I use to consider myself a stock issues judge....But I'm slowly moving away from it I'm good with T as long as it's done right. I'm ok with K's and CP's, But I wouldn't bank on winning with that alone. Also I prefer closed CX...and I REALY prefer closed constructive and rebuttals. Spreading is fine as long as I can understand the tag lines.

elibrennan@gmail.com YES, I'd like to be on the email chain (or i guess we may just use Zoom to transfer speech docs).

Evidence: I am happy, very happy, to prefer the team with the better evidence on key questions, you just need to explain why your evidence is superior: be clear about which evidence you want me to read, why I will find it superior, and why that matters for the overall strategic situation of the debate.I haven't been reading much evidence at all after debates because the approach to extending the evidence lacks substantive warranting. In those situations, I prefer to just compare warrants provided by the debaters- to see who did the better _debating_. All that said, I really do like that policy debate can create stable strategic advantages for better research and better interpretation of that research.

Framework: I'm sympathetic to Framework arguments mostly in situations where the Aff. is apparently trying to avoid substantive clash. Many debaters who specialize in, or rely on, framework arguments fail to convince me that they could not have anticipated, or developed answers to, the Affirmative's arguments. Developing substantive responses to widely different kinds of arguments seems like something we should each be good at. I often sense that debaters are just not interested in literature they claim to have been unable to anticipate. All that said, if you have a solid set of answers to the questions our community brings to the topic, and your opponent makes it unreasonably difficult/impossible to engage in those debates, please by all means go for framework. Winning the quality of education component is usually the key to that ballot for me.

K Debate: I like policy debate and critical debate. Do what you do best, and I'll follow. Adapting your blocks to the specifics of the Aff is the easiest way to improve your chances. For the Aff to weigh their advantages against a K, defending the knowledge claims is more reliable than theory arguments (for my ballot). A lot of teams are letting alternatives off the hook, which creates a tough debate for the Aff. Putting both offensive and defensive pressure on the Alternative is a more robust strategy, in my view, than a framework argument giving theoretical reasons I should ignore evidence against the Aff perspective.

Theory: A lot of theory debates are messy because debaters overly rely on their blocks. It gets blippy and lacks the kind of comparisons that make ballots reliable. I do understand, and am sympathetic to, theory positions that are necessary to keep the rest of the debate under control for your side. You often end up needing to go "all in" if the substantive debate gets out of control. Just be sure to debate "access" to the terminal impact of education in a clear and comparative way. I'm probably more sympathetic to process counterplans and solvency advocate arguments than most of my colleagues, in that I like these debates to be resolved with the best research, rather than the best spin.

Global advice: Think actively during the whole debate, find a way to create and enjoy moments of excellence, and respect your opponents (or at least the people they could be). Make whatever arguments you feel/think best. Take the time to explain your argument most comprehensively at the places you are most vulnerable- always contextualizing one step further than your opponent (they say 'purple', you say 'sun-drenched lavender').

Most of my decisions result from setting the 2nr against the 2ar, controlling for new args (esp. new 2ar args), checking evidence, defaulting to meta-arguments (comparisons) from debaters, and then imposing (i hate it as much as you do) meta-arguments where necessary.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have before, during, or after the debate.

*Sidequests: +.2 Speaker points on offer for the sickest burn on opposing authors.

Policy Debate: I'm a policy preference judge but will vote how the round takes me. Argument clarity is more important than speed but I am ok with spreading provided the team is clear and enunciates enough to hear the evidence. Logic and analysis are also heavily considered but evidence is the foundation of argumentation.

Lincoln Douglas: I'm looking for clash. If there are conflicting definitions, give me reasons to prefer. I view Criterion as a way to uphold/measure the value.

K debate is the best, I really don't care what ypu run just convince me what I should be voting on. That being said mosts cps are abusive so I normally err towards aff.

spreading is fine, flash your evidence prior to speeches.

most likely wont vote on T

make sure to do some type of framing in your rebuttals

Pretty much tab, I'll vote for practically anything if you explain it well and it's not racist/sexist/bigoted etc. Because of this, framework occupies an essential role in the round as it defines the debate space. Also, the cleaner you allow my flow to be, generally the easier time I'll have voting for you. Feel free to ask any specific paradigm questions.

I am a Tabs judge, meaning I will vote what is in the round. If it is an argument made in debate, I will look at it in the context of the round. That's not to say I don't have my preferred things to talk about, the Stock Issues are a critical part of debate in my point of view. The biggest thing is that it is your job to tell me what the important parts of the round are and why I should be voting for your team/view point.

A brief background: I was a competitor for four years at Keys High School. I participated in Policy debate between 2009-2012 and along with my partner was the State Champion in the 4A Division in 2012. I have also medaled at State in Standard Oratory and Foreign Extemp. He/Him

Extemp: The most important thing to me is that your speech is constructed well; I will vote for a well-organized speech with sub-par delivery over a well-delivered speech that seems to be written haphazardly. Having a solid preview-> view -> review structure tends to help with this. I like it when speakers clearly tie the introductions to their speeches to the main topic they will be talking about, and give a satisfying conclusion after their review. Signposting with phrases like "Now, onto my second point..." helps make it clear which of your points you are talking about. I also like it when speakers make a clear distinction between information that is cited evidence and information is their own analysis. Please tell me if you want your time signals going up (I show you how many minutes you have used) or going down (I show you how many minutes you have left).

CX: I lean towards being a Policymaker judge, meaning I look at the world both teams present to me and vote for the world I would more like to live in. That being said, I vote for what I see in the round and I like it when teams tell me the issues I should be voting on in the rebuttals. I don't handle spreading as well as some other judges and prefer it if speakers slow down at least for the slugs and citations on their cards. Brief roadmaps and good signposting (e.g. "Now, onto the topicality...") helps me flow and will make it much easier to vote for you. I appreciate it when arguments are well-organized and clear to understand. I am open to kritikal and theory-based arguments but will find it easier to vote for these things if you do a good job of convincing me why I should vote for them in your rebuttal speeches.

LD and other debate formats I am less familiar with but still appreciate when competitors clearly line out voting issues and give me solid reasons to vote for them in their rebuttal speeches.

Feel free to ask if you have any specific questions before the round. Competing is tough under normal circumstances and is made even more frustrating when having to deal with technology-based issues. Good luck!

Email : chris.larcade@staff.muldrowps.org

BASIC NEED TO KNOW:

Spreading: Need taglines to be clear. If I can't flow it, I can't use it to vote for you

Argumentation | Rhetoric: I look for debate speaking. I love to see debate falsies being used to disprove arguments.

Topicality: I will vote on it if I feel the NEG proved it to be abusive.

K Arguments- I will vote on "K" if you break it down to an understandable level. The LINK must be clear and offset the impacts of the AFF.

Inherency: If the NEG proves it is already being done, I will vote on it

Things I DON'T like

• Framework: I am not a fan of heavy framework arguments. Your impact should provide the voters for me to make my decision.
• Abuse Arguments: I have heard a lot of these arguments this season. I can determine what is and is not abuse for myself throughout a round. If your entire case is based on abuse, it appears that your case is not solid on its own merit.
• Ignoring your opponent's argument just to extend your own arguments and hope that their argument goes away.

Things I DO like

• Confidence: Don't give me a reason to vote you down. If you show me that you lost an argument with your non-verbals, then you will lose the argument.
• CLASH: I love it! Especially in cross-examination.
• TAGLINES: Once again, if I can't flow it then I will not vote for it.
• Sportsmanship: Don't make personal attacks, be professional and HAVE FUN.

Especially for online debate, slow down a little, particularly from the 2NC on.

Please include Ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com for the email chain. Please use subject lines that make clear what round it is.

I wrote a veritable novel below. I think its mostly useless. I'm largely fine with whatever you want to do.

Top level:

• I am older (36) and this definitely influences how I judge debates.
• Yes, I did policy debate in high school and college. I was mediocre at it.
• Normal nat circuit norms apply to me. Speed is fine, offense/defense calc reigns, some condo is probably good but infinite condo is probably bad, etc.
• I have a harder time keeping up with very dense/confusing debates than a lot of judges. Simplifying things with me is always your best bet.

Areas where I diverge from some nat circuit judges:

• I am more likely to call "nonsense" on your bewildering process CP or Franken K. If the arg doesn't make any sense, you should just tell me that.
• Aff vagueness (and in effect, conditionality) is out of control in modern debate. I will vote on procedural arguments to rectify this trend.
• Bad process CPs are bad and shouldn't be a substitute for cutting cards or developing a real strategy. Obviously, I'll vote on them, but the 2AR that marries perm + theory into a comprehensive model for debate is usually a winner.
• I'm less likely to "rep" out teams or schools. I don't keep track of bid leaders and what not. Related: I forget about most rounds 20 minutes after I turn in my ballot.

Stats:

• Overall Aff win rate: 48.7%
• Elim aff win rate: 42.3%
• I have sat 6 times in 53 elims

Core controversies - I'm pretty open so take these with a grain of salt.

• Unlimited condo | -----X-------- | 2-worlds, maybe
• Affs should be T | ---X----------- | T isn't a voter
• Judge kick | ----X--------- | No judge kick
• "Meme" arguments | --------X- | You better be amazing at "meme" debate
• Research = better speaks | --X--------- | Tech = better speaks
• Speed | -------X---- | Slow down a little
• Inherency is case D | -X--------- | Inherency is a DA thumper

My Knowledge:

• I went for politics DA a lot. Its the only debate thing I'm a genuine expert in, at least in debate terms.
• I do not "get" the topic (inequality) yet. I did not go to camp. Debate like this is Mich finals at your own peril.
• I have some familiarity with the following K lit - cap, Foucault/Agamben, Lacan/psychoanalysis, security, nuclear rhetoric, nihilism, non-violence, and gendered language.
• I'm basically clueless RE: set col / Afropess / Baudrillard / Bataille. I have voted on all of them, though, in the past..

K affs

I prefer topical affs, and I like plan-focused debates. I'm neg-leaning on T-framework in the sense that I think reality leans neg if you actually play out the rationale behind most K affs that are being run in modern debate. But I vote aff about 50% of the time in those debates, so if that's your thing, go for it.

T/cap K/ ballot PIK and the like are boring to me, though. I think that unless the K aff is pure intellectual cowardice, and refuses to take a stand on anything debatable, there are usually better approaches for the neg to take.

I'm a great judge for impact turning K affs - e.g., cap good, state reform good.

Word PIKs are a good way to turn the aff's rejection of T/theory against them.

Or, you could simply, you know, engage the aff's lit base and cut some solvency turns / make a strong presumption argument that engages with the aff's method.

Some other advice:

• "Bad things are bad" is not a very interesting argument. You should have a solvency mechanism.
• Affs should have a "debate key" warrant. That warrant can involve changing the nature of debate, but you should have some reason you are presenting your argument in the context of a debate round.
• I think fairness matters, but its obviously possible to win that other things matter more depending on the circumstances.
• Traditional approaches to T-FW is best with me - very complicated 5th-level args on T are less persuasive to me than a simple and unabashed defense of topicality + switch-side debate = fairness + education. "We can't debate you, and that makes this activity pointless" is usually a win condition for the neg, in my book. St. Marks teams always do a really good job on this in front of me, so idk, emulate them I guess, or steal their blocks.

Topicality against policy affs

I have not read enough into this topic's literature to have a strong opinion on the core controversies.

I think I tend to lean into bigger topics than most modern judges do. That a topic might have dozens of viable affs is not a sign of a bad topic, so long as it incents good scholarship and the neg has ways to win debates if they put in the work.

Speaker points

When deciding speaks, I tend to reward research over technical prowess.

If you are clobbering the other team, slow down and make the debate accessible to them. Running up the score will run down your speaks.

I frequently check my speaker points post-tournament to make sure I'm not an outlier. I am not, as near as I can tell. I probably have a smaller range than average. It takes a LOT to get a 29.3 or above from me, but it also takes a lot for me to go below 28.2 or so.

Ethical violations

I am pretty hands off and usually not paying close enough attention to catch clipping unless it is blatant.

Prep stealing largely comes out of your speaks, unless the other team makes an appeal.

RCDS '20

MSU '24

TLDR

Email chain scottyscott1424@gmail.com

Fine with speed

Make sure you kick out of stuff right

Good for the K and Policy, generally more experienced with policy affs and flex negative strategies.

Full stuff

Hi I'm Mitchell or Scotty, either work, I did 4 years of high school debate for Riverfield Country Day School. I Currently Debate for Michigan State University. Competing at both the local and national level.

I decided to scratch most of my prewritten paradigm, it felt like debaters tried to overadapt to what my preconceived biases are, when I should be trying to evaluate a debate. So I'll leave it at this, win your arguments and win the debate, and I'll vote for you, generally regardless of what it it (exceptions for inherently problematic arguments like sexism, racism, ableism, etc.)

Cool with everything, run what you want (yes even strange things like wipeout), I generally have a soft spot for the fun but completely unrealistic arguments. Not a bias so much as an acknowledgment that I will in fact vote for it if you win.

I think condo is getting a little stretched, feel free to read as many as you want, but any more than 5 and I'll lower your speaks a little.

I'm generally pretty open to debate how the debaters want to debate. Things I don't have patience for are sexism, racism, ableism, etc. and "progressive debate bad" arguing Ks are an invalid strat or speed is bad for comprehension is not super persuasive for me. (Note about speed, if you have a reason for a more conversational speed round, feel free to ask for one before the round, the other team should honor this, but trying to catch a team with either a speed K or speed theory when you didn't ask for no speed is not persuasive to me)

if you have questions, feel free to ask before rounds and feel free to reach out post-round.

I debated policy through all four years of high school (one nats qual, regular circuit debate) so I'm most comfortable judging that debate format. I do have some experience in PF, but have never debated LD.

For CX:

Go as fast/slow as you want - all I ask is that you slow down a bit on tags/analytics

I'm a tab judge, so I'll listen to everything. However, here are some specifics:

K's - I understand them, but don't expect me to vote on high theory stuff unless it's explained well in-round. I haven't been in a ton of K debates, so this is one of my weaker areas.

Theory - See above, I will vote on it, but don't have much experience with it. You'll need to overcome a high threshold to get me to vote the other team down on theory.

T - Running T is good and Not a Time Suck. Not my favorite argument but an important one nonetheless.

CP's - Counterplns are good, but I'm open to AFF arguments that specific kinds are abusive. There needs to be a clear net benefit and it has to be competitive. Perms are convincing if there's no functional or textual competition or if there's no net benefit.

DA's - I'll vote on Disads all day. There should be clear impact work in the block or 2NR.

I will vote on any unconventional argument (Wipeout, SPARK, etc.) as long as it's debated well.

PF:

You can spread if you want. As I said earlier, I don't have a whole lot of experience with Public Forum, so I'll judge it based on the quality of argumentation.

Here's my email for any other questions (please add me to the email chain): shashwat@usc.edu

I'll listen to any arguments, but stock issues are usually key for me. I'm not a fan of counterplans. If you run T or Ks, make sure you run it right or don't even bother. Speed is fine, but I have to be able to hear your taglines.

I believe in well constructed Affirmatives that are Prima Facia. I believe T is used as a generic argument to waste time. Unless the case is actually Untopical/Abusive, I won't vote for it. I like to see real world argumentation with real advantages/disadvantages. Unless you can actually tell me the closest we have been to Nuclear war, and that we are there now, I won't buy it. Let's see clash on the stock issues. I would much rather see you debate the actual topic rather than debate theory. This is Policy debate

Spread at your own risk. If I can't understand your points because you don't slow down and label contentions and points, how am I going to know where it goes on the flow.

I haven't met a K that I have voted for.

LD-I just want clash and a spirited debate on Values and points. I will flow everything in the round and use it in my decision making

PF-I want to see good clash of points with sound reasoning. And politeness in CX. If you are rude or barking in your Crossfire, it will probably reflect in your rankings