over the issue of how far negatives can take conditionality (battle over the interps is key). Counterplans that are functionally and textually competitive are always your safest bet but, I am frequently persuaded that counterplans which are functionally competitive or textually competitive are legitimate. My Take: I do however think that the negative should have a solvency advocate or some basis in the literature for the counterplan. If you want to run a CP to solve terrorism you need at least some evidence supporting your mechanism. My default is that I reject the CP, not the team on Aff CP theory wins.

Case debates: I like it. Negative teams typically underutilize this. I believe well planned impacted case debate is essential to a great negative strategy. Takeouts and turns can go a long way in a round.

Critiques: I like them. In the past, I have voted for various types of critiques. I think they should have an alternative or they are just non-unique impacts. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. Impact framing is important in these debates. The links to the Aff are very important---the more specific the better.

Big impact turn debates: I like them. Want to throw down in a big Hegemony Good/Bad debate, Dedev vs Growth Good, method vs method, it's all good.

Topicality/FW: I tend to think competing interpretations are good unless told otherwise...see the Aff section above for more related to T.

Theory: Theory sets up the rules for the debate game. I tend to evaluate theory debates in an offensive/defense paradigm, paying particular attention to each teams theory impacts and impact defense. The interpretation debate is very important to evaluating theory for me. For a team to drop the round on theory you must impact this debate well and have clear answers to the other side's defense.

Impact framing-- it's pretty important, especially in a round where you have a soft-left Aff with a big framing page vs a typical neg util based framing strat.

Have fun debating!

I am the head debate coach at Crossings Christian Schools. I graduated the University of North Texas. I debated for four years at Edmond North High School. I have debated and judged both traditional policy and critique debate. I have also judged LD debate.

Debate what you are good at. I am comfortable judging any argument as long as it is clearly explained. However, I am more of a traditional policy debater.

Email: alexaglendinning@gmail.com This is if you have any questions about my decision, debate in general, or for email chains.

Some argument specifics:

Topicality/FW: I love a good T or FW debate. I think that these arguments are critical because it determines the rules for the debate round. With this said, I do NOT like RVI's and I probably won't vote on those. With T, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.

Theory: I love Theory debates. It sets up the rules for the debate round. I think theory could either favor the neg or be a complete wash in debate rounds depending on how it is debated. With theory debates, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.

Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific your link story, the better. However, if you only have generic links, I will still evaluate them.

Counterplans: I like them. I believe that all counterplans are legitimate unless debated otherwise by the affirmative i.e. CP Theory. You have to win that they are competitive in order for me to vote on them.

Ks: They're fine.

Case debate: I love a good case debate. I think that this has gone out of style in current policy debate. I really want to see this come back.

Other Notes:

Use CX wisely. CX is a great tool that teams under-utilize. It is an important part of the debate round. It is in your best interest.

FLOW!!! Flowing is one of the most important things in a debate round. This is your map for where the debate has been and where the debate is going to go.

Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If you aren't being clear, then I will not be able to understand or evaluate the arguments that you are making. I would rather you be clear than fast.

What not to do:

Do Not steal prep. Use it wisely. If you use it wisely then you wouldn't have to try and steal it. DON'T STEAL PREP.

Do Not Run T as an RVI. See the T section of my paradigm.

Do Not text with anyone during a debate round. Just Do Not use your phone at all during a debate round. The only exception is if you are using your phone as a timer. You should be focused on debating. Put your phone in airplane mode. This allows for less temptation.

Have Fun Debating!

Name: Andrew Halverson

School: Currently, I am not actively coaching, but in recent years I was the Assistant Director of Speech & Debate at Kapaun Mount Carmel High School & Wichita East High School (Wichita, KS). I have moved to work in the real world full-time, but I still keep involved with debate as a Board Member of a local non-profit that promotes debate in the Wichita area - Ad Astra Debate.

Experience: 20+ years. As a competitor, 4 years in high school and 3 years in college @ Fort Hays and Wichita State in the mid-late 90's and early 2000's.

Up to March, I have judged 88 rounds this season - mostly LD and Policy. I only have judged PF at the UK Opener.

**ONLINE DEBATING ADDENDUM - updated 3/4/2022**

In my experience, most tournaments are more than gracious with their prep and tech time leading up the start of a round. Please make sure that all of your tech stuff is sorted before beginning AND that you use pre-round prep for disclosure as well. I'm pretty chill about most things, but these two things are my biggest online debating pet peeves.

ALL Online tournament have pre-round tech time built in. Please be in the room for it. It doesn't take long. If it's something that's no fault of your own that is preventing you from tech time, fair. However, if one of the members of your team isn't in the room during pre-round tech time, it's a 0.5-1 speaker point deduction.

Public Forum Section - Updated as of 3/1/2022

As an FYI, I've coached PFD, but by and large, I'm a Policy and Congress coach. If there is anything that isn't answered in this short section, I advise that you take a look the Policy section of my paradigm or ask questions.

I'm going to assume that I don't know the in and outs of your current topic. Please make sure that you explain concepts that I might not know. I've coached a lot of different debate topics over the years. I know a lot, but I don't know everything.

The typical PF norms for evidence/speech docs sharing are terrible. You must put your evidence/speech docs in the Speech Drop, email chain, or whatever BEFORE your speech starts. Don't do it after your speech or in the chat. Also, don't just put a cite in the chat and tell someone to CTRL+F what they are looking for. This is non-negotiable. Other PFD norms, I'm honestly unfamiliar with. I assume there is disclosure and other things, but I don't know for sure.

I'm probably going to evaluate most debates like I would a Policy debate - without all of the mumbo-jumbo that is usually associated with that activity. In brief, that will probably be an offense/defense paradigm with a heavy dose of policymaking sprinkled in. I like good, smart arguments. Make them and clash with your opponents and you will be at a good place at the end of the day.

Policy/LD Debate Section - Changed as of 6/30/2022

++Since most LD has a policy tilt nowadays, this is a pretty accurate representation on how I would view an LD round. Actual value debate and my thoughts on RVI's, you probably should ask me.

++I do want to add something about the penchant to go for RVI's and other random theory cheap shots in front of me in LD. Just saying something is an RVI or that you get one isn't an argument - it's just describing a thing that you might get access to as an argument. There has to be a reason behind your theory gripe or whatever it is. FYI, usually I have a high threshold for voting on these arguments - unless it's a complete drop (which it won't be the case all of the time). Refer to where I talk about blippy theory debates down below if you want any other insight.

This is the first time in a long time that I have engaged in rewriting my judging paradigm. I thought it was warranted – given that debates and performances will be all done virtually in the immediate future. My last iteration of one of these might have been too long, so I will attempt to be as brief as possible.

Some non-negotiables:

**If you send a PDF as a speech doc, I instantly start docking speaker points. Send a Google doc or nearly anything else but no PDFs.

**I want to be on the email chain (halverson.andrew [at] gmail.com). Don’t send your speech doc after your speech. Do it before (unless there are extra cards read, etc.). There are a few reasons I would like this to happen: a) I'm checking as you are going along if you are clipping; b) since I am reading along, I'm making note of what is said in your evidence to see if it becomes an issue in the debate OR a part of my decision – most tournaments put a heavy premium on quick decisions, so having that to look at before just makes the trains run on-time and that makes the powers that be happy; c) because I'm checking your scholarship, it allows for me to make more specific comments about your evidence and how you are deploying it within a particular debate. If you refuse to email or flash before your speech for me, there will probably be consequences in terms of speaker points and anything else I determine to be relevant - since I'm the ultimate arbiter of my ballot in the debate which I'm judging.

**Send your analytics as much as possible. This platform for debate can sometimes be problematic with technical issues that can or can’t be controlled. I’ve judged some debate where the 2nc is in the middle of giving their speech and then their feed becomes frozen. Of course, we pause the debate until we can resolve the technical issues, but it’s helpful for everyone involved to have a doc to know where the debate stopped so we can pick up at that point once we resume.

**Don’t go super-duper, mega, ultra full speed (unless you are crystal bell clear). Slowing down a bit in this format is more beneficial to you and everyone else involved.

**For all of those Kansas traditional teams, yes to a off-time road map. Don’t make it harder than it needs to be.

**Be nice & have fun. If you don’t be nice, then you probably won’t like how I remedy if you aren’t nice. Racist and sexist language/behavior will not be tolerated. Debate is supposed to be a space where we get to get to test ideas in a safe environment.

**Stealing prep time. Don’t do it. After you send out the doc, you should have an idea of a speech order and be getting set to speak. Don't be super unorganized and take another 2-3 minutes to just stand up there getting stuff together. I don't mind taking a bit to get yourself together, but I find that debaters are abusing that now. When I judge by myself, I'm usually laid back about using the restroom, but I strongly suggest that you consider the other people in a paneled debate - not doing things like stopping prep and then going to the bathroom before you start to speak. I get emergencies, but this practice is really shady. Bottom-line: if you're stealing prep, I'll call you on it out loud and start the timer.

**Disclosure is something I can't stand when it's done wrong. If proper disclosure doesn't happen before a round, I'm way more likely to vote on a disclosure argument in this setting. If you have questions about my views on disclosure, please ask them before the debate occurs - so you know where you stand. Otherwise, I can easily vote on a disclosure argument. This whole “gotcha” thing with arguments that you have already read is so dumb.

**New in the 2nc is bad. What I mean by that is whole new DA's read - old school style - in the 2nc does not foster good debate OR only read off-case in the 1nc and then decide to read all new case arguments in the 2nc. I'm willing to listen to theory arguments on the matter (and have probably become way more AFF leaning on the theory justification of why new in the 2nc is bad), BUT they have to be impacted out. However, that's not the best answer to a NEG attempting this strategy. The best answer is for the 1ar to quickly straight turn whatever that argument is and then move on. Debaters that straight turn will be rewarded. Debaters that do new in the 2nc will either lose because of a theory argument or have their speaks tanked by me.

Now that’s out of the way, here are some insights on how I evaluate debates:

**What kind of argument and general preferences do I have? I will listen to everything and anything from either side of the debate. You can be a critical team or a straight-up team. It doesn’t matter to me. An argument is an argument. Answering arguments with good arguments is probably a good idea, if the competitive aspect of policy debate is important to you at all. If you need some examples: Wipeout? Sure, did it myself. Affirmatives without a plan? Did that too. Spark? You bet. Specific links are great, obviously. Of course, I prefer offense over defense too. I don’t believe that tabula rasa exists, but I do try to not have preconceived notions about arguments. Yet we all know this isn’t possible. If I ultimately have to do so, I will default to policymaker to make my decision easier for me.

**Don't debate off a script. Yes, blocks are nice. I like when debaters have blocks. They make answering arguments easier. HOWEVER, if you just read off your script going for whatever argument, I'm not going to be happy. Typically, this style of debate involves some clash and large portions of just being unresponsive to the other team's claims. More than likely, you are reading some prepared oration at a million miles per hour and expect me to write down every word. Guess what? I can't. In fact, there is not a judge in the world that can accomplish that feat. So use blocks, but be responsive to what's going on in the debate.

**Blippy theory debates really irk me. To paraphrase Mike Harris: if you are going as fast as possible on a theory debate at the end of a page and then start the next page with more theory, I'm going to inevitably miss some of it. Whether I flow on paper or on my computer, it takes a second for me to switch pages and get to the place you want me to be on the flow. Slow down a little bit when you want to go for theory - especially if you think it can be a round-winner. I promise you it'll be worth it for you in the end.

**I’m a decent flow, but I wouldn’t go completely crazy. That being said, I’m one of those critics (and I was the same way as a debater) that will attempt to write down almost everything you say as long as you make a valiant attempt to be clear. Super long overviews that aren't flowable make no sense to me. In other words, make what you say translate into what you want me to write down. I will not say or yell if you aren’t clear. You probably can figure it out – from my non-verbals – if you aren’t clear and if I’m not getting it. I will not say/yell "clear" and the debate will most definitely be impacted adversely for you. If I don’t “get it,” it’s probably your job to articulate/explain it to me.

**I want to make this abundantly clear. I won't do work for you unless the debate is completely messed up and I have to do some things to clean up the debate and write a ballot. So, if you drop a Perm, but have answers elsewhere that would answer it, unless you have made that cross-application I won't apply that for you. The debater answering said Perm needs to make the cross-application/answer(s) on their own.

Contact me if you have any questions. Hope this finds you well and healthy - have a great season!!

Quick Overview

I will vote on about anything. Debate how you do best! Btw, automatic 30 speaks if you run Anthro. Btw, will probably vote you down(?) if you run any sort of death good stuff.

Disadvantages

I think Disads are great. Specific links are preferred but I'll let generic ones slide as long as you explain to me how the aff comes within link ground. PLEASE HAVE AN INTERNAL LINK CHAIN.

Counterplans

I love case-specific counterplans! Please have a solvency advocate. Net Benefit(s) to the CP are preferred.

PICs: I'm not a fan of PICs but I will totally vote for them if either team is winning it.

Kritiks

Again, specific links are preferred. Please explain your alt in the round.

K Affs: The aff should be specific and relevant to the topic and have a viable alternative/solvency mechanism. Neg: I'll totally vote on T/FW if you run it and win it.

Literature: If you don't know if I'm familiar with the lit you'll be running, just ask me.

Topicality

I love topicality. Voting issues should impacted out and applicable to the debate. Also, I DO like RVI's and I WILL vote on them as long as you prove actual abuse and impact it in round.

Case

Love it!

Framework/Framing

Tell me why one is a better/worse model for debate and why I should prefer it in round.

Extra/Misc. Stuff

Speed - I'm cool with it. Just be clear and slower on your tags or analysis. I'll tell you to clear if needed. For online debates, probably slow down a little.

Cross-Ex - I'm fine with open or closed, as long as both teams agree. If open, both partners should participate at some point in the debate. DON'T be rude in cross-ex.

Time - Please try and time yourselves. Ask me ahead of speech time if you can time yourself or if you forgot how much prep you have.

Prep time - I don't normally count flashing as prep unless it just gets stupidly long. Don't ghost prep.

Speaker Points - I will CRUSH your speaker points and give you a hella quick 25 if you're rude to your opponent, partner, or me. I will CRUSH your speaker points if you are caught card-clipping, and probably get you DQ'd too lol.

Pronouns - He/him. If any debater in the round has preferred pronouns, please make that clear to me and every competitor in the room.

"ism" - I DO NOT want to see any examples of racism/sexism/classism/etc. in round, it is not cool at all. However, don't call somebody out for any "ism" if it's not true, that's inversely rude.

Evidence - If I need to see a piece of evidence for my clarity, or because it was heavily contested in round, I'll ask for it

RFD - I might take a minute or two to write out my RFD, just be patient, I don't care if y'all chat. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about my RFD.

Email Chain - If you are using the chain, I'd like to be included @ damian.g.hernandez02@gmail.com

If you have any other questions, ask me before round, I'll answer!

Finally, it's debate, you joined for a reason. Have fun and learn something!

email - though.03.03@gmail.com

LD/PF:

Less familiar with these formats, just make sure everything is explained to me in the rebuttals for LD summaries/final focus for PF and I'm willing to vote for most anything. Judge instruction is great and you shouldn't expect me to do any of the work for you.

Policy:

I'm willing to vote on most anything as long as it's explained well. This includes meme/satire arguments. I like K's but you should make sure every aspect of it is explained to me.

Willing to vote on K's without alts, but you're going to have an easier time if you do read an alt.

I think non-topical affs should probably interact with the topic in some way even if they don't support USFG action.

Framework should not be your only answer to a non-topical aff but that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to vote on it. You should have some argument against the idea the aff supports and not just their way of debating.

Any theory argument should have an example of in-round abuse.

I think aff teams can really benefit from a clever use of case cards against offcase, don't get too caught up in responding how the neg wants you to.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear. Be extra mindful of this debating online.

Updated Last: May 4, 2023

Email: christian.d.jones[at]gmail.com (yes, I would like to be on the chain)

Experience: Head coach for 11 years.

My General Paradigm
Debates must be fair and winnable for both sides, but debaters may argue what is and is not fair. Debaters may try to convince me which particular instance of debate ought to occur in each round. I will try to have an open mind, but I do have likes and dislikes.

Speed
I prefer debaters to ensure clarity before trying to accelerate. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand it, it doesn't get flowed. If I am being honest, I would estimate that I can catch almost every argument at about 85% of top speed for the national circuit. But if you brake for taglines and present them in a unique vocal inflection, top speed is not a problem.

Decision Calculus
I will only intervene if I feel I absolutely have to. I prefer that debaters to help me decide the debate. Comparative arguments will usually accomplish this. Extrapolations in rebuttals are acceptable if they are grounded in arguments already on the flow. Arguments that are extremely offensive or outright false may be rejected on face.

Style
I enjoy and find value in a variety of argumentation styles as long as they do not preclude a debate from taking place. A debate must have clash.

Framework
The 1AC presents their argument to a blank slate. If you want to change this, you will need an interpretation and to be clear on the criteria for winning the round. This criteria should offer both sides the possibility of winning the debate.

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)
If you want me to vote on a proposed rule violation, then you need to win the complete argument. You must win that you have the best interpretation, that the other team has violated your interpretation, that your interpretation is good for debate, and that the offense is a voting issue. If you want to argue that the other team is breaking the rules, then you have the burden of proof. Procedural arguments may also urge a lesser punishment, such as, excluding the consideration of an argument.

Kritik
I do not want to proscribe specifics when it comes to kritiks, but I do want to see clash and comparative argumentation in any debate. I prefer Ks that are germane to the topic or affirmative case in some way. I like kritiks that have a clearly defined alternative. Alternatives that propose something are preferable to 'reject' or 'do nothing' type alts. I am not a fan of ontological arguments, especially nihilistic ones. If you choose to enter the debate space, you have already ceded certain assumptions about reality.

Counterplans
I am open to any type of counterplan, but all arguments are subject to the standard of fairness determined in the debate round. That said, if you are going to read a counterplan, it should probably have a solvency card.

Last Updated 12/5/2021

Ishmael Kissinger
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (Nov/JV & Open)
14 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - 2
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0

PFD - Local = 0

PFD Nat Circuit - 0

Email Chain: PLEASE ASK IN ROUND - I cannot access my personal email at school.

*Note: I do not follow along with the word doc. I just want to be on the chain so that I can see the evidence at the end of the round if necessary. I will only flow what I hear.

LD -

Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."

Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.

Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.

CX

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem *Edit for the digital age: Sometimes really fast debaters are harder for me to understand on these cheap computer speakers.

T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.

Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar

Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.

When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."

I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.

CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.

Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)

DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.

Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.



Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.

debated at jenks high school for 4 years, judge for jenks high school now. she/her

tl;dr : slow down on taglines/analytics, tabula rasa, put me on the email chain: caroline.kizziar00@gmail.com

speed: if you don’t send me something and i don’t catch it that really sucks for you.

Counterplan: i don’t think they’re abusive in general, that being said if the aff team correctly points out an instance of abuse on a counterplan and really impacts it out i could be persuaded otherwise. you should have either a specific solvency advocate or a really good reason why your generic one works. sufficiency framing should be well explained but ill def vote on it. i will not judge kick your counterplan unless you convince me i should. please for the love of god read a card with your counterplan— just the text is not enough.

disads: core generics are important but as a former 2A i know that most of them suck— tell me why and i will 100% listen to that analysis. i think evidence comparison is especially important on a DA.

kritiks: i was mostly a policy debater so im not as familiar here— you need to explain your lit for me to vote. im willing to listen to state bad arguments, but will be sympathetic if an aff team correctly asserts that the alt is vague/doesn’t do anything. rejection alts are bad. the more abusive your framework is the less likely i am to weigh it. I generally believe util but i can be convinced that i should weigh something else if you can convince me that their internal link chain specifically is faulty/bad— not just internal link chains in general. for k affs: don’t pref me. i think fairness is absolutely an impact to fw. i am not the judge for you. if you read debate bad/death good/baudrillard i do not want to hear it. I won’t lie i did go for a lot of cap good/heg good arguments in high school but pls just read what you’re good at not what you think i want to hear. i am very sympathetic to the perm double bind argument.

topicality: i do like t but please don’t run a bad t argument just because you think i want to hear it. you should have in round abuse and a pretty fleshed out explanation of your world vs. their world. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. as the year goes on i weigh t less and less. that being said, if something isn’t even tangentially related to the resolution, you are going to lose.

case: i think case debate is underutilized, you should have something more than impact d even if it is just an analytic. same thing as k’s, please be explaining your aff i need to know what is going on don’t assume i know your advantages like you do.

crossx: definitely binding, definitely checks vagueness, should be brought up in later speeches.

theory: like any other judge i really don’t want to see a theory 2nr strat but if you believe that you have clear examples of abuse and that they genuinely deserve to lose for it, go ahead. condo is good, perfcon is fine, multiple perms are good, etc.

performance: whatever. im not too jazzed about this kind of debate but if you impact out why you need to play music in the round, go ahead. If your narrative has to do with sexual violence please dont be graphic, there are minors in the room.

misc: flash isn’t prep until it gets excessive, open cx is good as long as both sides agree, i don’t think debate should be funny. if you’re here and you run “joke” off case positions i will vote you down for wasting my time. you are not nearly as funny as you think you are.

Tab rasa etc

Lost brain cells are exchanged with speaks

Updated 4/3/22 for OK State

TLDR: Debate is great, have fun. I haven't read your authors, but I understand debate

Debating: My name is Tristan Loveless, I debated for four years at Skiatook High School in East Oklahoma. I debated 200-300 rounds over my four years between tournaments and camps. I attended Georgetown and Northwestern for camps. I did not debate in college.

Coaching: I am currently working for the Tulsa Urban Debate League as their Data Manager.

2 year as a program coordinator for the TDL (OK)

6 years coaching/assistant coaching Urban Debate (OK)

1 year assistant coaching Skiatook High School (OK)

Judging (Water topic):I have judged very few rounds this topic

Topics I've debated/coached: Space, Transportation infrastructure, Cuba/Mexico/Venezuela, Oceans, Surveillance, China, Education, Immigration, Arm Sales, Police Reform, Water Protections

Simply put I’ll evaluate everything. Do what you do best.

Authors I've read: Agamben, Foucault, Marx, Freud, Giroux, Camus, Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. feel free to ask me if I've read X author before the round.

Policy Affirmative Case- If it’s a traditional policy aff I can follow it no problem.

Kritikal Aff- Defend something. Try to be related to the topic in some way please. I prolly haven’t read your philosophy so make it clear, I personally ran Kritikal Affirmatives my Junior and Senior year, so I’m pretty cool with this. Try to give me a clear picture of what my ballot is/does and what exactly I am voting for especially in the 2AR

DA- I’m cool with whatever

CP- On the theory debate Impact it out. The negative should have a specific solvency advocate, I'll still listen to it if it doesn't but I'm likely to buy that it doesn't actually solve if the aff makes that argument.

Theory/T- Impact the voters, tell me what the T/Theory Interp provides us in the real world. T “substantial” or T “its” aren’t super compelling arguments, and they are less so if you don’t give me voter analysis. Education isn’t an Impact, Advocacy Skills and Decision making are. Education is only an Internal Link to a real impact

Kritiks

General - K's are fine. Just a few notes on how I view K's: The alternative is an advocacy, so prove that the alternative is better than the affirmative. When going for the perm be sure to explain how the perm is able to solve the Impact/Link level of the flow- if the perm still links and causes the impact of the K then I'm not gonna vote for the perm. I default that the aff gets to weigh the 1AC, but if the negative wins on the flow that they don't get to weigh it then I won't weigh it.

Impact Turns- I've noticed a lot of K debaters have trouble answering Heg/Cap good in response to their K's. These are real arguments that you need to be able to answer.

In round Discourse links: If the link is in round discourse then you HAVE to explain how the perm overcomes the in round link & Impact otherwise you probably lose the perm debate.

Impact framing: I've seen a few teams going for the "future bad" framing, be sure to extend this throughout the round and cover it in your final speech- and if you're debating against these kind of arguments be sure to answer them. In short, be sure you extend and explain impact framing throughout the round and if you're the opposing team be sure to answer these kinds of arguments

Note: In the past few years I've seen negatives read K's that the rest of their strategy links too. I'm not a fan of this and am likely to vote a team down for doing this. If you don't know what I mean here are the examples from rounds I've judged:

Example 1: Negative team reads Set Col and argues that native erasure is the biggest impact, and then kicks the K in the 2NR.

Example 2: Negative team reads Fem K w/ USFG link and a counterplan that uses the USFG.

Misc:

Speed is cool, be clear. I like Impact Analysis. Be creative.

Timing Stuff- prep ends when jump drive is in the opponents hand, Cross Ex starts immediately when the speech ends. For online debate prep ends when email is sent.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

Schools/Affiliations: Program Manager - Tulsa Debate League, Coach - Will Rogers Middle and High School

I competed in policy debate in junior high/high school for 4.5 years. I also competed in the following individual events: Prose, DEX

I coached elementary public forum debate from 2019-2021 and have been coaching policy debate since January 2022.

General Paradigm
I'm open-minded. As long as the argument is well-formed and well-explained, I'm usually good with this. The exception to this is if you are just running a bunch of random stuff to try to spread someone out - I think this is a shady way to win a round and that it misses the point of policy debate altogether.

Speed
If you are spreading to the point that your voice goes up a full octave or your words are reduced to the buzz of an insect, I won't be flowing your speech. If I have to dig through your speech docs to figure out your arguments instead of hearing you present them yourself, we might as well not be holding a debate round at all.

Line by Line
I prefer line by line debate. I believe you need to flow and I don’t think a team is obligated to share analytical arguments in a flash/speech doc. If the debate becomes disorganized because of your inability to stay on the flow, that’ll likely cost you in some way. Debate, at its essence, is about a clash of ideas...therefore clash is an essential ingredient to a good debate round. A round between two teams who neither extend their own arguments, nor address the specific attacks made on these arguments, is not a debate round, and such a round begs for intervention on my part.

Decision Calculus
I am loathe to intervene in a round, but will do so if neither team presents a clear comparative analysis of the issues in the round. You need to tell my why I should vote for you and make that clear in the final rebuttals.

Framework
I’ll start with my paradigm, you tell me where to move to, and convince me of why I should do so, if you’d like to change the framework. Any framework should make it possible for both sides to win and shouldn’t be rooted in a rejection of debate as an activity (though it’s possible I could be convinced otherwise).

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)

If the affirmative is not able to prove that they are topical, that's the first place I will vote. I believe that it is important for affirmative cases to meet the resolution if we are going to have fair and educational debate. That being said, it doesn't take a lot of work for the aff to convince me they are topical. A solid we meet, counter-interp, and reasons to prefer extended throughout the debate are good enough for me. I want it to be answered, but I don't really want to listen to a whole round of debate on T - get through it and move on.

Kritiks

I didn't do a whole lot of K debate during my time competing, but I increasingly find that I can get behind a lot of K arguments IF they are well-explained. Please don't run a K unless you actually plan to go for it in the round. Running Ks as a time suck and then kicking out of them halfway through the round is a move that I just cannot get behind. If a K doesn't have real world alternatives, it will take more work on your part to convince me that it's a good idea. If something is heavily theory-based, it needs to be explained well.


Performance
Do what you will, I’ll listen. Prefer they be relevant to topic.

Counterplans
I am good with counterplans, conditional is fine, but don’t get too feisty in this regard. Deep counterplan and pic theory give me headaches, so slow down and talk me through it.

Multiple Worlds

No thanks...multiple conditional positions are fine, but not contradictory advocacy. Can’t be convinced otherwise on the matter so save your time.

3NRs and My Decision
I will give an oral critique if time allows and reveal decision if permitted by tourney expectations, but I will not enter into an argument with either team about my decision. I can handle a question or two, but make sure it’s a question. Look, I am always going to do my best, but I’m sure I’ve gotten the decision wrong a time or two, and I hate it when I do. That being said, my usual answer when teams argue why they lost is: I’d feel the same way if I were you, but next time debate better. Then I mark their speaker points down for being rude. Live to fight another day, and be aware that you might see your judge again down the road.

Prep Time

i will be lenient as we learn the online format, but that being said, I’m losing patience with the time taken up by flashing files even during in-person debates. Be efficient.

"Push me to the edge, econ key to heg" - Lil Uzi Vert // Collin Smith, Heritage Hall - Class of 2020 and University of Denver - Class of 2024

"There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, 'Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again.'"

Alex Nguyen

University of Michigan - Class of 2024

Heritage Hall OKC - Class of 2020

Assistant Debate Coach - Heritage Hall OKC -- August 2021-present

Email: nguyenam@umich.edu

Big shoutout to Bryan Gaston at Heritage Hall for being an amazing debate coach and making me into the debater, judge, and person I am today.

Table of contents:

1. Policy paradigm

2. LD paradigm

3. Oklahoma LD paradigm

4. PF paradigm

5. IE/speech paradigm

6. Parli paradigm

----

Policy paradigm:

tl;dr: below

- I am fine with whatever you read in round.

- Please call me Alex and not judge.

- PLEASE SAY "NEXT" BETWEEN ARGUMENTS AND CARDS!!!!! You should do this if you want me to be able to flow you well.

- If I yell clear three times during your speech, I will stop flowing your speech since I cannot understand what you're saying. That's on you.

- Slow down on analytics please. Of course, spread, but don't read off analytics like you're reading the text of a card. If you're gonna do this, your analytics better be in the doc, otherwise, there's no way I'm gonna be able to flow most of your arguments.

- I prefer judging strategies that have specific links to the Aff.

- I am unable to evaluate any out of round links, as I cannot determine whether they are true or not.

- I am not the best judge for complex K debates. The only K I have experience with is settler colonialism. High theory like Baudrillard will be a bit difficult for me to judge. My only preference with Ks is that specific links to the K are better than generic ones, and I am more inclined to vote for the K if the link is specific. If you are running a K, I suggest you read the K section below.

- I will vote on conditionality bad/perf con if it is extended and won in the 2ar, however, my threshold to vote on it is very high.

- I am a sucker for soft left impacts.

- Aff has the burden of proof to why it is topical if topicality is an argument in the round.

- Ground and education are terminal impacts.

- I love a good case debate.

- If you're running 8 off and 4 of them are just 1 card DAs or CPs that have no solvency cards with just a CP text, I'm not a huge fan. I understand the strategic advantage this can give the Neg, but these debates just get boring and non-sensical. These debates just aren't fun to judge since the Aff answers these stupid one card DAs or CP w/o a solvency card with very few answers, then the block just blows it up. I think it skews the debate unfairly and heavily in favor of the Neg. In these debates, I will not hesitate to vote Aff on condo if it is well extended into the 2ar. Also, I will be very lenient on the 1ar reading new answers/cards in their speech.

- This is an educational activity and the judge is a norm setter. At the same time, debate is a competitive game. (ground & edu are a terminal impacts)

- Have fun and be respectful to your opponents. Racism, xenophobia, queerphobia, and sexism WILL NOT be tolerated. If this happens in a round, I will stop it immediately, vote you down, and report you to Tabroom and your coach.

- Add me on the email chain and keep analytics in your doc since online debate is a bit more difficult to judge, especially because it cuts out a lot. nguyenam@umich.edu

- Bonus points if you have a card doc ready for me if/before I ask for it. I like to read cards b/c I consider myself a truth>tech judge. However, tech is still very important to me. More important is the quality of your ev.

- If your style of debate is more traditional, i.e., no spreading, I'm okay with that. I've judged all types of debate and can adapt. Do what you're comfortable with. We're here to learn and have a good time.

Longer paradigm below:

I'll vote and listen to anything, but here are some things you might want to know going into the debate...

Bio: I debated in CX for the University of Michigan during my freshman year and all four years of high school, so I've five years of debating under my belt, plus more if you count coaching. I have been a 2a/1n for 75% of my debate career. The arguments I mostly went for my sophomore year of HS were politics DAs and counterplans when I was constantly switching between being double 1s or 2s, so I've seen both sides of debate. Starting junior year, I became a 2a/1n and flex debater running the settler colonialism K and also some policy DAs and counterplans. My senior year, I was also a 2a/1n and executed mostly policy strategies, i.e, politics & topic DAs and CPs. I will likely be a 2a/1n for the rest of my debate career, running mainly policy arguments.

In 2018, I competed in the Oklahoma 6A State Championship and attended Michigan 7 week program end of sophomore year and Berkeley 3 week program end of freshman year. In 2019, I competed in the Oklahoma 6A State Championship and made it to the semifinals and attended the Michigan Classic Debate program over the summer. In college, I plan on mainly running policy arguments and being a 2a/1n for the rest of my career.

Please add me on the email chain: nguyenam@umich.edu

I want your speech docs please. If possible, flash analytics for online debates. It makes it much easier for me to flow, in case you cut out during your speech.

I don't take flashing/emailing as prep time, but please be mindful of prep time and do NOT steal prep. Please keep your own time.

Clipping cards is bad and = an L.

I'd say I evaluate rounds on a truth over tech basis. I will read cards after the round, so I will ask for a card doc. Tech is still important to me, but ev quality is even more important. Bonus points for you if you have the card doc ready for me before I ask for it.

Any risk of no aff solvency means I vote neg on presumption. However, if the aff answers the no solvency argument just enough in the 2AR to be a valid argument and it makes sense, then they've beaten the no solvency argument. But, if the neg makes a no solvency argument in the 2NR and it's fleshed out and extended JUST enough so I can validly evaluate it at the end of the round and the 2AR cold concedes it in their speech, I automatically err neg on the no solvency argument, meaning I have to vote neg on presumption. That means that if the 2AR drops the no solvency argument and the 2NR extended it just good enough to be a valid argument at the end of the debate, then the aff CANNOT weigh any of its impacts on the off case positions at the end of the round since it CANNOT SOLVE ITS OWN IMPACTS. But if the no solvency argument is strong and both Aff and Neg make good arguments back and forth in the 2nr/2ar, I'll evaluate them fairly.

If there are any theoretical reason(s) to reject the team, I evaluate that prior to any positions in the debate. For example, topicality or conditionality.

I need a clear explanation of what a counterplan does at the end of the round and its net benefit so I can vote for it.

I am a sucker for soft left impacts, but you need to win why I should not evaluate util/extinction first. Also, it seems like I'm a sucker for theory args. (even if they're really bad)

I see a lot of teams only extending either only an internal link with no impact extension or an impact with no internal link extension. I believe this goes for all judges -- both parts need to be extended in order to win my ballot.

A few things people ask me in round that I can just put here:

Are you fine with speed? - yeah but if you're super unclear I will yell CLEAR. After the second time I yell clear I'm just gonna stop flowing and it's totally on you. In online debate, please slow down just a tad. Do not spread analytics like you would the text of a card. If you're gonna do that, put analytics in the doc. Even then, I may not be able to flow you properly.

How are you on Ks? - During my junior year at Heritage Hall, I mainly ran the settler colonialism K, but was a 1N, and have a decent understanding of that. However, I have not run many other post-modernist/structural Ks in my career. Please do not let this stop you from running any other Ks. When running them, please be sure to give me a clear overview of how the K functions and a clear link & alt story. If there is no clear explanation of how the alt functions or what the link to the Aff is, then there will be a slim chance I vote on it. A K without a link explanation is a no go for me. Remember, you can always drop the K alt, but use the link(s) as a case turn, which I would definitely vote on. (if you want to use them as a case turn, remember to tell me that you want to do so.)

Debate is a game, but I also believe it is an educational activity where we foster our advocacy/policy making skills. In order for that to be true, the debate round needs to be fair for both sides. I believe the judge is a norm setter in a debate and in the community. Ground and education are terminal impacts. Limits can be spun to be an impact, but I believe, for the most part, it is an internal link.

I hate long long overviews. At the end of the day, I feel like these really long overviews in the 2ac are just complicated to understand and read, so it seems like I don't really understand what the Aff does until the 1ar or 2ar because the overviews are shorter.

I tend to find that many K debaters like to read a link to the status quo, but not the plan. I think the K should link to the plan, and/or reps of the aff, and/or solid links to the advantages, otherwise it is an uphill battle--

My Golden Rule: When you have the option to choose a more specific strategy vs a more generic strategic, always choose the more specific strategy.

Outside of round links -- I will not vote on them since it is impossible for me to 100% verify what happened out of round.

I am definitely willing to pull the trigger on condo bad and I really empathize with the Aff if there are many conditional advocacies read in the round. I think one conditional advocacy is fine, but if it's like 8 off and there's only one conditional CP but the rest are contradicting ethical positions, i.e., a K and a politics DA, I'm definitely willing to pull the trigger on condo ethics/perf con. Or if it's one CP and 7 DAs, you can definitely make the argument condo bad. Interp for this should be "condo bad -- neg should get zero conditional conditions."

Theory arguments need to have a voting issue and violation if you want me to vote on them. Otherwise, I just judge kick.

The aff has the burden of proof as to why they are topical.

One thing I am definitely heavy on is that I will protect the 2NR. If something is not said in the 1AR, but you shadow extend it in the 2AR, then I will not evaluate it on my flow. At the end of the debate, I will clearly articulate my flow to make sure this is the case.

Please tell me how I should evaluate things for you. I will do very very little if any work for you at the end of the debate to make a decision on your behalf.

FOR OKLAHOMA DEBATE: if you have me on a panel, I recommend you adapt to how the other Oklahoma judges likes to judge debates, unless they're a normal nat circuit judge. I'm very flexible when it comes to different forms of debating, whether it's a parent/lay judge or not. I've seen it all during my time debating in OK.

Speaker points (applies to LD, CX, and PF):

Under 27: You did something really bad, like being discriminatory or were extremely rude to your opponents.

28-28.5: Not a terrible debate, but there are a lot of things you can improve on. I will explain this in my RFD if you got something in this range.

28.6-28.9: Good debate, but not great. I think there are some things you can improve on. Your speaking could have been more clear. If you lost and got these points, this means I believed that you didn't debate terribly, but there was a winning 2nr/2ar. If you won and got these points, this means I believed that you also didn't debate terribly, but you made me piece some things together on my flow to give you the W.

29-29.5: Great debate! I really enjoyed watching and judging it. Sure, there are definitely things you can improve on, but you did great. If all debaters in the round got these speaker points, this means that it was a close debate and tough for me to determine a winner. If you won and got these points and your opponents didn't, this means I believe that it was pretty clear cut who won the debate and I think you did a great job piecing the debate together for me. If you lost and got these points, this means that the 2nr/2ar were both good and that it was difficult to determine a winner, meaning there are very minuscule things you could have done to win the debate.

29.5-29.9: Phenomenal debate. I think you're going to win the tournament, or at least be in late elims. I don't think I've ever given someone who lost these points, so I won't go into that here. But if you won with these points, that means you pieced things well for me, you spoke very clearly, made smart/strategic arguments and decisions, and were just awesome overall.

30: Yeah you're winning the tournament no doubt.

Have fun and learn! Most importantly, this is an educational activity.

-----

**Arms Sales topic notes (the part about K links -- taken from Bryan Gaston's paradigm)***

------

National circuit LD Paradigm:

For national circuit LD, I would say that my paradigm does not change much from my policy one, so please read my policy paradigm when you're deciding your prefs. I will judge your debate like I would judge a CX debate. If you are not okay with that, then strike me. After asking a few LD buddies about how LD differs from policy, here are some of my preferences.

- I can judges Ks. However, stupid theory arguments on Ks I will not vote on. Of course I am okay with FW, floating PIKs bad, and/or vague alts bad. Anything else I will either not be a fan of or I will vote on ONLY if it goes dropped the entirety of the debate and if it's labeled as a voting issue, otherwise, I just judge kick the arg. If your A strat is running these stupid arguments in front of me, I recommend you strike me before the tournament begins.

- Like I said above, stupid theory arguments will not fly with me. I want this to be an educational debate for all. I feel like theory in LD can evolve into really non-sensical arguments. However, things like conditionality bad I will definitely vote on.

- I will not vote on permissibility, however, I don't mind voting neg on presumption because I love a good case debate.

- In policy, I've honestly never been a fan of anything more than 1 conditional position. As a 2a who isn't the fastest, I get spread out pretty thin, so I empathize with many people in policy and/or LD. If you extend condo bad, I expect it to be the majority of your speech in the 1ar if you want me to vote for it in the 2ar.

- Anything you consider an LD trick -- do not run those BS arguments in front of me. Like I said above, if that stuff is your A strat, please strike me. I don't want to waste my time judging a debate like that.

- I am okay with spreading.

------

Oklahoma LD Paradigm:

Don’t call me judge. Call me Alex please. you don't need to thank me for judging in your speeches. i've heard this a few times and it's just cringy. i'm not gonna vote you down for it, obviously. but still lol -- it makes me laugh sometimes.

I mainly judge policy debates and only compete in CX, however, I think I will be tempted to judge LD debates like a policy debate, so I recommend you read the notes above.

a few notes:

If the debate comes down to framing, the Aff has to win framing prior to me weighing its solvency against the Neg. If the Aff loses their framing, they can’t solve/weigh the Aff vs Neg args, thus I vote Neg on presumption.

If there are any theoretical reason(s) to reject the team, I evaluate that prior to any positions in the debate. For example, topicality or conditionality.

Truth>tech

I want your evidence after the round unless I say I don’t want it otherwise. Send to nguyenam@umich.edu

Evidence quality means a lot to me

Saying racist/queer phobic/misogynistic means I will vote you down immediately, report you to your coach, and tabroom.

i highly recommend you read the section in my policy paradigm about Aff solvency.

if you want to run a K, do it right, but I don’t think Ks are prevalent in OK LD.

if you have me on a panel, I recommend you adapt to how the other Oklahoma judges likes to judge debates, unless they're a normal nat circuit judge. I'm very flexible when it comes to different forms of debating, whether it's a parent/lay judge or not. I've seen it all during my time debating in OK.

---

PF Paradigm:

Please don't call me judge. Call me Alex. I highly suggest you read my tl;dr version of my policy paradigm.

I tend to judge these debates like a policy debate, so that means I flow on a policy debate template on Excel or on paper like policy debate (more likely on Excel when judging). I will hold the line on arguments dropped in speeches then brought up in the last speech. I am a truth>tech judge, meaning I will likely call for pieces of evidence during the round, if not after the round.

I tend to see a lot of PF debaters telling me "My opponents dropped X argument! That means you should vote for me!" Even if it is true, you need to tell me why it matters in this round. I hate having to piece things together like this at the end of the round, and it ultimately leads to me piecing together an RFD that you probably won't like. Also, see the part above about internal link/impact extensions.

I am okay with spreading in PF, but please be clear. If you don't want to spread, that is okay.

Please keep track of your own prep time. I'll likely be timing your speeches, CX, and prep time, but there's a decent chance I get off track.

FOR OKLAHOMA DEBATE: if you have me on a panel, I recommend you adapt to how the other Oklahoma judges likes to judge debates, unless they're a normal nat circuit judge. I'm very flexible when it comes to different forms of debating, whether it's a parent/lay judge or not. I've seen it all during my time debating in OK.

—-

Paradigm for speech/drama events:

my only preferences is that you don’t be racist, queerphobic, and/or misogynistic. Don’t call me judge, call me Alex. the purpose of the speech/drama events is to sound nice, persuasive, and performative, so do just that.

(just a side note about these speech/drama events: I have no clue why judges make you all dress up in fancy suits/dresses. I think debate/speech/drama should be fun and enjoyable activities where you should not have to be in fancy clothes for >12 hours/day. Basically, I believe that you should feel comfortable when debating. I don't care what you wear.)

---

Parli comments:

I flow these debates the same way I flow policy debate because it's the easiest way for me to organize and judge all arguments at the end of the round. I also want the debaters to control the round, meaning I want them to keep track of time and control the direction of the debate. I mainly judge policy debate, otherwise, I follow normal conventions of parli.

Please try not to go over speech times. I know there may be grace periods, and that's fine, but don't be disrespectful/unfair to your opponents by going over time. If I'm timing and notice you go over by a lot, I WILL dock your speaker points.

If I'm torn between two really good args about the same thing, I will default to the side who has the evidence backing their arg vs the side who doesn't. If there's no ev involved, it will be evaluated best I can.

If you can't tell, ev means a lot to me. The more ev the better.

Name: Garrett Oakley

Current Affiliation: Will Rogers College High School

Conflicts: Tulsa Debate League, Will Rogers College High School

Debate Experience: College IPDA, Coaching 2 years of Policy.

Judged approximately Eighteen Rounds in the last year.

Preferred Arguments:

1. Impact Calculus

2. Sensible K's.

3. Counter-Plans

4. Stock Issues

Does not prefer these types of arguments:

1. A-Spec

2. Topicality without evidence from the round, such as examples of arguments that can’t be used because of bad interpretation of the resolution.

3. Condo/Theory

Stylistic Preferences:

1. Line-by-line rebuttals

2. Signposting, when switching from on-case to off-case arguments

3. Off-the-clock road maps

4. Underviews, that help me understand what you are talking about

Stylistic Dislikes

1. Trying to say rebuttals in cross-examination. Not asking questions.

2. Not using all your speech time.

3. Not using prep time.

My dream debate round includes two teams debating over a plan, with alternatives to the plan being brought up. Eventaully, the debate comes down to the possible impacts of each plan.

---I strive to be as fair as possible. Meaning, I take this (my job as a judge to assign a win/loss) seriously and I pay attention.

---Arguments get as much attention from me as the debaters gave them in the debate. Explain, give warrants, read high-quality evidence.

---There's nothing I won't vote on or listen to. Convince me what's important, what's of value, what my ballot means, and why I'm voting the way I'm voting. Do the work.

---I like to be entertained by persuasive speakers, smart arguments, creativity, humor, etc. etc. (doesn't everybody?) and those things are usually rewarded.

---Don't be a sore loser or a smug winner.

I would like to be on the email chain: dsavill@snu.edu

Director of Debate for Southern Nazarene University since 2021 and former coach of Crossings Christian School from 2011 to 2023.

Things you need to know for prefs:

Kritiks: Very familiar with kritiks and non-topical affs. I like kritiks and K affs and can vote for them.

Policy: I am familiar with policy debates and can judge those. My squad is designed to be flex so I am good with either.

Speed: I can handle any kind of speed as long as you are clear.

Theory/FW/T: I am not a fan of FW-only debates so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will entertain FW but that shouldn't be your only off-case. Contesting theory of power is a good strat for me.

Performance/non-traditional debate: Despite what some would think coming from a Christian school, I actually like these kinds of debates and have voted up many teams.

I try to be a tab judge but I know I tend to vote on more technical prowess. I believe debate should be a fun and respectful activity and I try to have a good time judging the round. I think debaters are among the smartest students in the nation and I always find it a privilege to judge a round and give feedback.

Hi! I’m an assistant coach at Southern Nazarene University and have been since 2021. Previously, I coached at Crossings Christian from 2020-2023. I started debating in the sixth grade and debated at Crossings from 2013-2020. I competed at the high school national level since the eighth grade, broke at a couple TOCQs, and won two 5A state titles in Oklahoma.

I was a flex debater, which means I debated both policy and the K and am comfortable with either. I ran many different Ks during my seven years of debate, such as Agamben, Cap, Setcol, Afropess (with a black partner), Baudrillard, and Psychoanalysis. I don’t have anything against nontopical or performance affs, and I’m generally tech over truth.

There are a few things I’ll vote a team down for, no matter what’s happening in the rest of the round:

- Being rude, laughing at, or mocking the other team.

- Death good, suicide good, or advocating for killing people, especially if these arguments are contextualized to someone in the room.

Things I like:

- A nice joke in your speech, even if it’s corny. Have fun in the round!

- Being respectful to your opponents and your partner.

- Telling me what I should write for my RFD.

Things I dislike:

- Disclosure theory, perf con good theory, and multiple worlds good theory. I especially dislike multiple worlds good theory being used as a reason why your 2AC block doesn’t contradict itself.

- The phrase “This card/argument is trash” or similar phrases. Tell me why the argument’s bad instead of just insulting it.

- Ks without alts.

- Wipeout

- Eugenics good

Hey there!

My name is Justin Schuffert (he/him). I'm a former debater with experience in both high school and college. My journey in debate exposed me to a wide variety of debate styles ranging from traditional policy debate to kritik. I'm tabula rasa and very open minded.

My experiences include: topicality, framework, kritik, counterplans, theory, performative expression, etc. I'm very much a 'games-person' when it comes to debate. Disagree? Let's have an debate about it and see who wins!

Please be polite to each other and have fun.


Debate Experience: Guymon High School 1999-2001, University of Central Oklahoma 2002-2004, and yearly judge on the Oklahoma debate circuit. I'm forever a 1A/2N.

Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma

My experience includes 4 years of LD debate throughout high school as well as extemporaneous speaking and congressional debate. In college I competed on a national circuit in parliamentary style debate, LD Policy debate, and extemporaneous speaking. I’ve intermittently judged high school LD, policy, and congressional debate for the past 10 years. I consider my paradigm to be part tabula rasa, part games. I try to let the debaters determine the type of round it will be and I will vote on whatever the best and most logical arguments are. If a debater is able to logically defend their position as the most advantageous or the least disadvantageous, then I will vote on it regardless of how unrealistic or absurd it may be. I enjoy Kritiks, but they need to be well understood and ran with intention. I will listen to pretty much any argument as long as it links and you can defend it. I will vote on topicalities but I prefer to hear attempts at creative argumentation. I don’t mind speed but I prefer articulation over a larger quantity of arguments and my flow will be reflective of how clearly the speaker is communicating their arguments.

Experience

Currently the Director of Debate at Casady School.

Competed at the University of Oklahoma and Owasso High School.

Put me on the e-mail chain: snidert [at] casady [dot] org

On Evidence

Evidence quality and consistency is very important to me. I can easily be convinced to disregard a piece of evidence because it lacks quality, is insufficiently highlighted, or is not qualified.

Author qualifications are under debated and if a piece of evidence lacks a qualification then that should definitely be used in debate.

K Things General

One line should dictate how you approach reading the K in front of me:

“You are a debater, not a philosopher.”

This should be your guiding principle when reading and answering a kritik in front of me. Debaters seem to rely more on jargon than actually doing the work of explaining and applying their argument. Unnecessarily complex kritiks won't get good speaker points (90% of the time you could have just read the cap k).

I will not flow overviews on a separate sheet of paper.

If you plan on reading the K

I've got good news and bad news. I'll start with the bad news: You are very unlikely to convince me not the weigh/evaluate the aff. I'm not persuaded much by self-serving counter interpretations on framework.

That said, the good news is that I think people give the aff too much credit and most of the reasons why I shouldn't evaluate the plan are typically offense against it. For example while I don't find the FW interpretation "Debate should be about epistemological assumptions" very convincing, I will definitely vote on "the affirmative's plan relies on a flawed epistemology that ensures serial policy failure, which turns case."

If you're answering the K

While the above may seem like good news for the aff answering the K, I tend to hold the aff to a higher threshold than most in K debates. I don't think "you need a specific link to the plan" is responsive to a K of the aff's epistemology. Likewise, aff framework interps that exclude Ks entirely are pretty much a non-starter.

Theory Issues

Condo seems to be getting a bit excessive, but no one goes for condo anymore so I'm sort of stuck with it.

Tech vs Truth

I think of this as more of a continuum as opposed to a binary. I lean more towards tech than truth, but I'm not going to pretend that I evaluate all arguments with equal legitimacy. For example, I have a higher threshold for arguments like “climate change not real” than “plan doesn’t solve climate change.” I traditionally evaluate the debate in offense/defense paradigm, but there is a such thing as a 0% risk.

K affs/T-FW

I enter every debate with the assumption that the resolution is going to play a role in the round. What role it plays, however, is up for debate. I don’t have a preference between skills or fairness standards.

Common reasons I vote aff on FW:

The neg goes for too many “standards”/"DAs"/whatever-youre-calling-them in the 2NR.

The neg doesn’t even try to engage the aff’s 2AC to FW.

Common reasons I vote neg on FW:

The aff doesn’t have an offensive reasons why the TVA is bad.

The aff doesn’t even try to engage the neg’s standards on FW.

Misc

I only flow what I hear, I won't use the doc to correct my flow. If I don't catch an argument/tag because you're too unclear then *insert shrug emoji*. That said, with online debate I will flow what I hear and use the doc to correct my flow after the speech. Including your analytics in the speech document will make correcting my flows much easier.

Guaranteed 30 if you’re paper debate team #PaperDebate

My facial reactions will probably tell you how I feel about your arg.

"Underneath all reason lies delirium, and drift."

I think the structural ins-and-outs of debate arguments are very important foundations that the activity and the debate round specifically require to function properly. But, I err on the side of reasonability. I tend to treat theory args as checks rather than round-deciders, and as such it is very difficult to get me to vote on hypothetical abuse. If you want to win the ballot *on* theory/topicality, you need to show me how you were abused *in this round*. Otherwise, if a team passes the theory/topicality check, then we move on to other arguments.

I think Framework is a complicated issue. On one hand, it’s a check for policy-leaning teams to prevent abusive K args from the neg and a right to define how you want the round and ballot act to be seen, but more often I see it used as an attempt to abuse neg ground by somehow removing their ability to kritik altogether. In practice, the stronger argument and legitimate, warranted crystallization will win my ballot.

I’m okay with speed, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE signpost. This means *don't* speed through tags!!! Please just pause/vary your tone when switching between tags and evidence. I’m able to come back to judge at most 3 times a year, so it takes some energy to “knock the rust off” my ears and my flowing abilities.

I find really good policy rounds a thing of beauty, when there’s CLASH and real discussion between competing arguments and evidence. It shouldn't make a difference what the subject of those discussions is.

Ultimately, if what you really want to think and speak on in your time in this activity is the granular interactions between congress and the president or how likely nuclear war is, then I think you should be able to; but I also think that if the other team wants to spend their time in this activity speaking on issues that affect them in the real world, they should be able to find a way inside the boundaries of the debate “game” to do so without being punished.

Here’s a paradox: you can be behind on every single flow and still win the ballot, or ahead on every single flow and still lose the ballot. What’s important to me is that you tell me a compelling story at the end of the round, and not just repeat taglines and “extend x”; that you crystallize and have warranted reasons for why I should vote for you; and, above all, that you are clearest in telling me what the ballot means or what my act of voting accomplishes.

I will do my best at the end of the round to objectively decide "who did the better debating", but it's up to you as debaters to tell me what those words mean in the round you're in.

I did LD for 3 years at Bishop McGuinness and now I do policy at OU.

Include me on the chain:

blaine3252001@gmail.com

About Me

she/they

Broken Arrow HS ‘19 (LD 4 years)

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

GTA @ Wichita State

Conflicts: Broken Arrow, Tulsa Union, Pembroke Hill, Maize South, Missouri 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.

Policy first, NFA LD next, then HS LD at the bottom -- if there is no specific section for either LD format assume it’s the same as policy or ask me questions pre round! :)

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

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 - but I would prefer it be creative to the aff and carded to demonstrate that it could solve the aff's offense.

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

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

Theory/Procedurals

I think mandating an inherency contention is silly, UQ from the advantages can answer this.

Solvency advocate theory is cowardice. If the aff doesn't have a solvency advocate, then... you should... be able to beat it...

Will vote on speed bad due to accessibility concerns.

For condo, my thoughts differ from policy and HS LD. With a 6 minute 1ar, that allows the affirmative more time to answer NC arguments. Therefore, unlike in HS LD, 2 CPs are probably my max. However, if the 2 CPs are polar opposite worlds (ex - US should engage in bilat relations with China vs US should first strike China) I would be willing to err affirmative. Kicking planks is probably bad. Judge kick is probably bad. Basically, make sure your CPs aren't abusive, and I'm good.

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.

HS LD

I prefer 1/2 off in depth debates to shallow 3/4 off debates in LD - I find that by the end of the round if there is more than 2 off I am left doing a lot of work for teams simply because there was not enough time to cover every necessary component in an argument.

T

RVIs aren’t real and I will never vote on them unless there is literally 0 (and I mean 0, not a single word said) arguments on it. even then, I will be extremely sad. please don't go for it.

CP

1 CP is fine - 2 is too many (hint hint: i am very aff leaning on condo)

Theory

Theory in LD is wild to me. I am not the best judge for silly theory tricks. The theory I am most willing to vote on is condo and perf con. Second most willing is any other policy theory arg. If you're wondering about a specific theory arg feel free to ask me pre round.