My full paradigm is below, but here's a short update for tomorrow's IHSA debate tournament. Biggest thing is that I have not judged Varsity policy in almost five years. More than anything else, I need you to be clear, which means I must be able to follow your arguments. (If I can't do that, then I will stop flowing.) The other big thing is that I have no experience on this topic. I don't know what the meta is, nor am I familiar with the typical limits and grounds for advocacies. Interestingly, though, I am a master's student in International Relations at the University of Chicago, and my research concerns bilateral cooperation between the US and EU over regulation of digital platforms. I (might) therefore have some relevant knowledge for this year's topic. Also, for email chains, please use arnaoz@gmail.com, my personal email.

***

My judging philosophy reflects my experience debating policy and LD between 2015 and 2018. Since that time, however, I have sadly had little engagement with the debate community, so I am very rusty. That means when I am in the back of the room, you need to be clear and organized in your speaking. I really like speed and kritiks, but when you attempt them, be aware that this holds doubly so.

Firstly, I like substantive debates with lots of clash. Engage with the topic and your opponents' arguments; I reward a speaker who values the debate for its own sake. I also respect technical skill, which mostly means line by line. Leave everything on the flow. Give me structure, so that I can follow each claim and rebuttal. I appreciate rhetoric, but your claims should still be explicit and logical.

If an argument is dropped, then I count it as conceded. However, a dropped argument it not by itself a voting issue; it needs to be developed and impacted out. Also, please please slow down on your authors; there is a pervasive problem in debate where everyone rushes through their citations, which can sometimes make things really messy.

For speaker points, I really like strong point-by-point rebuttal. That means I want clear chains of causality and well-reasoned arguments. I prefer the debater that, by the round's end, can crystallize the debate into a few points of clash, and tell me why they win each of those points.

All that being said, I will judge the round how you tell me to. There is a certain model of debate that I prefer (outlined above), but that model needs not be the one I adopt. If you are a kritikal debater that likes to go one-off Heidegger or something, then go for it. Just know that I am likely unfamiliar with your particular strand of critical theory, and that I am also very excited to learn about it during the round. (I was a public policy major in college, so DAs and CPs are hella fun too.)

Should you have any questions about this paradigm, feel free to email me at arnaoz@gmail.com.

Competition- Salina South High School (KS): 2018-22 (immigration, arms sales, criminal justice, water), Missouri Valley College 2022-2024 (NFA-LD elections, NDT/CEDA nukes)

Coaching- Rock Bridge High School (MO): 2022-2024 (NATO, fiscal redistribution)

I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Sage or judge, whichever you prefer

Yes email chain: sagecarterdb8@gmail.com

The Short Version:

Judges should adapt to the debaters and to what the debaters say. I don't like intervening and love when debaters clearly explain their route to the ballot. I decide the debate on the flow, giving me good taglines and soundbites to help my flow is appreciated and will help you. I enjoy just about any style of debate, but I do have some biases and things I default to with certain arguments, these are outlined in my paradigm and can easily be changed with good argumentation. Please ask me if you have any questions regarding anything before or after the debate.

General Misc. Things-

I love theory debates, but a lot of them that I have seen have been very fast and hard to keep up. If you are going for theory or on a theory argument, I encourage you to slow down just a bit. I'll try to be clear if I am not keeping up with you, so try to be looking for my expressions.

Doing impact work is incredibly important for me. I usually start my decision at the impact level, deciding what the biggest impact is in the round and then who solves it better. Starting there and working backwards is probably the best way to get my ballot in every 2AR/NR.

T/Theory-

Default to competing interps and no RVI's

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable.

Small school specific standards/impacts and bright lines are some of my favorite standards when debated well. I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you warrant and impact them out

I don't think I have any real opinions on many of the T arguments on this topic, I do think many of them are a little aff leaning but if you can debate it well go for it. I might be a secret T-Subsets lover...

I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T-FW-

I think these debates are fun, internal links are probably the thing that ends up being the tiebreaker here more often than not, do more weighing work with internal links as well just like offense.

I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it, weighing it makes it easier to vote for it.

Make sure you answer the aff at some level so they don't just get to outweigh you the entire debate

I like good aff counter-interps, clearly outlined standards make them even better

TVA's without evidence are probably an uphill battle, be able to defend it well

C/A the voting explanation from regular T

DAs-

I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.

Do impact calc, the earlier the better

I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action. I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans-

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.

I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.

Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier

I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and international fiat bad are some of my favs.

Not super familiar with counterplan competition so you may want to avoid it but you do you

Love condo debates <3. I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 4 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.

I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve. I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

I love the K and have gone for it in many 2NR's and judged that, I prefer line by line work to overviews but if you combine them be clear about the argument you are referencing. I love framework debates but they can often get muddy, clear framework debating goes a long way on my ballot. For literature bases I have read a lot and argued with, I am familiar with capitalism, biopolitics (Agamben specifically), queer/trans theory, settler colonialism, security/racial IR, militarism, and university/academy Ks. Not a huge Fem IR or psychoanalysis fan, I'll still vote on it, but I find arguments about how those fields of thought are transphobic or problematic in other ways very persuasive.

I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.

Being clear about why the K comes first helps a lot

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.

Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework and they don't read a we meet doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that. I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.

It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic, and especially your mechanism, but if you want to not even mention the topic then go for it.

I like argument's related to the education of the topic and good impact work with those

Clear solvency is essential here, be ready to answer the what happens when the judge votes aff questions

Performance is cool, make sure to relate it to the topic and please attempt to garner offense off of it or include it in the rest of the debate in some capacity

I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy. I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counteradvocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

LD-

I did some LD in high school, it was mostly trad value/criterion though so I am pretty inexperienced with circuit LD.

I am probably better for policy (y'all call it LARP?) and K arguments since that is my background. Phil seems interesting, but I have no experience with it or many of the arguments. I know some Rawls and Kant, but if your phil args are not super easy to understand you may want to read something else.

I don't entirely know what tricks are, if its just theory then great! I love theory debates. But, if it is more cheap shot, one line theory args or just silly args, I am not your judge and more than willing to hold the line on arguments I think are not pedagogically valuable.

I think the rest of my paradigm should answer most questions you may have, but if it does not, ask me anything! I don't really know what a good LD paradigm looks like so I def missed something. I am still super excited to judge your round!

Stolen Paradigm Lines I Agree With

"I want my opinion to come into play as little as possible during the round. I would like to be told how to vote and why, by the end of the rebuttals I will almost always pick the easiest simplest route to ballot possible. You can do this through Impact Calc, Framing debates, link directionality claims, etc. I don’t particularly care what the debate ends up being about, topical or in total rejection of the resolution I’ll be fine either way."- Nadya Steck (Her entire paradigm could just be mine)

"Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate."- Eric Lanning

"I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. Generally the team that does the better link/impact analysis/comparison will win my ballot."- David Bowers

Background:

• I debated for Niles West in high school and West Georgia in college.
• BA in Philosophy.

Email:

• For all UMich camp debates: cgershom@umich.edu
• Personal email: gershom000@gmail.com

Top level things:

• If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is.
• If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
• Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
• I’m extremely hesitant to vote on arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.
• Absolutely no ties and the first team that asks for one will lose my ballot.
• Soliciting any outside assistance during a round will lose my ballot.

Pet peeves:

• Lack of clarity. Clarity > speed 100% of the time.
• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.
• Email-sending related failures.
• Dead time.
• Stealing prep.
• Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team.
• Asserting things are dropped when they aren't.
• Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards.
• Marking almost every card in the doc.
• Disappearing after the round.
• Quoting my paradigm in your speeches.
• Sending PDFs instead of Word Docs.

Ethics:

• If you are caught clipping you will receive a loss and the lowest possible points.
• If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points.
• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.

Cross-x:

• Yes, I’m fine with tag-team cx. But dominating your partner’s cx will result in lower points for both of you.
• Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions, and I will run the timer accordingly.
• If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo.
• If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate:

• I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting.

Affirmatives:

• I’m fine with plan or planless affirmatives. However, I believe all affirmatives should advocate for/defend something. What that something entails is up for debate, but I’m hesitant to vote for affirmatives that defend absolutely nothing.

Topicality:

• I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
• The most important thing for me in T debates is an in-depth explanation of the types of affs your interp would include/exclude and the impact that the inclusion/exclusion would have on debate.
• 5 second ASPEC shells/the like have become nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans:

• For me counterplans are more about competition than theory. While I tend to lean more neg on questions of CP theory, I lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps.

Disads:

• If you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn, it should go on its own sheet. Failure to do so is super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders.

Kritiks:

• The more specific the link the better. Even if your cards aren’t that specific, applying your evidence to the specifics of the affirmative through nuanced analysis is always preferable to a generic link extension.
• ‘You link you lose’ strategies are not my favorite. I’m willing to vote on them if the other team fails to respond properly, but I’m very sympathetic to aff arguments about it being a bad model for debate.
• I find many framework debates end up being two ships passing in the night. Line by line answers to the other team's framework standards goes a long way in helping win framework in front of me.

Theory:

• Almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, condo is usually the only exception.
• Conditionality is often good. It can be not. I have found myself to be increasingly aff leaning on extreme conditionality (think many plank cps where all of the planks are conditional + 4-5 more conditional options).
• Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Framework/T-USfg:

• I find impacts about debatability, clash, and iterative testing to be very persuasive.
• I am not really persuaded by fairness impacts, but will vote on it if mishandled.
• I am not really persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.
• I am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.
• I don't think debate is role-playing.

• If the aff drops SSD or the TVA and the 2NR extends it, I will most likely vote neg.

email chain -- ramyachilappa19@gmail.com

I debated at Blue Valley North for four years, and am currently a sophomore at Dartmouth College.

Here are a few predispositions I have about debate –

1). Affirmatives should be topical – I generally believe that means they defend the implementation of hypothetical government action in the instance of the resolution. If this is not your vision of what it means to be topical, you must provide a counter interpretation of the topic with offensive justifications for why it should be preferred.

2). Arguments need to have warrants. I am hesitant to say tech over truth is absolutely true, even if applicable most of the time, because if you cannot explain why a dropped argument is true then there is no reason for me to believe it is.

3). Evidence is important – quality shapes the truth of your arguments, and quality is determined by author qualifications, the source, bias, date, etc., as much as it is by the content. A few good cards will always be infinitely more valuable than a ton of terrible ones.

4). Reading straight into your computer for 5-8 minutes at a time is not debating – you should be flowing, responding to the other teams arguments, doing evidence and argument comparison, and not just repeating the same thing 50 times as fast as possible (which almost always makes you impossible to understand).

A few things you should know –

-I’m not going to be the greatest at following you if you go top speed without stopping, especially on analytics and in the rebuttals – I need time to flow and process arguments.

-I am tired of terrible two card arguments in the 1NC that don’t say anything but then blow up into real arguments in the block. I obviously can’t force you not to do this, but keep in mind that I will be significantly more sympathetic to new affirmative answers if the 1NC was a piece of trash that the 2AC (rightfully) dismissed.

-Judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality – there’s no reason I wouldn’t default to it unless explicitly told otherwise.

Please be kind – debate is an educational activity that is infinitely more valuable if we are all engaged and having fun.

Debated at Missouri State and graduated in 2004

Executive Director of DEBATE-Kansas City until 2017

Assistant Coach and then Head Coach at Barstow starting in 2018

Online update - I have done little online judging, so I don't know how it may alter my ability to understand top-end speed. Based on the other judges, it seems going a touch slower and focusing on clarity helps judges get more on the flow.

Yes, I want to be on the chain, and please be as efficient as possible with the emailing. Email: gabe.cook@barstowschool.org.

I am open to almost any argument, but I defer policy. I like a compelling narrative, especially in the link debate. I value both technical skills and argumentative truth. Clarity and flowability will increase speaker points and chances of winning.

T - I defer to reasonability on T and I do not mind larger topics. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote on T if you win the argument. Limits can be the cleanest standard for the neg to win but I also find ground loss important to provide context. I want both sides to explain the model of debate your interp creates and impact why it’s comparatively better.

K-AFF/Framework - I am fine with kritik affs, but I will also vote neg on framework. TVAs can be persuasive for the neg, and both sides should focus on what their model means for debate. I believe k affs need a topic link and a clear method for the negative engage. I lean towards believing you do not get a perm in a method vs. method debate.

Case - Here is where I copy and paste from every judge paradigm and say I want more case debate. I dislike AFFs with lousy internal links, and I will reward NEGs that take the time to point out flaws in AFF ev.

K - You need a specific link, and I appreciate it when debaters use lines from the 1AC to get a link. I am open to voting on presumption/turns case. But you need to explain how the K actually eliminates solvency and/or turns the case, and contextual examples help.

By default, I evaluate ontology, epistemology, discourse, and AFF consequences through the lens of link and impact rather than as something resolved or excluded by debate theory.

NEG FLEX - I generally believe the negative should have the flexibility to run a K and disads as long as they don't try to create and go for double turns.

DA - The starting place is to be on the right side uniqueness. Then I need a compelling link story contextualized to the AFF. Impact comparison is obviously essential. I will vote on effective AFF criticism and/or takeouts of low probability disads.

When I debated I went for politics often, and I still cut a lot of politics cards. For me, uniqueness research determines the viability of any politics DA. I don’t like forcing a story because of the links or impacts. I appreciate nuanced and clever link stories, and I will reward NEG teams that have a compelling link story.

CP - I like core of the topic CPs and smart PICs. I dislike process CPs with little topic literature that compete only at a textual level. I also dislike consultation CPs. This doesn't mean I refuse to vote for them, but that I am receptive to theoretical objections and solvency arguments.

Condo/Advocacy Theory - I believe the fairest standard is to give the NEG one conditional CP and one conditional K. Or I think you can have unlimited dispositional advocacies. The more advocacies the neg runs, the more grounds the aff has for a condo argument.

Points

29.6 – 30 – Approaching perfection to perfect.

29.1-29.5 – Excellent

28.5 – 29 – Above average to very good.

28.4 – Average

28.3– 27.7 – Slightly below average to below average

27.6 – 27 – Below average to well below average.

26.9 and below – Bad to potentially offensive.

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

Little Rock Central High School

Please include me on the email chain: Courtney.Hornsby@lrsd.org

I most frequently judge congressional debate and Lincoln Douglas.

For policy—I default to comparative advantage. Write my ballot for me. I flow thoroughly, and speed is fine, but I will let you know about clarity.

For LD: I can judge most styles; do what you do best but make sure you thoroughly explain your arguments. Blippy theory arguments, tricks, and frivolous arguments are things I’m not inclined to vote on. I prefer substance and rarely vote on things I don’t understand.. Speed is fine but clarity is more important. Above all, debate is a communicative activity so judge instruction is key.

TLDR: Stock issues.

I place a heavy emphasis on professionalism in all aspects of the round and this will show up in your speaker points.

I weigh evidence (not tags) and listen carefully to the cards you read. I will read your cards during the round. I will be very unhappy if your tags don't match your evidence or if you misrepresent the contents of your cards. Apart from that exception, I default to tech over truth.

I will reward creative arguments, analysis, and positions instead of just reading arguments that someone else wrote. I really dislike canned arguments and scripted speeches that don't respond to the actual arguments at play. You should make some attempt to apply your evidence to the debate instead of just spamming.

• Speed is fine if you are good at it. I will let you know if I can't understand you.
• Teams should keep time, including prep.
• I prefer closed cross.
• Off-time roadmaps are helpful
• I follow along with your speech document, so be clear when you are not reading cards/sections.
• I have yet to see a winning K and it's unlikely that yours will be any different.
• T: I will default to a broad reading of the resolution's terms.
• Relevant cards can win a round.
• Stock issues: I think inherency, solvency, ADVs, DAs, and CPs are good topics for a policy debate round. I last debated 25 years ago.

Karissa Kromminga - she/her

Debated 4 years of policy at Washburn Rural - (arms sales, CJR, water, NATO)

Seton Hall University - International Relations and Diplomacy

Pls add me to the email chain: kkromminga04@gmail.com

Top Level:

Tech>truth

I love good line-by-line and case specific debating

Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. I will auto vote you down for being discriminatory (racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc.) and I will not feel bad about it.

General rule - I need a warranted explanation of what your argument is and why it outweighs/solves whatever the other team went for in order to vote for it.

DAs:

Impact calc is super important for both the aff and the neg. All parts of the DA need to be extended in the 2NR for me to reasonably vote on it. If you only extend the link or only extend the impact I won't give it much weight. The more specific of a link the better, evidence is great, but an in-depth explanation of why the specific mechanism of the aff triggers the link is better than non-contextualized/generic evidence.

Impact turns - I love them, read them. However, this does not include death good, if you read it don't expect me to vote on it.

CPs:

Yes. That being said, I need a 2NR explanation of what the CP actually does in order to vote for it. There has to be a net benefit to the CP that the perm can't access in order for me to vote for it.

I tend to think that CPs that fiat the aff (consult, QPQ, etc) are probably cheating, or easily beat by a perm, but I will vote for them if the aff doesn't extend theory.

I won't judge kick the CP, unless I am told to.

Ks:

I am fairly familiar with the traditional K lit, so if you are reading a K outside of that assume that I am not super familiar with the lit. I have a high threshold for you reading noncontextualized blocks, especially in the 2NR/2AR. Please please please do not just spread through your blocks with no interaction, it will piss me off, and I will tune you out.

Be very clear with signposting during framework and large link walls - however, when extending links please do not just say, "extend X link" with no explanation, that means nothing to me.

K affs: I tend to lean more towards affs having a plan being good, and can be pretty persuaded by a good T push in the 2NR. That being said, I think a lot of 2N’s are bad at extending T, so you might not have that much trouble getting my ballot. I have a very high threshold for T=policing or T=genocide arguments.

K v K: This is area where I am the least familiar. If you want to have this debate, go ahead, but I'll need clear impact calc and explanations from both teams. If I don't understand what your argument is I probably won't vote for it.

T:

I love a good T debate. If you are going for T, make sure to extend your impacts and clash with what your opponent is saying. I tend to lean towards reasonability being a bad standard, but I will vote on it if it is not answered in the debate.

For T-USFG: clash>fairness. Same as above, I have a high threshold for just reading uncontextualized blocks. I think that switch-side debate solves is pretty persuasive, but only if it’s paired with a good TVA, otherwise it’s pretty hard to hedge back against a 2AR “we can’t access our lit” push.

Theory:

I think theory is usually a reason to reject the arg not the team, with condo as an exception. I think disclosure is good, and I have a low threshold for theory if an aff team refuses to disclose before the round.

Speaks:

I am fine with speed, but clarity is important. Please don't spread through analytics at top speed and expect me to catch everything. I will clear you twice, and after that I will just stop flowing. Good, strategic CX will lead to higher speaks. Flex prep does not exist, if you are asking the other team questions outside of cross I am not listening and I do not care. I will boost speaks if you give the 2NR/2AR off the flow. If you get 26 or less, you were probably incredibly rude or literally did not debate.

I flow on my computer, so if I am not typing, assume I am not flowing. Watch for nonverbals, I give them. That said, I have been told I have a RBF, so if I am not making an expression don't assume negatively.

4 years of debate (KDC) at Lansing High (2017-2021)

KCKCC Debate (NPDA/NFA LD) (2021– current)

Assistant Coaching at Lansing High School

I'm down for speech drop or email whichever works best for you. christopherlapeedebate@gmail.com

TLDR: I've learned that as I judge more the more I realize I don't particularly care for certain arguments over others. Rather, I care more about debaters doing what they're good at and maximizing their talents. Granted to whereas I'm ok with you reading whatever, do keep in mind that the experience I've had with debate/arguments might not make me the best decision maker in the back of the room for that round. So if you get me in the back of the room read what you want but be mindful it might need a little explanation in the Rebuttals.

Speed–I'm cool with it if I can't keep up i'll say speed if you arent clear i'll say clear. People never slow down on analytics so imma just start clearing folks if I cant understand what your saying without the doc. This will allow me to keep up better. If you ignore my speed/clear signals I'm gonna be bound to miss stuff so if you get an rfd you don't like after the round thats prolly why.

LD– All of the stuff below applies if you wanna read a plan and have a policy debate do it idc its your debate have fun!

More in depth version of how I evaluate

Top level:I default tech over truth. The only time I'll use truth as a means of decision making is to break a tie in an argument which usually will only happen if the debate is very messy.

T: On T I'll default to competing Interps unless I get a good reason to favor reasonability or if reasonability goes conceded. I think T is a debate about models of a hypothetical community agreement to what the the topic should look like, in this I think the debate comes down to the internal links like who controls limits and ground and who's limits/ground is best for education and fairness. I don't think you need proven abuse but if there is you should point that out.

CP: I think CP's can be a good test of solvency mechanisms of the aff I wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit. I think the CP is a reason why 1% risk of the DA means I should probably vote neg if the CP solves, even if case outweighs. I don't think the CP alone is a reason to vote neg, just because there is another way to solve the aff doesn't mean I shouldn't give it a try. Internal net benefits are real and I'll vote on a CP with one.

Condo: I tend to think condo is good unless the neg is just trying to time suck by reading like 5 CP's and then just going for whichever you cant get to in time

DA's: I have quite a bit of experience with these but not a lot to say on them, I think a DA being non uq means no risk. I think no Link means the same, I think the I/L strat is commonly underrated if the link doesn't actually trigger the mpx then there is probably no risk, MPX turning a DA is underrated too. If you go for the DA in front of me focus on the story of the DA and form a coherent story and focus on the internals if I understand how the plan actually causes the MPX I'm more likely to vote for the DA.

Spec: If you go for spec go for it just like you would T. I'll listen to 5 mins of spec and vote on it. Same thing as T I view it as a models debate and you should focus on the internals because that tends to show who actually controls the mpx debate.

The K: On the link level first. I think the links to the k page operate in the same way as links to the Disad. What I mean by this is that the more specific the better. Just vaguely describing "the apocalyptic rhetoric of the 1ac" seems like a very generic link which is prolly not that hard for a turn and or no link argument.

On the impact debate. I think you need to be weighing the impact of the kritik in the round I find that a lot of debaters get jumbled up in line by line and forget to actually weigh the impact. Just extending it and saying "they cause xyz" isn't good because it isn't developed and lacks the warranting of why that matters and why I should vote neg because they cause that.

On the alt debate. It's a common stereotype of K debaters that we can't explain the alt. What does the alt look like? Why is that good? And so on so forth. I think that while I hate this stereotype I dislike even more that in the rounds I've watched debaters have tended to just read their tag line of the alt solvency and the alt whenever asked in cx what does the alt look like, and or do that to extend the alt in later speeches. This is not a good way to debate and doesn't help you convince anyone your alt is good, you should be able to articulate the method of your alt whatever that may be and how that changes the debate space or the world. I don't think this means you need to be able to tell me exactly what goes on at every waking point of the day.

K aff:

On the case debate– I think k affs should link to the topic/debate in some way shape or form otherwise they feel very generic. specificity >>>>>>>> generics (on every arg tho). There should be a clear impact/impacts to the aff. I think where the aff falls short is in the method/advocacy debate I think that I should be able to understand the method and how it is able to resolve the impact in some way shape or form. I think the rob/roj should be clearly identified (the earlier in the round the better). That way I understand how I should evaluate the rest of the debate and process through things (I think in close debates both teams wind up winning different parts of the flow, I need to understand why your flow comes first). I think that performance K affs lose the performance aspect which sucks, I think that applying the performance throughout the rest of the debate is >>>>>> rather than losing it after the 1ac.

V FW– I tend to think debate is a game that shapes subjectivity – Ie y'all wanna win rounds and fairness is good, and also the arguments we make/debate shapes who we become as advocates. I will technically sway based off args made in the round (ie debate doesn't shape subjectivity/debate isn't a game) I think from the neg I need a clear interp with a brightline for what affs are and are not topical extended throughout the debate. I need a clear violation extended throughout the debate. I think standards act as internal links to the impacts of fairness and education. I think you should be able to win that your fairness is better than the affs fairness and that it outweighs their education. for the aff I also think you need a clear interp for what affs are and are not allowed under your model of debate extended throughout the debate. If you go for a we meet I think that the we meet should be clear and makes sense and also be throughout the debate. I think the aff should win that the TVA doesn't resolve your offense/education, that your fairness is just as good or better than the neg's model of fairness. And that your education outweighs. I think top level impact turns to t/fw are good. And use the rob/roj against the T debate (remember it all comes down to filtering what arguments are most important and come first)

KvK– uhhhhhhh I tend to get a little lost in these debates sometimes tbh bc I think its tough to evaluate and weigh two methods against each other especially if they aren't necessarily competitive with each other. I think in these debate the fw debate including the rob/roj is most important, and judge instruction is likely how you'd pick me up if I'm in the back of the room. If you don't tell me how to evaluate arguments and what they mean in context to the round we'll all prolly wind up frustrated at the end of the round bc I'll intervene or make a bad choice. (I'm not perfect and make mistakes so judge instruction is crucial to make sure I don't make them)

My email is Jordynmahome@gmail.com.

Welcome everyone

#1: please be quick sending out speech docs, taking prep, etc.

I am open to most things. I love Marx v K aff debates.

I lean neg on counterplan competition and am amenable to a process counterplan.

Go slow on theory blocks please.

Not great at adjudicating condo or topicality, so spare both of us that toss-up if you can.

email for chain: colin.m.debate@gmail.com

email for questions: c.mcdonough@columbia.edu

pronouns: they/them

debate experience: 4 years at NT. Margaret Hecht and I got 9 bids. Now judge/coach sometimes for NT. Therefore I am not familiar with what the core aff/neg ground on each topic is, but I can work with whatever the round in front of me introduces. If you are trying to make args couched in the context of the topic overall, please give me some clues.

a note for the K debaters that no one else should or will care ab*:

I used to have on here that I was, related to the above point on Marx, a "harder sell" on afro-pess, queer-pess, and related "ontology arguments" on things like settler colonialism. Then I realized what is meant by "ontology" is incredibly vague. E.g. "ontology" re:queerness could refer to a. the ontologiziation of queerness as a static identity of persons rather than a referent to mere sexual practice b. reproductive futurity as an immutable part of politics which requires divestment from activism altogether c. the argument that there is some kind of libidinal anti-queer charge that exists within straight people which makes political coalitions including them impossible d. something else (?)

I find arguments about libidinal tendencies towards oppression or resentment of X social category to be dubious (not completely unwinnable, but easily refuted). However, I find arguments about the state or politics as "ontologically" opposed to Y to be fairly persuasive, if you can articulate why the material motivations of the state are antithetical to what is required by the alternative. So, in a few words, I'm here for A, maybe begrudgingly for B, and probably not for C.

Currently I am concentrating in History and ethnicity and race studies (sub-specialty in Native/Indigenous Studies), I also read things from these fields and other theory for fun, so I probably know a good amount about whatever social-political worldview you're espousing. That being said, as a judge I try to situate myself as having knowledge similar to that of the average policy debater to be fair to your opponent, instead of using my background knowledge to do "inferential work" on your behalf, which is why I have a normal (not puritanically higher) bar for your explanation of arguments.

*end of k debater address

alright

–––––––––––––––––––––––

(added some things 3-8-23)

a few important (!!) notes about my leanings before the round. As always nothing is immutable, but you catch more flies with the honey of persuasion than the stick of post-rounding.

I would prefer to do this than hear a debate, but I will continue writing in case you insist...

abnormal means --

Unless proven otherwise, I will default to normal means of the counterplan being as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, 21

The affirmation of the resolution --

Affs need to be able to prove political viability. Policy debate shouldn’t breed utopianism and political delusions. I need y’all to start convincing me who would vote for this, when, what amendments you would make to get these 1ACs through the congressional pipe. Otherwise I’m very keen to vote on a presumption 2nr.

One thing I’m always left wondering is if the plan is such a good idea, why hasn’t congress done it already? Very few 2ARs compellingly answer this question in front of me and I’ve sat on it quite often.

Priorities

I am well aware of the information that is most pertinent and urgent for you to know at the conclusion of the round. In that spirit, my RFD will always proceed in this order: 1. feedback and pointers for each participant 2. discussion of the general themes of the past 2 hours of proceedings, and the moments I found most titillating (since I will still be recuperating from these emotional stirrings) 3. commentary on the assignment of speaker points, including sartorial critique of the appearance of each participant, which doubtlessly influenced the assignation. 4. An open forum for inquiry on all the aforementioned, but not the decision. 5. the decision itself (which is set in stone, so we should not dilly dally discussing this).

The Garnering of Unfair Advantages

I have observed a trend in which many students will arrive at the round with 1. a massive, clanging steel flask filled to the brim with water, that they insist upon refilling the moment its huge hull is emptied 2. a cornucopia of various (usually shelf-stable) foodstuffs, including goldfish, crackers, and the like. You are welcome to bring these items, if you require them, but understand that you cannot be deriving increased energy for argumentation from these sources while leaving your opponents to languish in famine. Any consumable brought into the classroom must be offered to all those present other than myself, though I will certainly take kindly to being offered a handful of the item should you extend this invitation. This will prevent varied energy levels of participants that could otherwise produce unfair competitive advantages.

The Pickle

Every once in a while, a team in a round involving a race K will aptly mention that how can I, a white judge, adjudicate the round? To date I have yet to find a way out of the albatross of indecision that there mere mention of this argument imposes upon me. Hence why I call this “the pickle." If you bring this up you are taking a gamble that I will agree with you, and abdicate my role altogether.

topicality --

I cannot believe topicality has gone as far as it has. I am yet to see any T argument that isn’t just the neg whining about the topic committee’s spilt milk. Save your breath.

pronouns: of course. If you are anti-nouns, you should strike me.

A needless statement on flowing which many other judges inexplicably include in these pages:

NO matter WHAT. you will have to RIP my G2 out of my COLD. DEAD. HANDS. I WILL keep a record of what transpires during these two hours. there is NO other option.

Favorite variety of plant --

hmm. probably the rubber tree.

Counter-proposals --

since when is a net benefit a reason to just ignore the aff?? I am super frustrated by debaters that just want to ignore an 8 minute 1ac by saying “sufficiency first” over and over again in the 2nr. We should actually learn things about this topic, ya know...

the first negative rebuttal --

If you take more than 3 minutes to send out the 1nr, I just won’t let you give that speech. Enough is enough and I make no apologies. You have the whole 2nc to get your $hit together (the $ is simply to mind the censorious Tabroom regime). Be better

Speaker Scores --

To rectify the subjectivity of speaker points I will use a simple formula which calculates your score using your Twitter following count, weighted GPA, and superscored ACT (if available). If you have a cool social security number, I will add 0.5 speaks up until a perfect 30. If it is just so-so (lots of 3s, for instance), I will not add speaks but I will also not take any away, so it is no risk to you. It is up to the debaters if they would like to share this information, however, refusal to disclose will be taken as an indication of your mistrust in me, which I might reciprocate. Despite ample complaint, this is still my policy at time of writing. Do I look like an identity thief? give it a rest.

performance --

If the 1ac performs to "Through the Wire – Interlude" by Rina Sawayama, especially if said performance includes acrobatic and emotionally charged yet fluid and organic movements, you will have my true respect. This respect will not manifest in a ballot nor higher speaker points, but I hope it is a sufficient incentive nonetheless.

My role in the debate space --

I see my role in the round as first and foremost a saboteur. There is no skill more portable in this activity than the ability to think quickly and critically. As such, I will throw the proverbial kitchen sink at you. Asking if cross ex is "tag team" doesn't make sense with me in the back, as cross ex will always be a dialectic among you, your partner (assuming you are not mav), me, and the other team. I may ask all manner of things, related to and unrelated to the debate. For instance, I might like to know your preferred shoelace tying method. A skilled Aristotelian logician is able to stake out a position on all manner of questions like these, and defend said position to the nth. Debaters who crumble at this task are rarely persuasive.

The kritikism. --

WOOOOOO HOOO! now THAT's what I'M talking about.

My favorite kritik is the affects procedural. It begins by performing L. Ron Hubbard's patented audit on the other team to assess their affect. The affirmative must defend their audit results and prove they are not introducing a negative affect into the debate before the round can continue. I will allow a 10 minute cross examination of the 1ac to facilitate this procedural if you tell me you plan on doing this before the round starts. For more information, please see this page: Auditing

I will say -- if you are not a queer individual and are reading the queerness kritikism, I will certainly be confused about what YOU know about "the process."

gimmicks, gizmos, and the like --

I will say *me saying this* if you make jokes about anyone on the following, extremely esoteric list containing people at least 40 years older than you, I will totally boost your speaks!

the list:

Blas Roca Calderio, Saturnino and Mariano Lora, Fabio Grobart, and more available here

a story about your aff –– not for the faint of heart!

Long ago, a great emperor sought to circumnavigate the globe. Many times, the emperor summoned his kingdom’s finest sailors, and offered them spreads of glimmering jewelry, soft silk, and lustrous silver to embark upon the voyage. Many such sailors accepted, happily tucking the goods into their knapsacks and dashing off to ready their ships. The whole village gathered to watch them set sail, in awe of their courage despite the commonly known vulnerability of every existing vessel to sinking during such extensive travel. Time and time again, however, the village was disheartened when news arrived that these sailors – perhaps out of fear for their own livelihood, or perhaps out of sinister, premeditated betrayal – had abandoned their mission and deliberately truncated their journey upon some remote land, to set up luxurious and land-locked lives.

Eventually, the emperor had had enough of this disappointing cycle. He resolved to rectify the sailors’ disloyalty with a new technique; He would tie a rope to the ship’s rudder, and after one year’s time, would set out his navy to follow the rope to its destination and pursue any sailors who had not returned. But, in order to not impede a loyal sailor’s dutiful circumnavigation, this rope needed to be long enough to indeed stretch across the globe’s wide circumference so the captain could return home.

The emperor sent his henchman to scour the village, leaving no stone unturned in search of a material that could form such an extensive thread. His top secretary gathered all the silk in the kingdom, and still it was woefully inadequate. His ministry of agriculture offered heaps of fine grain and hay spun into thread – and still all knew it was not enough. The emperor, exasperated, declared that anyone who could devise a material so incredibly long as to suffice for this purpose by midnight the following week would be rewarded with a quarter of the kingdom’s yearly earnings. The emperor sat with his chief advisors patiently, and stared at the palace doors as no one dared enter with their insufficient supplies. It was 11 O’clock in the evening on the final day of the challenge, and the emperor grew weary as the palace entombed him in silence. Finally, in depressed resignation, he called for his ministry of slumber to bring him his silk pillow and prepare the bedroom chambers for a long rest. As he began to rise from the throne, he was jolted awake by a rapping sound at the palace’s doors. With only minutes to spare, a tall gentleman was knocking with promise of an unimaginably long rope which would so please the emperor. The man was admitted at once, and was commanded to present his material. He released his arms and stood back as all the internal links of [your team code]'s advantages clattered to the floor. Immediately, the emperor and his advisors exclaimed in rejoice, sent out a call to summon the sailors, and brought the man to their top 2a to fashion the material into a rope fit for the long voyage.

About me:

I am a current senior at GBS (2022-23)

Please add me to the email chain 236328@glenbrook225.org

My debate philosophy:

I am open to all forms of debate and have done extensive debate in both K's and generic policy args

Tech > Truth; and I will vote on even the most outlandish impact turns or scenarios as long as you meet the burden of proof.

Have fun with debate and don't be a jackass to the other team

Hi, I'm Casey! Did both speech + debate events as a youngin'. I now work in special education and disability care.

"Strike me and I'll give you 30 speaks" -a judge much funnier than me.

I'm a big believer that debate is a place where anybody from anywhere can come, view the debate, and understand a decent chunk of what is being said. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but have outlined circumstances in this paradigm where that goes to the wayside.

If you give me something to judge, and don't tell me why and/or how to judge it, chances are I'm gonna put that point/contention/whatever way at the bottom of my 'things to care about in this debate' list.

♥ A TL;DR of this Paradigm ♥

Don't spread. Quality of arguments over quantity- this goes for any day, any round, any tournament. Run whatever argument you want as long as you link it to your case (yes, this means be topical (on the resolution)). I'm not the best judge by any stretch of the word- SO, please don't use super dense lingo and expect me to understand it.

I don't care about email chains/documents... unless you're running an extremely """progressive""" case. No harm in asking, though.

Tricks debate bad. Unique points good. Being a jerk bad. Positive vibes good. Being condescending big bad. Weighing points good. Roadmaps fine. Extending points good. Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. Have fun + drink water.

♥ ALL BELOW POINTS MOSTLY CONCERN LD/POLICY ♥

Don't spread- it's straight up unnecessary + cheapens debate to quantity > quality. (Woohoo, strike me!)

That being said, I'm fine with people speaking faster than 'normal'. You know what the difference is. If I have to call for clarity/speed more than 3 times in a round then I'm going to really be harsh on your speaker points.

♥ That's that ish I don't like ♥

You're gonna find it very hard to run some form of Disability Pessimism with me and win- this is one of the only biases that I can't ever seen to get past- I am biased towards cases that do work to make a "positive" outcome the most attainable scenario. This doesn't mean don't run arguments that say the world isn't gonna end- if you can prove the world is gonna end, then seriously, do it.

Nihilistic/depressing for the sake of being depressing arguments make me fall asleep and fall into the ever expanding void of Lovecraftian horrors that no doubt live in the Hudson Bay (or so I've been told).

♥ Uhh idk what to call this section, maybe like 'stuff you probably should and shouldn't do' ♥

I don't care how you access your criterion, I just care that you actually access your criterion. Run any K, plan, CP, or what have you and I'll happily flow it as long as you've linked to the resolution and framework (dead serious- that's it!). If you're running a K, make sure it's topical (like, seriously, I'm a big stickler with this) and assume I don't know what you're talking about in the slightest and go from there- I'll go out of the way to say that traditional K's are an easier way to win. If you're using a K, I need to understand the link and the terms you use! It is not my burden as a judge to flow a point in LD that doesn't link back to your criterion/value/philosophy.

If you're running a plan or counterplan, the more unique the better IMO. Obscure ≠ Unique (Policy debaters are quivering at me saying that- I know, I'm scary- fear me).

I'm not the biggest big fan of how LARP-y LD has become in the past few years. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but strongly believe moral/ framework arguments should always come first in LD. If you're going to run a LARP-y case, have at, but show me why we shouldn't look to a moral system (or whatever way you want to conceptualize it as) to achieve the end result of the round.

Role of the Ballot arguments usually make me cringe. "Education" based arguments also make my brain explode- running these with me unless heavily contextualized will usually go nowhere.

'Debate Space' arguments are bad.

Disclosure (or even time skew, for that matter) theory is usually not good to run with me, unless you really, really feel like the case is abusive and whacky.

I usually see right through trick debate and hate it with a passion. This stuff cheapens debate. Sophistry and my bias against it won't be overcome by you running heavy theory for it, trust me. Same thing with frivolous theory.

Weigh your points (give me them sweet sweet voters), especially in your final speech. I won't vote a point down because you don't extend it, but I'll be a lot more skeptical that you just gave up on the point somewhere along the way.

Truth > Tech, but Tech isn't a bad thing. If there's no base for you to ground your argument in truth, you can't access technical arguments. Extend tech off of truth. Truth is truth if you can make 'it' true in the context of your argument... so do with that what you will.

♥ In Closing ♥

I don't like it when people are haughty, pretentious, or talk over others. Don't simply assume your argument is the best because your coach said so. If you sound like a jerk who's simply trying to destroy or demoralize your opponent, I'm a lot more likely to give you less speaker points. That being said, you should still try to destroy your opponent... but like, ~metaphorically, my dude~. This is high school debate. Save the attitude for real-life stuff, like people who think that water isn't wet, people who think Chipotle is better than Moe's (you're literally just lying to yourself, stop smh smh), and people who don't think pineapple belongs on pizza.

Finally, have fun. Bring a sense of humor. Bring some sarcasm. Bring some water. Water is good. Always.

Have a fantastic day, and keep growing and thriving in your Speech and Debate adventure!

top level:

-i did four years of policy at notre dame high school. i was a 2A

-washu 26

-pls explain terms especially on the IPR topic

-if im less familiar with an argument that doesn't mean you should stray away from the obvious strategy. you just need to give me lots of judge instruction and explanation

general things:

-add me to the email chain: maddiepira@gmail.com

-time ur own speeches

-give me judge instruction

-tech > truth

-im policy leaning, but im receptive to ks on the neg because my partner exclusively went for set col for 2 years

-u must be clear. i will not flow what i can't understand

soft left affs:

-i prefer extinction level impacts

-id rather you answer the disad than do a bunch of framing. that being said securitization framing is more convincing to me

impact turns:

-you need to give me lots of judge instruction for these debates

topicality:

-TVAs and case lists are good

-fairness is the best impact

-competing interps > reasonability

disads:

-do impact calc please

-turns case is good

-on a truth level courts don't link to politics but i can be persuaded otherwise

counterplans:

-50 state fiat and PICs are good

-new 2NC planks are usually a voter but can be justified

-tell me to judge kick

Ks:

-i'm familiar with set col, cap, security, gender, etc. anything else you should explain more

-i learned what i know from joshua michael

-i'll let the aff weigh their aff and i'll let the neg weigh links not to the plan unless given a convincing argument as to why not to

-links should (ideally) be to the plan, rehighlighted 1AC ev/lines from 1AC >

-long overviews are bad

-perf con means you get to sever your reps

-floating PIKs are a voter, and vague alts usually aren't (aff should use vagueness to claim no alt solvency)

K affs:

-im neg biased, but i will vote for you

-im skeptical of out-of-round solvency claims but they aren't impossible to win

-i don't get why u should get perms (plan is not topical, so ks and cps dont have to be competitive) but ill give them to u if the other team doesn't explain this or u out debated them

framework:

-i lean neg on framework, but i can be convinced otherwise

-not best for these debates bc limited framework knowledge: i took it in the 1NR a few times

-TVAs are good

if this a K vs K debate i'll probs be confused unless its cap v. something else. explain your theories

theory:

-if u read ur theory blocks at 100% speed i will lower ur speaks

-around 3 condo is probably good

-i'll vote on dropped aspec, but 1ar gets new answers if the block says something completely new

-i'll vote on death good, spark, etc.

+ .1 speaks if you mention club penguin

speech:

-anything you've heard about debaters judging speech is probably also true for me (ie i might place more of a value on your arguments than presentation compared to other judges)

CX/POLICY/PF PARADIGM:

I'm pretty lax, so just read whatever you're best at. Don't read some half-baked argument to try to please me. I like Ks better than regular policy, but I'll vote for the argument that wins in the round. To win me over, you need to have solid argumentation and to carry that solid argumentation through each flow, not simply through each speech you work on. Work together with your partner. As a debater, I was coached for Ks, so I tend to lean more towards those, but I'll still vote for a policy team. The link debate needs to be fleshed out and solid, as does impact calc. Without either of those things, your arguments are irrelevant. Despite being lax, do show me respect, as I am taking time out of my day and weekend to judge y'all.

Also please don't pref me.

If you say something that I find problematic, I will do something about it. I am not above a lecture, lowered speaks, and/or a downvote if the other team uses that against you.

If you don't take notes during my RFD, I will get up and leave.

CONGRESS PARADIGM:

Like for CX/Policy, I'm lax, so don't worry about trying to please me with anything extra except by being a good speaker and being yourself. Remember links and impact calc are incredibly important, as is structuring your speeches if you can manage it. If not, just be sure to signpost for me. The arguments I tend to go for are structural-violence and inequality rather than nuclear war and recessions, but if you make a logical argument backed up by solid evidence,I will evaluate it regardless of the content or my personal preferences.

If you say something that I find problematic, I will do something about it. I am not above an after-round lecture or lowered placement, and it would go in my RFD and after-round comments.

Nikola (Nik) Stamenković Diez (they/them)

Northwestern University '24 | John F. Kennedy HS '20 (Chicago Debates)

Email Chain (yes, add me): <nikola.stamdiez@gmail.com>

~Background/TL;DR~

Do what you do best. Gonna steal this from the boi, Buntin.

Policy--------------------------------------X-------K

Tech--------------------X--------------------------Truth

Read no cards--------------------------X---------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad

UQ matters most--------------------------X------Link matters most

Clarity-X-------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Presumption----------------------X----------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev-------X----------------------------------More ev

"Insert rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

CX about impacts--------------------------------------X---CX about links and solvency

AT:-X-------------------------------------------------------A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------------------X-Aff (truncated word)

Framework/Topicality

What's your model of debate? Are models important? Fairness isn't an impact in of itself, but it could be if explained well. Impact turns and answers should be contextual to each other and not the arguments in the abstract. Limits is the most persuasive internal link. Impact calculus, argument comparison, and clash is central to these debates.

Kritiks/Kritikal Affirmatives

Specificity, a well-defined theory of power, and evidence comparison is important. Link work should be specific, using examples to contextualize offense. You don't have to win an alt in front of me. Resist the K jargon. Long, obnoxious overviews are annoying. Don't assume my familiarity with the scholarship you're presenting, I want to see your explanation and reading of it.

Counterplans

Least familiar with these debates. I would not go for an odd, hyper-technical Process CP in front of me. Counterplan competition is important. Competition can be garnered from cross-examination. Theory is great when debated well.

Disads

Properly explain each component of the DA and how it outweighs or turns the case. A good, flushed out link story is necessary.

Case

I strongly believe teams should be debating the case. Whether or not it becomes entirely relevant or not at the end of the debate, case debating should be happening to some extent.

Other

Online debate: if my camera is off, assume I'm not in front of my computer and do not begin speaking.

I prefer to avoid adjudicating a debate based on personal attacks or arguments about events outside the scope of a given round.

Your cards should be highlighted with the intent to preserve grammatical coherency.

Make the debate space safe. Show up, debate the arguments, learn, and make friends.

Dana Thurnell (she/her)

GBS 2023

UMich 2027

Please add me to the chain dthurnelldebate@gmail.com

Limited topic knowledge

Run anything you want even if you think it is bad. That said the worse an argument is the easier it can be defeated.

I am probably not a great judge for the k. You can still run the K and if you run it very well I will vote for you but I just tend not to think they are winning. I'm definitely more familiar with stuff such as Cap K and Security but still know most other Ks. More high theory stuff will need a lot of explanation.

K affs: Once again not a great judge for them but run it if it's what you are comfortable with but I definitely lean neg on framework. I generally see fairness as an impact as long as the neg articulates it as such. Case debating in these debates is very important.

DA/CPs are really fun and I love to hear these debates. I think the aff should try to make more theory arguments against obviously illegit CPs and the neg should be prepared to defend themselves against that.

I love T but make sure to debate it well.

Theory - I'm much more open to voting on theory violations than most people so make sure to answer it.

Case debating - do it! Side note an impact turn strategy is awesome

No sexism/racism/homophobia/xenophobia/any other stuff like this - will result in me voting you down and lowest speaks. No clipping - I am listening.

Overall, have fun.