Coach at Edina 22-24

NDT/CEDA debater at Iowa 23-??, (formerly Minnesota 21-23), HS Policy debater at Edina (2016-21).

he/him

Yes, I want to be on the chain - umnakdebate [at] gmail [dot] com

There's no record of me on the wiki from 2021-23.That said, if you're interested in reading trans/queer stuff, email me or find me at a tournament and I can send you lit recs, affs I've read in the past, and/or good youtube videos of high quality debates in this corner of the library.

If you are debating in front of me and feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or have another need, please let me know at some point and I will do my best to support you and meet your needs in that moment!

I also usually carry things like Advil, masks and bandaids at tournaments, especially when coaching - if you need anything, come find me.

TL;DR - Prefs

When judging high school, I see my primary role as that of an educator. I take seriously the responsibility that comes with being entrusted with someone else's students. Making the activity accessible for minoritized students matters very much to me. I therefore aim to give decision and comments in line with this.

I have all the technical debate knowledge necessary to judge the arguments you read. However, I am less familiar with policy-style arguments because I have been a one-off K + K aff debater for around five-six years now, both in high school and college debate.

I judge mostly clash and KvK debates, but I coach teams who read arguments across the debate spectrum and have enough experience to understand the meta and function of policy-style arguments.

General - Preround

Speaks challenge:

• Specific extensions: if you, at some point during a debate, identify a card, extend it by quoting a line from the card that contains a warrant for why the claim the card is making is true, and explain how that warrant interacts with the answer that the other team has made to your argument and why I should prefer your warrant, I will give you +0.2 speaks.
• Final rebuttal overviews: if the first thing out of your mouth in the 2NR or 2AR makes a good-faith attempt to fill in the following sentence template by identifying why you win the debate, **regardless of if you actually win the debate**, I will give you +0.2 speaks. "We win the debate because [X argument] [OUTWEIGHS or TURNS THEIR OFFENSE or whatever else applies]. Their best argument is [Y argument], but even if they win that, we still win because [explanation]."

Speaks anti-challenge:
Current high school debate has a block reliance problem. Obviously the 2AC and 2NC/1NR are speeches that are conducive to reading lots of blocks - that's totally fine! I understand that blocks are useful tools that have strategic applicability!

That said, I can also tell when blocks have no applicability to the debate at hand and are a substitution for reactive and critical thinking. If you are simply reading from a backfile at the expense of reactive and critical thinking, with no contextualization to the debate, particularly in final rebuttals, this saddens me, and will impact your speaks.

Argumentative choices:

I will try my very best to vote on the arguments made on the flow, as all good judges do. Adapt at your own risk, which is to say, probably don't. I'd rather see you do what you do best than see you try to run a K without knowing how.

I'd like to think that the Ks I am most well-read on tend to be material and have real-world applications and conclusions. Examples and counterexamples are helpful in these debates and often carry a lot of weight when done well - I will reward good examples with good speaks! I find that pomo-type lit bases are less intuitive for me to understand, which means that examples and thorough, logical explanations can be more important if that's your jam.

I am increasingly disturbed by non-black debaters with non-black coaches reading afropessimism as a core strategy. This issue is probably too complex to adequately express in a paradigm. One thing that I can convey clearly: I am even more disturbed by non-black debaters with non-black coaches reading afropessimism as a timeskew or throwaway. If you do this in front of me, you will get a 25 and I will initiate a discussion about why that is a tokenizing and harmful practice.

Speed/Clarity:

Current high school debate has a spreading clarity problem. I flow by ear, and if I can't hear you, I will clear you three times, and then I will put my hands in the air to signal that I am not flowing because I cannot hear you.

Judge instruction:

Always good. I will flow and follow uncontested judge instruction, which includes sentences like "all we have to win is X", "we don't have to win that X", "start evaluating the debate with X", "prioritize empirics", etc. It would behoove you to flow and answer the judge instruction your opponents make if you think their instruction bodes poorly for you winning the debate.

Sneaky behavior:

I've noticed a trend where debaters are worried to be straight-up because they believe there is a competitive edge to being sneaky. A non-exhaustive list of what this might look like --

• reading a bunch of offcase that you can't explain in CX for "timeskew"
• procrastinating on giving an order to not reveal your strategic choices for a few extra seconds
• not opensourcing (when there isn't a good reason - think, personal content in a performance)
• lying or changing up disclosure of past 2NRs to trick the other team into thinking you'll read something that you have no intention of reading.

This does not make for good and high quality debates. Please do what you can to make the community better - in other words, do not do this.

Some of these things - misdisclosure in particular - come across as mean; it's hurtful to feel like another team is running circles around you and laughing at you while they do it.

Finally, sneaky behavior does not go unnoticed by judges. It makes it seem like you're unconfident that you will win the debate and need every possible, which lends itself to low speaks.

The speaks boost over the course of a tournament will do much more in helping you clear than whatever tiny advantage you get from the other team being slightly more unprepared.

Evidence ethics:

Evidence ethics challenges are round-ending - if you initiate one, I will ask if you intend to stake the debate on it. If you say yes, I will use either the tournament rules (if they outline a process), or NSDA guidelines (if tournament rules do not outline a process) to adjudicate the challenge. If you say no, I'll strike the argument and the debate can continue as normal.

Policy Minnesota Locals (Not national-circuit tournaments):

Speaks Incentives:

I'm so glad you're reading my paradigm! Yay! If you let me know that you've read my paradigm at some point before the debate starts, and remind me to do so, I will give you +0.5 speaker points.

If you are from a school who does not currently have a wiki, and you want help setting one up, I will help you set it up after my RFD and give you a 30 for posting cites for the round on it. If your coaches don't want you to do this, I will default to their veto, but in general, I think that disclosure will help improve the quality of and continue to build the well-being of local debate!

Independently, if you are from a school who does currently have a wiki, I will give you +0.5 speaker points for posting cites - you should tell me this after the debate is done, because I will otherwise very likely forget.

Debate Content:

When you extend cards to respond to the other team's cards or analytics, you don't have to remember what the author's name is - "1AC 4" is sufficient to tell me which one it was - but you most certainly do have to... actually extend it, by explaining the arguments that it makes and the warrants. I have noticed a trend where debaters will say things like "they say no solvency, but we do solve - extend all of our solvency cards, moving on". Please don't do this, because I will not grant you work that you didn't do over work that the other team did.

Primarily National Circuit Debaters at Locals:

If you are typically a national circuit debater, but you are using local circuit tournaments as a time to "meme" or mess around, this will make me very sad. I fundamentally believe that strengthening quality of debate on the local circuit can set the conditions for a better national circuit with lots of teams from MN competing at high levels. Please contribute to this if you can by respecting local debate. Happy to chat about my thoughts after rounds or at tournaments, because I think that I had a lack of understanding of this concept when I was debating in HS!

LD:

K - 1

LARP - 1

Phil/Tricks/Theory - pref me at your own risk, I guess?

I led lab at NSD philly last summer. I dabble in coaching national-circuit LD.

Nevertheless, while I'm confident in my ability to adjudicate anything that would appear in a policy debate according to community norms, I fear that my decisions in phil or tricks rounds may not follow convention simply because I have no understanding of what convention for those styles is.

If I'm judging you and that's your jam, go for it, but heavy judge instruction and a bit more explanation than normal will go far in making sure that my decision lines up with your intentions on the flow.

Go read the section on debate's clarity problem. For some reason, this is particularly bad in LD. If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth, I cannot flow them, and thus they will not make it into my decision, which nobody wants.

If you read critical disabilities studies, awesome. I'm here for it. On the other hand, if you read that absurdly offensive Mollow aff... I guess, please reach out for lit recommendations?? Just don't read that aff in front of me or anyone else. If you don't know what this means, it doesn't apply to you.

Finally, when you disclose an aff as "new", that means that every single card in the affirmative has literally never been read by you, teammates, or prepgroupmates before. Things that "new" does not mean:

• this aff has not been read on this topic, but has otherwise been read by me or teammates/prepgroupmates on other topics
• this aff has one new card, but has otherwise been read by me in the past (ever)
• this aff has new tags or new highlighting, but has otherwise been read by me in the past (ever)
• this aff has been read by others who have access to the same files like teammates/prepgroupmates (ever), even if I have never read it.

The practice of disclosing "new" gives large schools and people with the privilege of hiring private coaching or joining prep groups an even larger advantage.

Therefore, if I am judging a round where the aff was disclosed as "new" and I am given proof of someone disclosing as "new", as well as proof that the aff is not truly new but instead one of the four categories above, I will give the aff team a 25 regardless of who wins the debate.

PF:

Like LD, I have very limited experience judging PF.

Because I come from a policy background, I will evaluate the debate on the flow, so dropped args = true. Like with LD, I have non-existent knowledge about community norms for judging events that aren't policy.

Send your cards.

I will boost speaks for teams who send their evidence to the email chain before giving your speech without the opponent asking.

For teams who do not send their evidence to the email chain before the speech starts, if the opponent points it out and also sends their own cards to the chain before giving their speeches, I will take speaks away from the non-card-sending team and give them to the card-sending team.

Independent from the above, I will not stand for educational dishonesty (blatant misrepresentation of evidence, et cetera). If this becomes an issue in the debate, the team who committed the violation will receive an L and lowest possible speaks - don't test me on this. If it doesn't come up in the debate, but I notice that it has happened on my own, I don't feel comfortable throwing away the flow of the round, but I will still give that team the lowest possible speaks and take any other action that I deem necessary given the context of the round.

add me to the email chain

nikkiaquidebate@gmail.com

** Stanford 2/12/2024: FIRST TIME JUDGING THIS TOPIC!!!! Break it down for me.

Assistant coach for Lawrence high school

No longer k hack lol but feel free to read a k I’ll be receptive

debated for 3 years in high school and a year in college.
I am comfortable with spreading, but lets be real its been a few years since I have debated and it may be in your best interest to slow it down for me lol-- I will never clear you

I believe in quality over quantity, reading as many off args as you can is just going to take away from the having a substantial learning opportunity in the round.

Not much else to say other than have FUN !!!!!!!!!!!! WOOHOOOOOO☆*:.｡. o(≧▽≦)o .｡.:*☆

kbarnstein@alumni.depaul.edu

My background: I'm currently serving as the head coach at Maine East, after many years of serving as an assistant. For much of the past 7 years, I judge an average of 15-20 rounds on the topic. I debated at Maine East HS back in the late 90s & early 00s for four seasons under the tutelage of Wayne Tang. As such, I tend to lean towards a policy making approach that seeks the best policy option. I tend to view topicaliy/theory through a prism of fairness and education. I don't mind listening to debates about what debate should be. I default to viewing the plan as the focus of the debate.

If you are running a K, I like the links to be as specific to the affirmative's advocacy as possible. If your alternative doesn't make sense, that means that the affirmative must be worse than the status quo for you to win your K.

I strongly dislike reading your evidence after the round- I expect the debaters to do that work in the round. If I call for a card, it will typically be to verify that it says what you say it says. I will not give you the benefit of warrants you did not explain, however I may give the other team the benefit of the card not saying what you said it did.

College Prep (2015-2019), Wake Forest (2019-2023)

Coach at George Mason & Harker

anadebate07 at gmail

I make decisions based on complete arguments, which require claims, warrants, and impacts/implications.

My favorite debates to judge are the ones in which teams do what they do best. I appreciate in-depth preparation and high-quality clash more than anything.

I prefer to judge debates in which the Affirmative is about the topic, and the Negative disagrees with the Affirmative's proposed change from the status quo.

I prefer not to judge a debate about an issue that would best be resolved outside the constraints of a competitive debate.

I auto judge-kick.

Theory debates aren't fun to judge, but I understand the strategic utility on both sides. 1 reason condo is good & impact calc >> spending a certain amount of time

If util and/or consequentialism are bad, you have to say how I should evaluate impacts otherwise. I won't fill in the blanks for either side.

Don't need to read a plan for me to vote AFF.

Fairness is an impact, but you gotta do impact calc & can't skip out on warrants. I struggle to see how clash is an external impact but am open to hearing otherwise.

Will vote on presumption

T debates aren't my favorite to judge but Limits ---X--------------- AFF Ground

Gotta take prep for flow checks

Will let you know if I need a card doc - probably won't.

You must read the re-highlighting aloud if the other team did not read those same words in the card.

I try to flow every word said in speeches & cross-ex unless instructed otherwise.

Speaker Points? I try to default to this table's scale

[Speaker point scale link broke:

30 = nearly impossible to get/seniors at last tournament

29.9-29.7 = fabulous & expect to be in deep elims

29.6-29.4 = excellent & elim worthy performance

29.3-29.1 = good & expect to break

29-28.7 = median

28.6-28.4 = room for improvement

28.3-28 = some hiccups & things to work on

27.9-27.6 = room to improve and there is some debate stuff to learn

27.5 -27 = there is a lot of room to grow

26.9 and below = something went pretty wrong]

Not great for LD nonsense unless you want to explain things to me with an emphasis on impact calc & judge instruction. I'm not a great judge for Phil because I just don't understand the implications of a lot of arguments so you have to fill in the blanks for me. Especially re explaining how to evaluate arguments without being a consequentialist. In LD, I do not believe the 1NC has the burden to rejoin frivolous, ridiculous theory arguments placed in the 1AC to avoid clash over the content of the 1AC.

I think disclosure is, in nearly every case, good. I have zero tolerance for misdisclosure, lying, and shady practices designed to evade clashing with your opponent. If your approach to competing is to debate without integrity, you should strike me.

I will never vote for an argument I could never justify ethically explaining back to you.

RVI's & tricks are nonstarters.

Conor Cameron
ccameron3@cps.edu
he/him/his
Coach, Solorio, 2012 - present

TLDR: Better for CP / DA / impact turn debates

I'll do my best to evaluate arguments as made. When the way I make sense of a debate differs from the way debaters make sense of a debate, here seem to be some common sources of the disparity:

1) I'm pretty ingrained in the offense defense model. This means that even if the NB is substantially unpersuasive, if the aff cannot generate a solvency deficit against the CP, and the aff has no offense against the DA, I am highly likely to vote negative.

Some notes: a) I do not think a solvency deficit needs to be carded; b) more difficult, but I could envision voting on analytic offense against a DA, c) I'm willing to vote on zero risk of the DA, but we'd both benefit from you taking a moment to explain why the offense-defense model is inapplicable in the debate at hand

2) I still think I have a relatively high bar for voting negative on topicality; however, I've tried to begin evaluating this debate more from an offense-defense perspective. In my mind, this means that if the affirmative does not meet the negative's interpretation, and does not have its own counterinterpretation, it is essentially arguing that any affirmative is topical and is conceding a 100% link to the limits disadvantage. I'm highly likely to vote negative in such a debate.

General argument notes:
3) I'm probably more sympathetic to cheaty process counterplans than most.

4) While I may complain, I do vote on the standard canon of negative kritiks. Things like cap, security, standard topic kritiks, etc. are fine. Extra explanation (examples, stories, analogies, etc.) is always appreciated, all the more so the further from my comfort zone you venture.

5) FW vs K Affs: I lean negative. However, I judge few of these debates. Both teams would benefit from accepting that I know very little here, slowing down, speaking clearly, and over-explaining (depth, not repetition) things you assume most judges know.

Other notes
6) I judge because:
a) I still really enjoy debate.
b) Judging is an opportunity to continue to develop my understanding of debate.
c) I am covering my students' judge commitment so that they too can benefit from this activity.

7) Quick reference
Policy---X------------------------------------------K

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

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

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

States CP good----X------------------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-----X------------------------Politics DA not a thing

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

Limits----------------------------------X------------Aff ground

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

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

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

Hiyyyyyy! :)

rcav.debate@gmail.com

Any pronouns

Gemini

Updated August 2023

For in person tournaments:

Please wear a mask at all times, including during speeches. I don't want covid.

NOTE:

If you're looking to do college debate feel free to reach out and ask about Iowa debate with the email I have above! I'd love to answer any questions!

TLDR:

I do exclusively K debate, currently at the University of Iowa going on my 8th year of debate. I've mostly run trans studies, queer theory, and antiblackness. Yes I can still judge a policy debate. Poorly executed framework/K debates from either side are not fun to watch (notes below on how you can persuade me). Top level instruction is important.

General:

Obviously my job as your judge is to evaluate the round as fairly as possible. However, every judge has their biases, so I'll do my best to explain mine here:

4 years of debate at Northside (Chicago/CDL), 2016-2020. I debated on China, Education, Immigration, and Arms Sales. Currently in my fourth year debating at Iowa - I've debated on Alliances, Antitrust, Personhood and Nukes. I was a lab leader during Summer of 2023 for Fiscal Redistribution so I have a decent understanding of the topic.

Most of my higher-level experience has been with K debate, so that's what I'm most familiar/comfortable with. I've had the most experience with trans studies, queer theory, and antiblackness but I have a basic enough handle on almost anything else you can name. Maybe a little less familiar with obscure pomo theory but I get the basics. Obviously if what you're running is super out there, make sure that you are able to thoroughly explain your theory of power and specific links to the aff (which honestly applies to anything you're running).

Top-level stuff: Although I have thoughts about different arguments in debate, please go for whatever you feel comfortable running. Adaptation can be important, but over adapting and going for something you aren't familiar or comfortable with can often hinder you more than help. It's my job to evaluate the round fairly.

Also I personally think that more than 5ish off is unnecessary and uneducational. I'll probably still flow all of them but be willing to give the aff more slack when it comes to new 1AR extrapolations if the neg is running an obscene number of arguments. This is especially true if you read half-arguments in the 1NC that are blown up in the block - think one card K's that barely have a link/impact/alt.

I'm somewhere in between being 'big picture' and being 'techy'/flow centric, but as a judge will put large emphasis on the former. Telling me how to think about/evaluate arguments and what my role is as a judge will get you far.

Asking for a marked doc means that cards were marked, not that they didn't get to every card in the doc. If you want to ask which cards were read, you need to run cross-x or prep.

Usually I'm not looking at docs when flowing speeches and I flow on paper (this is probably different if it is an online debate because I find it somewhat harder to flow over zoom). I do take notes during cross-x, and think it is often a really important part of debates - referencing significant moments from cross-x is a good practice.

I fundamentally think disclosure theory/new affs bad is a true argument (absent specific reasons for opacity, etc.), but that doesn't mean I will auto vote for theory. Just felt like a strange enough disposition to mention.

T (not FW/USFG): I tend to find judging these debates quite boring in most instances, but if you think it'll be a strong argument please go for it. If you are talking about super specific acronyms make sure you clarify things that might not be obvious. Also make sure you're still doing impact comparison - it is hard to evaluate a T debate when both sides are extending their own impacts without interaction with the other teams arguments.

CPs/Theory: I actually kind of like a good, cheaty, cleverly crafted counterplan with a good net benefit. Condo is probably good up to a certain point, process CPs are fine as long as there's a net ben. I think judges are less willing to vote on PIC/Ks now for some reason and I disagree with that. But also if you're the aff you should obviously still say they're bad.

Random thought, it's called a "counterplan" not a "see-pee" this annoys me for no reason lol

K's: Pretty much covered this above, but yeah I like Ks. I think the best ways to beat a K are some combination of framework, a perm, and alt takeouts. As much as I like the K, I'm very willing to vote you down if you don't properly extend links to the aff, alt solvency (unless you've got a reason why you don't need an alt), etc. This is more of an observation that a judge philosophy, but kicking the alt (particularly in K v K debates but in others as well) seems more often than not to lead to teams losing. I generally think that teams that try to read bad preempts affs when they hit "k teams" are hurting themselves more than helping. It's much easier to win going for the big stick impacts youre used to if that's what you do.

F/W v. K Aff: I personally tend to believe that debate should be a space where debaters have the opportunity to performatively explore how different forms of knowledge production and political engagement shape the way they occupy debate, which is something that can take many forms. This doesn't mean that I won't vote on framework (especially if the team running the K aff isn't properly answering it), however, it does mean that you should be engaging with the affirmative and giving reasons why debate is better off with a traditional way of engaging the resolution. I think that clash-based impacts to framework are better than education-based impacts to framework because it makes it easier to weigh your standards against the aff. I used to think fairness was an internal link but more recently think its the only inherent impact to framework that isn't dependent on winning some larger argument. A TVA can be powerful, but you should probably have some sort of solvency advocate that ties the TVA to the ability to engage with knowledge/the debate space in a similar way to the affirmative. i.e. I'm much more likely to vote for a carded TVA than a two-second blip or suggestion of a potential topical aff. That doesn't just mean "the TVA does something vaguely good for X group!", especially if the aff is directly addressing the way that knowledge/discourse shape those policies in the first place.

A general note on K aff's too: I love it when teams do performative things. I've done all kinds of stuff in my affs, and honestly I think an aff that has less ev but is more performatively interesting is much better than a wall of cards. Multiple affs that I've written have been like two cards and some poetry at conversational speed.

K v. K: You do you. I've had many of these debates myself, so I enjoy judging them. I am starting to think perms are kind of fake, although that does not mean the aff shouldn't go for one.

Ethics Challenges: Since this seems to be happening way more frequently now for some reason, a few notes on what an ethics violation is and what it means:

An ethics challenge refers to something like a miscut piece of evidence, and amounts to stopping the debate. If it is called an ethics violation, the round stops - it is not debated out (unless tab decides otherwise, but if it is up to my discretion I will stop the debate).

Ethics violations are sometimes a necessity in situations of bankrupt research practices, but in my opinion is not a "strategy" for you to be prepped to go for if you think you are losing a debate. Posing such a challenge will result in me contacting tab about appropriate measures - whether that means me making the decision or the tab director depends on the tournament and circumstances. Some examples of ethics violations are internal omissions of evidence, straw mans, etc.

I understand that often times (especially in high school debate) citational or miscutting errors are not intentional or done with malice, and so please note I will not hold it against you personally if such a violation occurs. In the event of this situation, I will award a 28.8/28.7 to the team who wins and a 28.6/28.5 to the team who loses (again, absent intervention from tab/egregious violations that result in me awarding minimum speaks allowed).

Speaks: I try to start at a 28 and add or deduct points from there based on nuance, clarity, etc. I'd say on average my points generally range from 28.6 - 29.2 for teams in the middle to upper range of the tournament.

I've never 'cleared' before and I likely won't unless it becomes necessary - if you are going so fast that it compromises your ability to speak clearly and effectively communicate your arguments, I will simply stop flowing.

Good luck, and have fun!

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.

Pronouns - him/he\they
Email(s) - abraham.corrigan@gmail.com, acorrigan1@glenbrook225.org, catspathat@gmail.com

Hello!

Thank you for considering me for your debate adjudication needs! Judging is one of my favorite things & I aspire to be the judge I wanted when I debated, namely one who was flexible and would judge the debate based on arguments made by debaters. To do that, I seek to be familiar with all debate arguments and literature bases such that my own ignorance will not be a barrier to judging the arguments you want to go for. This is an ongoing process and aspiration for me rather than an end point, but in general I would say you should probably pref me.

I'm fun!

Sometimes I even have snacks.

<*Judging Quirks*>

- I have absolutely zero poker face and will make a lot of non verbals. Please do not interpret these as concrete/100% definitive opinions of mine but rather as an expression of my initial attempts to place your argument within the particular context of the other arguments advanced in a debate.

- All arguments are evaluated within their particular context - Especially on the negative, as a debater in high school and college I went for and won a lot of debates on arguments which would be described, in a vacuum, as 'bad.' Sometimes, all you have to say is a turd and your rebuttal speeches will largely be what some of my judges described as 'turd-shinning.' This means (unless something extreme is happening which is unethical or triggering my mandatory reporter status as a public school employee) I generally prefer to let the arguments advanced in the debate dictate my view of what is and what isn't a 'good' argument.

- I am not a 'k' or 'policy' judge. I just like debate.

<*My Debate History*>

I am a 2a. This means, if left to my own devices and not instructed not to look for this, the thing that I will implicitly try to do is identify a way to leave stuff better than we found it.

High School

- I debated at H-F HS, in Illinois, for my first two years of debate where I was coached by creeps.

- My junior & senior year in HS I transfered to Glenbrook South where I was coached most by Tara Tate (now retired from debate), Calum Matheson (now at Pitt), & Ravi Shankar (former NU debater).

My partner and I largely went for agenda politics da & process cps or impact turns. We were a bit k curious, but mostly read what would be described as 'policy' arguments.

College

- I debated in college for 4 years at Gonzaga where I was coached by Glen Frappier (still DoF at GU), Steve Pointer (now [mostly] retired from debate), Jeff Buntin (current DoD at NU), Iz-ak Dunn (currently at ASU), & Charles Olney (now [mostly] retired from debate).

My partner and I largely went for what is now be described as 'soft left' arguments on the affirmative and impact turns and unusual counterplans when we were negative.

Coaching

- After graduating, I coached at Northwestern University for a year. My assignments were largely 2ac answers & stuff related to translating high theory arguments made by other teams into things our less k debaters could understand.

- I then moved to Lexington, Kentucky and coached at the University of Kentucky for two years. My assignments were largely aff & all things 2a & answering k stuff on the negative.

- I then coached/did comm graduate work at Wake Forest for two years.

- I then took a break from debate and worked as a paralegal at a law firm which was focused on civil lawsuits against police, prisons, whistleblower protections as well as doing FOIA requests for Buzzfeed.

- I then came back to debate, did some logistics for UK, then Mrs. Corrigan got the GBS job & the rest is history!

keeping this super short because tabroom is very unsecured and hypervisible rn.

i debated [2019-2024] at Iowa and read critical arguments on both the aff and the neg. i have a background in plan style debating and primarily did that in HS and the start of college so run what your good at.

please put me on chains -- ask me for email before the round.

Last Updated: November, 2023. Please put me on the chain: nathanglancy124@gmail.com

***Background***

Debated at:

Niles West High School (2014-2018)

Trinity University (2018-2020)

Michigan State University (2020-2023)

Coached for:

Winston Churchill (2018-19)

Niles West High School (2020-2023)

Niles North HS (2023-now)

University of Wyoming (2023-now)

I debated for 9 years, all the way from Oceans to Personhood. I've been a 2n for longer than I've been a 2a, but at heart I am a 2a. I currently coach at Niles North High School in northwest Chicagoland and do remote coaching for the University of Wyoming. I went for policy-style arguments throughout my debate career and relied on debate to help realize/finance my college education. Debate's done a lot for me and I'd like to think I'm doing what I can for debate. If you already know me, say hi!! If you don't know me yet, don't mind the fact that I have a grumpy resting face! I'm not shy and would love to show you pictures of my dog.

***TL;DR***

I really want to ensure you all have a satisfying judging experience. I think this means it is my role as a judge to try my best to render a decision based on the arguments made in the debate. I care about debate's existence and success. I hope that is reflected in my feedback and my efforts as a judge.

High school debaters will do well in front of me if they keep the round organized and moving, show their motivation to improve/learn/win, and maintain a positive approach to the round despite the competitive nature of debate. They'll do even better if this is coupled with good, SPECIFIC arguments :)

College Debaters should consider me capable of judging whatever you need me to. I don't have any large predispositions and therefore I would consider myself quite impressionable if faced with good judge instruction and application of arguments at the end of the debate.

I have comparatively lower amounts of college topic knowledge - fair word of warning for acronyms

*Non-argument Things*

CLIPPING: I am soooooo done with people getting away with murder clipping everywhere. In that light, I will now start dropping non-novice teams that meet my minimum standard for clipping. Triggering any one of these conditions will result in an immediate loss after the speech, with minimum speaks to the individual who does it...

1. Speaker skips a paragraph of a card in a speech

2. Speaker skips a sentence that is 10 or more words in a speech

3. Speakers skips 3-5 words 5 times within a speech

4. Speaker systematically skips 1-2 words throughout a speech

Speaks: I will reward speaks mostly on the following criteria...

1. How did you impact your team's ability to win?

2. How did you impact my judging? Did something impress me?

3. Mastery of Material - "knowing what's going on" at the highest level

4. Mastery of Tech/Organization - did you cause/fix any unnecessary/avoidable decision time hurdles?

Clarity: I'm starting to care way way more about the clarity of argument communicated earlier for how I assess risk later in the debate. I really feel like rewarding good packaging of arguments, labeling, and organization that guides the judge through what you're saying AND why that matters. I will try and highly prioritize this analysis over reading every card and seeing who did the better research project. However, instructing me to read a portion of a card obviously constitutes a form of argument that I will take into account.

Conduct: The more we have good vibes in the round, the better the experience will be for everyone. Feel free to have competitive spirit, but don't let that turn you into an unlikeable person!! That's not a winning recipe. Also I am a fan of corny humor, often to a fault. I have given one 30 in my lifetime, and it was to someone who's joke made me uncontrollably laugh during the 2ar (they lost). Don't reach for a bad joke though that's never funny.

Online Debate: Before EVERY speech and EVERY CX, please confirm that everyone is here AND that the sound is clear! Feel free to do camera on or off, I understand everyone has their reasons. Please be understanding of the different complications of online debate and let's do everything we can to keep online accessible and effective. Oh and I HATE prep stealing and doing it while online doesn't excuse it.

***Argument Things***

Case:

I should understand a consistent explanation of the 1ac and its advantages throughout the debate. Changing this narrative or being dodgy/vague is easily subject to punishment by a good neg team. AFF teams should punish teams that are light on case using clear 2ac articulations of dropped arguments instead of being equally as vague. 2NRs on case should focus on identifying what AFF impacts your case defense is responding to.

I am starting to get really tired of bad highlighting here and teams that point this out can mitigate offense here.

DAs:

They're cool, but oh my gosh do teams double, triple, quadruple turn themselves with these so often! I don't care about spamming DAs, but I wish more AFF teams would exploit contradictions in "neg flex". Neg teams can best win their DAs by getting impact framing out early and being clear about 1ar concessions to establish a high risk of your offense.

I am starting to get really tired of bad highlighting here and teams that point this out can mitigate offense here.

T:

I think explaining your vision of the topic is one of the most underrated and underutilized ways to win a T debate. Please just explain to me why in your squad room you decided that T made sense? What's the "core thing" that the AFF did that is the controversy being debated?

Things that help a lot: TVA, case-list of good AFFs under your interpretation, case-list of bad AFFs under their interpretation, definition comparison, explanation of neg ground under your interpretation AND the other teams'.

Theory:

I HATE bad theory arguments and don't want to vote on them, but I hate teams that don't flow slightly more so I will vote on that stuff (and if I miss one line ASPEC that's on you, debate's a communication activity!). Bad theory debating is a one way ticket to low speaks, but good theory debating can drastically alter how rounds go down.

I'm pretty good for theory all things considered. I went for states CP theory a lot on the education topic and am a 2a at heart, but as someone who was a 2n I understand the deep, deep love we share for condo. I feel like the best theory debaters are FLOWABLE while doing their theory debating, SPECIFIC in their impact articulation beyond just talking about clashing and doing some fair education, and INSTRUCTIVE to the judge on questions of impact comparison and justifying new arguments.

CPs:

CPs are defense and should be explained in the context of what it is defending against (the 1ac's mandate, evidence, and how the advantages are explained). This is how I often think about deficits and how a CP implicates my ballot. Re-cutting the 1ac/AFF evidence is usually the gold standard for proving a CP sufficiently solves. I feel like fore-fronting how you explain a CP early and not deviating from that is the best way to ensure you don't bring in new explanations so I don't let the AFF get new answers. I lowkey hate process CPs but sometimes it must be done.

Ks:

I'm better for the K than you think, but likely need more judge instruction about how to apply X argument. Better for evidence-heavy OR depth-focused debate. Any amount of generic evidence is best addressed through specific analysis.

"Exceeds expectations"/I've gone for: Cap, Security, Biopolitics/Agamben

"Meeting expectations"/I feel fine judging: Set Col, Anti-blackness (Nihilism, Pessimism, to name a few), Orientalism/Colonialism, Imperialism, Queer pessimism, Trans pessimism, Ableism

"Needs improvement"/err towards over-explaining: Psychoanalysis, Bataille, Heideggerian stuff, Baudrillard, Deleuze

I have not judged a KvK debate yet.

Framework:

I almost exclusively went for t-usfg/framework in HS and college, but that doesn't make me care about dropping a policy team. Impact articulation matters for me but far too often I find teams blending concepts such as fairness and clash in incoherent ways. I don't care about the label, but rather the underling explanation and how it is being applied in the debate. If you have any other questions look at Josh Harrington's philosophy on K AFFs, that'll reflect roughly how I feel.

Nate's sliding scales about debate:

Tech/Truth----------------------------X-Facts are Facts & Dropped args are as true as the warrants conceded

Condo-------X----------------------Respect the Aff Peasant (have and will vote on it, clear args in the 1ar key)

Process CP/Normal Means Competition----------------------------X- 100 plank case-specific advantage CP

Super Big CP-----------------X------------Deep Case Debating

Simply saying "Sufficiency Framing"-----------------------------X-Explain why CP solves sufficiently

Zero Risk Framing----------X-------------------Any Risk Framing

Perm Double Bind--------------X---------------Haha Silly Policy Hacks

Deb8=Karl Rove----------------------------X-That was one dude

Salad K----------------------------X-Single K Thesis

Economic Growth----------------------------X-( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

***Miscellaneous***

Email chain is always preferable to anything else barring tech issues

I don't like cards in the body of the email... but nobody seems to care... oh well...

I am fine with open cx. All people should be.

The Prep Rule: I will increase speaks from what I would have given by .1 for every minute of prep not used - speaks can be earned by specifically telling me the balance of prep your team had remaining before their last rebuttal. Capped at .5 boosted speaks.

Massive pet peeve: if you call a CP a "see-pee" I will think about it so much that it might disrupt my flowing and you might instantly lose (I am being sarcastic).

here's a photo collage about debate that I made in high school:

If I am judging you at a tournament with preferences, then you should strike me if you do not agree with all of the following:

-I am an educator first. If anything happens in the debate that I deem would not be okay in a high school classroom, I will stop the debate and vote against the team that engaged in the inappropriate behavior.

-The affirmative should defend a topical plan and defend the implementation of the plan.

-Affirmative plans these days are too vague. You only get to fiat what your plan says, not what it could mean or what you want it to mean. If you clarify your plan in cross-x, the negative can use that clarification to setup counterplan competition.

-The negative should prove why the plan causes something bad to happen, not why it justifies something bad. In other words - most of your Kritks are probably just FYIs.

-I evaluate debate in large part based on the line-by-line. If you cannot flow, I am not a good judge for you. If you cannot specifically answer the other team's arguments and apply your arguments to them and instead just read pre-scripted blocks, I am not a good judge for you.

-Debate is a communicative activity. I don't follow a card document. I listen to what you say. I will only read evidence if I cannot resolve something in the debate based on how it was debated.

-For something to count as an argument it must be complete and explained. I also must be able to understand what you are saying.

-My lifetime speaker point average range is probably lower than what you are used to.

-If you are visibly sick during the debate, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

Updated 2023 Pre-Northwestern College Season Opener

Assistant Policy Debate Coach at UT-Dallas and Greenhill

Debated at C.E. Byrd HS in Shreveport, Louisiana (class of ’14). Debated in college policy for Baylor University (2014-2016) and the University of Iowa (2017-2019)

Have coached: Caddo Magnet HS, Hendrickson HS, Little Rock Central HS, Glenbrook South HS, University of Iowa, James Madison University

Email chain should be set up/sent before start time. Sam.gustavson@gmail.com

Top level

Please be respectful of one another. We are all sacrificing our weekends to be here and learn, you can be passionate about your arguments without being mean, rude, condescending, hostile, etc. I’d almost always prefer you convince me that your opponent’s arguments are bad, not that they’re bad people. Chances are, none of us know each other well enough to make that determination.

Please prioritize clarity over speed.Everything else you can take with a grain of salt and ultimately do what you are best at, but me being able to understand you comes before anything else.

Debate is hard. People make it harder by making it more complicated than it needs to be. I like debaters who take complex ideas and bring them down to the level of simplicity and common sense.

Judge instruction, impact framing, comparison of evidence, authors, warrants, etc. or “the art of spin” is the most important thing for telling me how I should decide a debate. Making strategic decisions is important.

One of the things that makes debate truly unique is the research that is required, and so I think it makes sense to reward teams who are clearly going above and beyond in the research they’re producing. Good cards won’t auto win you the debate, but they certainly help “break ties” on the flow and give off the perception that a team is deep in the literature on their argument. But good evidence is always secondary to what a debater does with it.

I care about cross-x A LOT. USE ALL OF YOUR CX TIME PLZ

Organization is also really important to me. Debaters that do effective line by line, clearly label arguments and use things like subpoints are more likely to win in front of me and get better speaks.

High School Specific Thoughts

I work full time in college debate and as a result am less familiar with the ins-and-outs of the high school topic. Take that into consideration.

If you’re interested in doing policy debate in college, feel free to talk to me about debating at UT-Dallas! I am a full-time assistant coach there. We have scholarships, multiple coaches, and a really fun team culture.

CLARITY OVER SPEED APPLIES DOUBLE TO HIGH SCHOOL

Set up the email chain as soon as you get to the room and do disclosure. If you’re aff, ask for the neg team’s emails and copy and paste mine from the top of my paradigm. Let’s get started on time!

Please keep track of your own prep, cx, and speech time.

Don’t flow off the speech doc, it’s the easiest way to miss something and it’s super obvious. Don’t waste cross-x time asking what the did and didn’t read! Flowing is so important.

Aff thoughts

I don’t care what “style” of aff you read, I just care that it is consistently explained and executed throughout the debate.

I like most judges enjoy 2ACs that make strategic choices, smart groupings and cross applications, and effectively and efficiently use the 1AC to beat neg positions in addition to reading new cards.

2ACs and ESPECIALLY 1ARs are getting away with murder in terms of not actually extending the aff.

Pretty aff leaning on a lot of CP theory questions (Process especially, 50 states, agent CPs. With the exception of PICs), but usually think they’re a reason to reject the argument. You can win it’s a reason to reject the team, but my bar for winning the 2ac was irrevocably skewed by the existence of a single 1NC position is pretty high. I don’t really lean one way or the other on condo (ideologically at least, I have no clue what my judge record is in condo debates).

Neg Thoughts - General

I like negative strategies that are well-researched specific responses to the aff. I think case debating is super important and underutilized. Nothing is more persuasive than a negative team who seems to know more about the 1AC than the Aff team does.

The 1NR should be the best speech in the debate, you have so much prep.

The 2NR should make strategic decisions, collapse down, and anticipate 2ar framing and pivots. The block is about proliferating options, the 2NR is about making decisions and closing doors.

Counterplans

Like I said above, prefer aff-specific CPs to generics. Counterplans that only compete on immediacy and certainty and net benefits that don’t say the aff is bad are not my favorite. I definitely prefer Process CP + Politics to Process CP + internal net benefit, because the politics DA disproves the desirability of the plan.

Because of the above thoughts, I am more aff leaning on CP theory in a lot of instances, with the exception of PICs. I think PICs that disprove/reject part of the aff are probably good.

People say sufficiency framing without doing the work to explain why the risk of the net benefit actually outweighs the risk of the solvency deficit. You have to do some type of risk calculus to set up what is sufficient and how I should evaluate it.

I have no feelings one way or another about judge kick. Win that it’s good or win that it’s bad.

Counterplans vs K affs are underutilized.

Disads

Comparison is important and not just at the impact level. Telling me what warrants to prioritize on the uniqueness and link debate, rehighlighting evidence, doing organized labeling and line by line, etc. Don’t just extend the different parts of the DA, do comparative work and framing on each part to tell me to tell me why you’re winning it and what matters most in terms of what I evaluate.

Like I said in the neg general section, I usually prefer an aff/topic specific DA to politics, but those concerns can be easily alleviated with good link debating on the politics DA. Your link being specific to the aff/resolution is usually important especially for link uniqueness reasons. I typically like elections more than agenda politics just as a research preference.

Impact Turns

Get in the weeds early in these debates and read a lot of cards. Don’t be afraid to read cards late in the debate either. Teams that get out-carded in these debates early have a tough time getting back in the game.

Recency, specificity, and evidence quality really matter for most every argument, but these debates especially. It’s pretty obvious when one team has updates and the other is reading a backfile

These debates get unorganized in a hurry. Labeling, line by line, using subpoints/numbers, and making clear cross applications are super important

Topicality

I really like T debates vs policy affs. I think creative arguments like extra T and effects T are underutilized or at least often underexplained and that there are affs getting away with fiating a lot of extra-resolutional/non-resolutional things.

Typically default to competing interps, and I’ll be totally transparent here: reasonability is kind of an uphill battle for me. When people go for reasonability with an interp, I almost always understand reasonability as a standard for why the aff’s interp is good. If you’re arguing your interpretation is better because it’s more reasonable, how is that not also an appeal to competing interpretations? And in the other scenario, if you’re going for reasonability with a we meet argument, I feel like a lot of the time it just begs the question of the violation and it’s easy for the neg to frame it as a yes/no question, not something that you can kind of/reasonably meet. Ultimately superior debating supersedes everything. If you win reasonability, you win reasonability. But you are probably better off just winning the we meet or going for a counter-interp

Impact comparison on standards is super important. I don’t have any strong preferences in terms of how I evaluate limits vs precision, aff ground vs neg ground, etc. Those are things you have to win and do the work of framing for me.

For the neg: Case lists, examples of ground lost under the aff’s interp, examples of why the debates under your model over the course of the year, topical versions of the aff, etc. will all help me understand in practice why your interp is better for the year of debate on the topic rather than just in theory.

For the aff: A well-explained we meet and/or counter interpretation, a case list of things you allow and things you don’t, and explanation of what ground the neg gets access to under your interp beyond quickly listing arguments and saying functional limits check, explain the warrant for why your interp preserves that ground and why those debates are good to have. N

Not super persuaded by “we meet – plan text in a vacuum” without much additional explanation. If the aff reads a plan text but then reframes/clarifies what that means in cross-x, in 1ac solvency evidence, or in the 2ac responding to neg positions, I think it’s easy for the neg to win those things outweigh plan text in a vacuum.

Framework

I judge a lot of these debates, and I’m fine with that. I think debating about debate is useful.

Fairness can be and impact or an internal link, just depends on how it’s debated. For it to be an external impact, it needs to not be circular/self-referential, which I think it often is in terms of how teams execute it. “Debate is a game, so it needs to be fair, because games need to be fair, and without fairness we can’t debate” is a circular argument that lacks an impact. To me, the argument becomes more offensive the more teams emphasize the time commitment we all put into debate and why maintaining fairness is important for honoring that time commitment, or explaining why it’s important for participation.

If either side is claiming participation as an impact, you have gotta explain how voting for you/your model would solve it. I think that’s hard to do but I’ve seen it done effectively both with fairness and with K affs doing for access/participation outweighs. The impact is obviously very big, but the internal link is often sketchy and not flushed out, in addition to largely being untrue because things like budget cuts have a lot more to do with who can participate than any particular team reading any particular argument.

I prefer clash as an impact more because I feel like it gets to a bigger impact that is more at the heart of why debate is good and that it often causes the neg to interact with the aff more. Your warrants for why clash turns the aff should be aff specific – same with TVAs. Nothing hurts me worse than ultra-generic framework debating where the argument could apply to literally any K aff. The best way to win your model can account for the aff’s impacts is to use the language of the aff in your explanation of things like clash, Switch-Side, and the TVA.

Affs that have something to do with the topic and can link turn things like topic education and clash are more persuasive to me than affs that try to impact turn every single part of framework. You probably will need to win some defense, because so much of the neg side of framework is defense to the stuff you want to go for.

Having a counter-interpretation really helps me understand how to evaluate offense and defense in these debates. This does not necessarily require the 2AC to redefine words in the resolution, but rather to tell me what the aff’s vision of debate is, what the role is for the aff and neg, and why those debates are good. Even if you are going to impact turn everything, having a counter-interpretation or a model of debate helps me understand what the role of the aff, neg, and the overall role of debate are.

Kritiks

The more aff-specific the better. Links do not necessarily have to be to the plan (it would be nice if they were), but they should implicate the 1ac in specific ways whether it’s their rhetoric, impact scenarios, etc. 2NCs that quote and rehighlight aff evidence, read new cards, proliferate links, and give the 2nr options are good. If you are criticizing/kritiking the aff, you should quote as much of their evidence, indict as many of their authors, and apply your criticism to the aff as much as possible. The most common advice I give 2Ns going for the K is to quote the aff more

Making decisions in the 2NR is still important even when reading the K one-off. You cannot go for every link, framing argument, perm answer, etc. in the 2NR.

The best K 2NRs I’ve ever seen effectively use case to mitigate parts of the aff’s offense. If you give them 100% risk of the aff vs the K, it’s harder to win!

Kicking the alt/going just for links or case turns is not the move in front of me. There are almost always uniqueness problems and I end up usually just voting aff on a risk of case. Whether it’s an alternative or a framework argument, you gotta explain to me how voting neg solves your offense.

I have noticed that in a lot of K debates I find that both the aff and the neg over-invest in framework. I honestly don’t see a scenario where I don’t let the aff weigh the 1AC if they win that fiat is good. I also don’t see a scenario where I vote aff because Kritiks on the neg are unfair. If the neg is making links to the aff, the aff obviously gets to weigh their offense against those link arguments. I really think both sides in most cases would be better served spending time on the link/impact/alt rather than overinvesting time on the framework debate.

I don’t really understand a lot of the form/content distinction stuff people go for because I think that the way arguments about “form” are deployed in debate are usually not actually about the form of anything and almost exclusively refer to disagreements in content

Ethics challenges/Clipping/Out of Round Stuff:

In the case that anyone calls an ethics violation for any reason I reserve the right to defer/go to tab, and then beyond that I can only vote based on my interpretation of events. This used to really only apply to clipping, but I’ve been a part of a bunch of different types of ethics challenges over the years so I’ve decided to update this.

Clipping: Hot take, it’s obviously bad. If I have proof you clipped the round will end and you’ll lose. I don’t follow along in speech docs unless someone starts being unclear, so if your opponent is clipping it’s up to you to notice and get proof. I need a recording if I don’t catch it live, even if we are on a panel and another judge catches it. Without a recording or proof, I’m not pulling the trigger.

Be careful about recording people without their consent, especially minors. Multiple states require two-party consent to record, don’t get yourself in legal trouble over a debate round.

I don’t vote on out of round stuff, especially stuff I wasn’t there for. For clarification, I suppose there could be exceptions to this and my opinions on it have gone back and forth. If you feel that someone in the round has jeopardized your safety, made you uncomfortable, or anything remotely similar, I will do everything in to advocate for you if I witness any of the following. If I am not a witness, I will make sure that the proper channels are used to address the complaint.

This is obviously distinct from criticizing something that someone has said or calling people out for being problematic. I’m saying if something so bad has happened that we have to stop the round, I have to go to the tournament and my bosses and look at my options. For your safety and mine I am required to think about how I’m protected, and my role and qualifications as a coach and educator as it relates to resolving officially lodged complaints of discrimination or harassment.

LD Paradigm:

Tech over truth but asserting that an argument is dropped/conceded is not the same thing as extending a full argument

My debate background is in policy, so I have much more familiarity with policy/LARP and Kritikal debates than I do with phil.

That is not to say you cannot win on philosophy in front of me, but you should try to frame it in language that I will understand. So telling me why your impact outweighs and turns their offense, winning defense to their stuff, doing judge instruction and weighing to tell me what matters and what doesn't.

Clarity is more important than speed. Slow down a bit on counterplan texts, interps, etc. Spreading as fast as you can through theory shells or a million a priori's means there's probably a good chance that I am not going to get everything

A lot of arguments in LD stop at the level of a claim - you can be efficient but you can't just blippily extend claims without warrants and expect to win

Not a huge fan of frivolous theory. I think most theory debates end up being a reason to reject the argument not the team with the exception of condo. But like I said, tech over truth so you can win theory in front of me, it just needs to be well impacted for why it is a reason to drop the debater and why rejecting the argument/practice doesn't solve

Benjamin Hamburger 10/2022

Sure, you can add me to an email chain. benjamin dot hamburger at gmail. So you know, I probably will NOT follow along on your speech doc, though.
For Wisconsin legal purposes, you should consider me tabula rasa. don't make me talk about it too much though because there's no such thing as that.

Information about me:
*I have judged and coached in what would be considered "national-circuit" style Midwestern high school debate since about 1998 as a card-cutting coach, as the primary policy coach, as a head coach, and now as a head coach at Central High School in La Crosse, Wisconsin. I am also a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse in the History Department. I am now getting old in debate terms--42 at the time of writing--which means I have old ideas and am grumpy about certain things.

*A Debate History:
1993-1998 Policy debater at Hastings High School, Hastings, NE
1998-1999 Judge/minor card cutter, Hastings Senior High School
1999-2005 Assistant Coach for Policy Debate at Fremont High School, Fremont, NE
2005-2007 Director of Forensics, Iowa City High School, Iowa City, IA
2007-2016 Assistant Varsity Coach, Cedar Rapids Washington High School, Cedar Rapids, IA
2016-Present Director of Debate, La Crosse Central High School, La Crosse, WI

*Academic Info that Might Be Relevant:
B.A. in Political Science (emphases in international relations and political theory) and History, a minor in Women’s Studies from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
M.A. in Secondary Social Studies Education and History from the University of Iowa.

Argument choice issues:
*Choose your arguments. I try to avoid evaluating rounds based on what I like to hear. Even if I don’t like your argument, it doesn’t mean you’ve lost it, etc. My self-estimation is that I am fairly even on the K vs. Policy question. I believe that both are very interesting and useful styles of debate. Most of the time framework debates aren’t particularly productive, the aff will win that they get to weigh the case, the neg will win that they get some form of an alternative, etc. (hint: if you are serious about winning framework, don’t waste your time on the rest of the debate—prove that you’re serious about it and go for it.)

Disad thoughts:
*One of the areas I am slightly old school. Left to my own devices, I am more likely than many judges to evaluate the risk of a disad as zero if there is a step which has been substantially defeated. I do not particularly prefer offense-defense paradigms, it is my feeling that it is necessary to win your arguments to get a DA. Similarly, I think you need to win a link to generate offense, so without justification I do not default to a uniqueness-focused decision-making process. In spite of these warnings, a justified argument can change those decision-making processes. Generally, though, a good politics debate with developed turns-case analysis is a thing of beauty. Quality of evidence comparison/warrants will always beat number of cards.

*I have increasingly found myself somewhat lost in fast debates about security policy which include multiple interacting internal links--not because I am incapable of understanding them, but because I am not as familiar with these arguments as you all are. On occasion debaters need to slow down and explain some arguments.

K Thoughts:
*My favorite negative strategies are about criticisms that isolate and condemn social injustice or reveal power relations and debate epistemology smartly. I have no problem with generic criticisms like security and the cap k, but to win them or to get decent points requires specific discussion of the 1ac—isolating the links and their implications for evaluating the aff is what makes it awesome. Affs lose lots of K debates largely because they pile up cards rather than planning what the 2ar endgame looks like. Often affs are better served defending their own assumptions than reading argument-specific cards that are not part of a specific strategy. To wit, affs regularly go for permutations or no link arguments when they claim an advantage which impact turns the k while conceding a utopian alternative. Because I am a sucker for well-developed analysis about epistemology/ontology, I don't think as a rule the 2nr needs to go for external case defense, at least if you can give examples of how aff authors have specific problems or biases. Wisconsin teams have proven to think that mindless tech can win you a permutation, this is not generally true--most neg args against one permutation work against all of them.

*I consider myself generally well-read on critical arguments, but that reading maybe stopped being so robust in like 2007 or 2008, and so I'm not as up-to-date on the more recent turns in that literature. I can observe some additional relevant tendencies: I often find myself frustrated in rounds that involve a lot of psychoanalytic arguments (I get the cap bad part of Zizek. That may be about it). I dislike the Nietzsche alternative viscerally. In each of these cases, if this is your only game, I am probably not a good judge for you. I will also explicitly note some critical arguments with which I am well acquainted: I’m fairly well read in Foucault, Heidegger, lots of feminisms, critical international relations business, cap bad, etc. Lots of experience now with Afro-pessimism, Orientalism, at least some entré into queer theory args. I still need someone to convince me that Bataille and Baudrilliard are more smart than confusing.

*I’m probably a decent judge for a T debate. Most of the theoretical issues are up in the air—competing interpretations vs. abuse as a standard, etc. If you concede a competing interpretations arg, though, be aware that you’ll need offense on your interp.

*I can enjoy a good theory debate, but if you actually want to win it you probably need to convince me early on in a debate that you are going to do something other than just read your block at full speed. i have a natural dislike towards theory debates that i see as unnecessary. I'm not the ideal judge if you *plan* on going for theory a lot, but again, i try to evaluate those debates fairly. I will note that I do not have a neg side bias when it comes to counterplan debates--be it issues of conditionality, fiat, or competition issues. Some people see that fact in and of itself as an aff side bias on those theoretical issues, but what it means is that i am more than willing to vote aff because a counterplan is cheating, if you win that debate.
*I have found that I am getting older and more dinosaur-like on counterplan theory: I think I have an aff bias on these issues: multiple counterplans, consult counterplans, and conditionality.

*Non-traditional affs: it seems that I am going to judge my share of clash-of-civs rounds, which is fine. I generally think that negative teams do not work hard enough to generate smart arguments against non-traditional affs, so I start with a slight lean against framework arguments, but a sophisticated execution of those debates are often successful. I will also say that aff teams that make efforts to meet some standard of topicality also will find me more forgiving than teams that do not; I think negs do deserve some degree of a starting point.

Decision-making Process:
*I believe my job as a critic is to evaluate a debate as it occurred, rather than retroactively applying my standards of what debate should look like to your round. I try as hard as I can to stay to this standard, but some intervention is inevitable. Read below in the “self-observed biases” section. I try to remain agnostic about the various frameworks for evaluating debates, so that means that if there is a difference in the round as to how I should evaluate it, you should propose your framework explicitly and defend it. My presumption is that debate should be an educational activity, and it would be hard to shake me of that idea, as I am an educator by trade. However, I am open to debates about what kinds of education debate should bring, and how it does so.

*My decisions are nearly always decided by a close review of the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR, with references to the negative block as necessary. I am not, however, a perfect flow, and you should be aware of that and flag important arguments as such. I believe a part of persuasion is correct emphasis.

*It is fairly uncommon for me to read evidence after a debate--use the evidence yourself, refer to warrants, etc. If you think you have good evidence, you need to show it off. The "in" thing to say is that I reward a team for good research, but the most important part of good research is understanding why your evidence is good, and exercising your ability to explain and use the evidence. I do not plan to do evidence comparison for anyone.

*As regards "offense/defense" distinctions: I understand the importance of offense, but I do not discount the art of defensive argumentation. The fact that the other team does not have a turn does not mean you are winning. I have probably evaluated the risk of a disad or other impact as zero (or close enough to not matter) more than the average judge.

*I generally speaking will not seriously consider any independent issue that is not in your final rebuttal for at least 2 minutes--I do not reward a refusal to put all eggs in one basket. This is particularly true for theory arguments. If you feel that a theoretical issue is strong enough to justify a vote, plan to spend the better part of your final rebuttal on it, or don't expect my ballot on it.

In Round Decorum:
*Not much here--but I absolutely cannot stand when debaters talk audibly during an opponent's speech. Increasingly it is hard for me to follow what a fast speaker is saying anyhow--when you're talking too, I am liable to get angry at you.
*I think most of the time you will tend to get better speaker points if you stand up when you speak. Also, pay attention to where your opponent is and where you are when you cross-ex--it is a speech. Cross-ex's where all the debaters are sitting across the room from one another and staring at their computers is not a good persuasive strategy.
*I will also likely get grumpy at you about your paperless crap, especially when it makes a debate round last 20 minutes longer than it should. Don't worry about that too much. Unless it gets out of hand. If you don't know the difference, watch me, and you'll be able to tell.

Paideia 2019

Michigan 2023

Currently Pursuing a Ph.D. in Philosophy at Emory University

Email: harrington.joshua33@gmail.com

TLDR:

Policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. If you believe both of these, you should pref me in the 1-25 percentile. If you believe only one of these, you should consider how much you disagree with the other then put me somewhere in the 25-50 percentile. If you disagree with both of these, consider preffing someone else. Any and all thoughts in this paradigm are malleable and determined by the debating done in a given round. My ideal tournament is one in which any judge from any program can fairly adjudicate any argument without any prior ideological commitments.

I fully believe that the role of the judge is to consider the arguments presented and do their best to render a decision that best reflects the round presented to them. Throughout my debate career I have seen judges allow personal bias and apathy render meaningless the hours of time and energy that debaters give to this activity that we all have limited time in. Therefore, I will do my best to flow all arguments made, listen to CX’s, render a decision, and give comments that I think will aid you in future debates. With that being said, this paradigm reflects my current thoughts on policy debate and how I render my decisions.

If at any point you read this paradigm and think I am referencing a specific ideological position in an attempt to cement a singular vision of debate, I am not. I find equal flaws and absurd arguments across the ideological spectrum and equally dislike most of the arguments, practices, and trends rewarded in this activity. I have felt this sentiment for a few years now. Despite this reality, the one truth I consistently return to is that I love debate. I love this activity and will do my best as a judge to make this activity a welcoming place to all argumentative styles and positions. If you have any questions or concerns, I encourage you to reach out via email or even come up to me at a tournament and introduce yourself. Far too many of us are strangers and fail to reach out, so know I am more than open to dialogue.

Background:

I am currently pursuing my Ph.D. in philosophy at Emory University and plan to continue coaching alongside. I debated for 8 total years and during that time, I was lucky enough to debate across a range of argumentative styles and strategies. I found value in all argumentative forms but have also developed my own argumentative preferences in doing so. I strongly prefer strategies that open oneself to deliberation and defend controversial positions. I believe the issue of clash and what kinds of education we produce are important ones to explore, as I continue to judge. I believe the difference between a good argument and a bad argument is often about packaging and impact calculus and often vote against teams that poorly articulate concepts and the implications of the arguments presented. Similarly, I often vote against arguments not because they are wrong, but because they have not been packaged in a manner that is responsive and/or implicated enough for me to vote on. Once again, any and all arguments are open for me, but if I cannot articulate the impact of an argument and its implications on the other arguments presented, I am very unlikely to vote on it.

Online Debate:

I encourage you to have face cams on, at least during speeches and CX but understand if you are not comfortable with that or just choose not to. I'm a pretty good flow overall, but if there is a tech issue or the speech becomes unclear, I'll do my best to let that be known.

Case/impact:

I will likely read your 1AC and be annoyed if you claim to do things and solve impacts not supported by your current 1AC construction. Many people claim the 2AR lies, but I believe the lies start as early as 1AC CX. This is not to say that new articulations, warrants, and impacts cannot be accessed throughout the process of debating, but I am annoyed by AFF inconsistency. I do not care what 1AC is read or what 2AR is given, just do your best to maintain consistency.

In terms of engagement with case, your negative strategy should implicate the case page in some way. When I say “implicate”, I mean that in the loosest of definitions possible. This can stem from going for terminal defense all the way to fully mooting the 1AC via framework. Remember, no matter what, at the end of the round, a negative ballot will likely have to answer the question, “what should I do with the 1AC?”

DA’s:

Read any and all of them as you please so long as it is substantiated by evidence. These debates often come down to impact calc and card quality. In case vs DA debates, I find myself often voting aff on try or die. Your impact calculus should anticipate that you are defending the status quo and do your best to overcome that.

CP’s:

I am fine with any counterplan so long as it has a solvency advocate, or as long as I can intuitively understand how the counterplan would function. I am working to become a better judge at in-depth counterplan competition debates, but for now err towards over explaining rather than under explaining. Judge kick seems to be good, however if I am judge kicking a counterplan, I am likely to vote on case outweighs unless sufficient case mitigation.

Theory:

I very much do not want to judge condo debates. I default to three being good, four being up for debate, and five or more being bad. The common rebuttal to this format is “number of condo doesn’t matter/it is about the practice/no clear difference between four and five”. I recognize these arguments even though I believe they are said in bad faith. This is an instance where technical execution can overcome ideology for me. However, in most theory debates (including condo), the aff needs to prove in-round abuse in order to persuade me. With theory arguments besides condo, I am likely to just reject the argument and not the team.

I care very little about negative contradictions at a theoretical level. Performative contradictions are not reasons you get to sever your reps, but they can be reasons that I ought to be skeptical of certain arguments.

Kritiks:

Any and all kritiks are viable options when I am in the back. I believe links should either be in the context of doing the plan, the assumptions around particular impacts, or the failures of a particular understanding the 1AC relies on. I find most one card kritiks incredibly unconvincing. I like kritiks that are not just kritiks of fiat and will give you a speaker points boost for developing your kritik beyond “fiat is bad”. I read and enjoy kritiks that defend a theory of power and apply that theory to the link debate; those were the kritiks that I read as a debater.

Answering Kritiks:

For answering the kritik, I am very good for many of the classical policy argumentative pushes that people use against common kritiks. That includes but is not limited to arguments such as: humanism good, psychoanalysis wrong, state inevitable/good/will crackdown, scenario analysis good etc. When a floating PIK/utopian alt is read, I am likely to be convinced by the permutation and a fairness push on framework. Otherwise, I would highly recommend going for a clash impact over fairness against most kritiks.

Defending your 1AC and implicating the kritik is the most effective and likely path to the ballot. I believe the FW (fairness) + extinction outweighs is a more than viable 2AR to give. That said, 75% of the time debaters do not articulate these arguments in a manner that is responsive to the negative’s kritik. I believe it is bad to only have extinction outweighs and fairness-centric framework in your arsenal because there are instances where clash is more responsive and debating the warrants of the kritik will increase your chances of the ballot. In addition, you should be willing to push NEG team on what they are saying. Pressing on the truth of a theory, the relevance of a link, and the viability of the alternative are all more than viable strategies and far more enjoyable to judge than the “two ships passing in the night” trend of Policy vs K debates we currently have.

K AFF’s:

K AFF’s are likely to be most successful in front of me when they take a stance on the resolution and a defend a theory of power that can be applied to the NEG’s offense. What a theory of power constitutes can be very broad, but I am likely to make you defend the implications and solvency of your 1AC. What it means to solve something likely depends upon your 1AC choice, but I must know what you are trying to do to know whether it is good, worthwhile, or even possible.

My three preferred 2NRs vs K AFFs were the Cap K, Topicality, and Afropessimism. I write this to demonstrate, I believe every AFF is answerable, and sometimes the best answer is Topicality.

Similar to the case section, I am most likely to vote NEG when NEG teams make arguments that meaningfully implicate the case page. I think presumption is a necessary tool that is often poorly deployed. I believe it can supplement most strategies and can be won in 1AC CX by a creative 2N who asks the right questions.

I enjoy topicality debates, both going for it and answering it. Fairness and clash are both impacts that should be explained more than you currently plan on. Most of these debates come down to who best articulates the role of the ballot and its ability to solve both sides’ offense. If you are AFF, I am likely to want an answer to the question, “what is the role for the negative”. Through smart defensive arguments, a counter interp, and/or a large defense of an impact turn, I can be easily convinced to never vote on topicality. On the opposite side, you should use fairness/clash to implicate case impacts and beat logical inconsistencies in most 2AC’s to framework. Different K AFF’s have different strategic strengths and weaknesses; different K AFF’s also produce different discussions and forms of clash (maybe). Recognizing the most strategic deployment of the 1AC in addition to your most strategic articulation of fairness, clash, tva, ssd, etc. will increase your chances of getting my ballot.

For K v K debates, I am increasingly conflicted on my beliefs of whether the AFF gets a perm and whether that perm requires a net benefit. I believe it is possible for 2N’s to craft competitive alternatives that disagree with core parts of the affirmative. At the same time, I recognize the potential fluidity of many K AFF’s and am thus sympathetic to different visions of competition. This analysis must be done and resolved otherwise I will abide by traditional rules of competition and consider whether the alt is mutually exclusive with the AFF. I very much dislike floating PIKs, but depending on the PIK and relevant offense, I can be convinced that PIKs in the 1NC can be good.

Procedurals/Ethics violations/RVI’s:

The only procedural I am likely to vote on is topicality. The vast majority of non-topicality procedurals that I have been exposed to are incredibly arbitrary and lose to a 2AR on “we meet”. If you find an 1AC you feel as though you cannot debate with a substantive strategy, I encourage you to find a topicality violation based in the resolution or find a way to out cheat your opponent.

Similarly, when issues of evidence become potential grounds for the rejection of the team, I am highly likely to strike the card and/or the argument rather than the team. Similar to the condo section, I do not particularly want to judge these debates and very rarely am certain enough that the practice should end the debate and/or be grounds for voting a team down.

Lastly, I am a very poor judge for strategies dependent upon out of round interactions. I believe the competitive aspects of debate makes the conversations incredibly unproductive and conversations outside of round are necessary (when possible) to resolve such disputes.

Misc:

My ideal debater combines the persuasion and ethos of Giorgio Rabbini and Natalie Robinson, the technical skill of Rafael Pierry and Elan Wilson the work ethic of DML, Kris Wallen, Don Pierce, Hana Bisevac, and Pranay Ippagunta, the judging abilities of Corey Fisher, Vida Chiri, Devane Murphy, Shree Awsare, and Taylor Brough and the attitudes of Nate Glancy, Jimin Park, Ariel Gabay, and Ben McGraw. If you are able to display any of these qualities to the level that these debaters have, you have set yourself up to thrive in this activity.

For circuit tournaments:I expect teams to disclose promptly after pairings come out. Don't show up to the room 1 minute before the round starts and then finally disclose the aff or past 2NRs (especially if it's not on the wiki). I consider this the same as not disclosing at all and thus am ok with your opponents running disclosure on you.

The brief rundown of whatever event I am judging this weekend is below, but here's the full breakdown of how I feel about various arguments as well as my paradigm for other events. I even used the google docs outline to save you time in finding what you need: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KwX4hdsnKCzHLYa5dMR_0IoJAkq4SKgy-N-Yud6o8iY/edit?usp=sharing

PGP: they/them

I don't care what you call me as long as you don't call me broke (jk, I am a teacher so you can also call me that ig)

Email chain: Yes, I do want to be on the email chain (saves time): learnthenouns[at]the-google-owned-one.

Head coach at Lincoln East (10-ish years), 7 years of debating in high school (LD, Policy and Congress) and college (NFA-LD and NPDA/NPTE Parli)

Overview for all events

• Debate is both educational and a game. I believe the education comes from ideas engaging with one another and students finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal beliefs and advocacies. Thus, I consider myself a games player as it is a necessary component of the educational experience.

• A major exception: I will not listen to you promote any kind of advocacy that says oppression good or structural violence denial (ie claiming anti-white racism is real). They are an auto-ballot against you regardless of whether your opponent points it out or not.

• I flow internal warrants and tags more often than author names so don’t rely on me knowing what “extend Smith #3 in 2k12” means in the grand scheme of the debate and, similarly, don’t power tag or plan to mumble your way through cards because I’m listening and will call you on it. I am more interested in the content of your arguments than the names of the people that you are citing.

• On that note, I want the speech doc so that I can check your evidence and appreciate analytics being included when the debate is online.

Delivery: I'm approaching 20 years in the game at this point so I've started to get more picky about delivery stuff, especially with speed.

• In-person: speed is fine in everything except congress. I watch NDT rounds for fun, so I can handle it. But I do expect clarity in all events. I will yell "clear" once or twice if you're mumbling, and after that I reduce speaks. Enunciation should be a baseline in debate, not a bonus.

• Online: if you are extremely fast, slow it down a little bit (but not a ton) when online, especially if you have a bad mic. The unfortunate reality is most people's set ups can't handle top policy speeds. On that note, I strongly encourage you to include analytics in the doc when online in case audio cuts out or there are other tech issues!
  

• Slow down a bit for your analytics and tags darn it. I am not a machine, I cannot flow your analytics when you're going 400wpm.

Policy

In super-brief (or T/L as the cool kids call it):

See below for in-depth on different arguments

• Great for: Ks; T; K affs in the direction of the topic; unique and well-warranted plan affs; soft left affs; framework; performance args; most things that deal with critical lit (especially love Deleuze tbh)

• Ok for: blippy/big stick plan text affs; K affs with zero topic links; DAs with strong links; valid procedurals (ie vagueness, condo); basic CP debates; Baudrillard

• I would rather not judge (but have definitely still voted for): CP debates that get heavily into CP theory; generic DAs with minimal links, frivolous theory (ie inherency procedural, arbitrary spec shells, etc); most speed ks (unless they are grounded in something like ableism); orientalist China bashing

• Various things I especially appreciate: clash, debating and extending warrants, in-depth case debate, impacting T properly, an organized flow, prompt pre-round disclosure and open sourcing, creative arguments, sending analytics in the doc when debating online

• Various things I especially dislike: rudeness, not kicking things properly, mumbling when speed reading, disorganized flows, debaters who show up late to rounds and then ask us to wait while they pre-flow, extending author names or tags instead of warrants and impacts

Other basics:

• I am mostly down for whatever, but I prefer in-depth debate over blippy extensions. I am ultimately a games player though, so you do you.

• I want teams to engage with each other's arguments (including T, framework, and case). Debating off scripted blocks for the whole round isn't really debating and sort of makes me wonder if we even needed to have the round.

• I will evaluate things however they are framed in the round. That said, if there is no explicit framing, then I usually default to believing that real-world impacts are of more importance than imaginary impacts. Real-world impacts can come from policymaking cases and T as much as K debates. However, if you frame it otherwise and win that framing then I will evaluate the round accordingly.

• Weighing your impacts and warranting your solvency throughout the whole round (not just the rebuttals) is a quick way to win my ballot. Otherwise, I vote off the flow/what I’m told to vote for.

Argument specifics:

Kritiks/K Affs/performance/ID tix/whatever:

I’m a good person to run your critical case in front of. I love K’s/critical/performance/id tix/new debate/most things nontraditional.

• I'm familiar with a lot of the lit and ran a lot of these arguments myself.

• I do not believe that the aff needs to act through the USFG to be topical and, in fact, engaging with the res in other ways (personal advocacy, genealogy, micropolitics, deconstruction etc) can be reasonably topical and often can provide better education and personal empowerment.

• For clarity, as long as you are engaging with a general premise or an interpretation of the resolution then I believe the aff can claim reasonable topicality.

• That being said, to be an effective advocate for these things in the real world, you have to be able to justify your method and forum, so framework/T are good neg strats and an important test of the aff.

• I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that if you are going to be expressly nontopical on the aff (as in advocating for something with no relation to the topic and zero attempts to engage the resolution), then you need to be prepared with a reason for not discussing the res.

Trad/policy-maker/stock issues debate:

• Most of the circuits I debated in have leaned much more traditional so I am extremely familiar with both how to win with and how to beat a topical aff strat.

• My top varsity team the last few years have tended to run trad as much or maybe more than critical, but historically I've coached more K teams.

• I'm totally down to judge a topical debate but you shouldn't assume that I already know the nuances of how a specific DA or CP works without a little explanation as our local circuit is K-heavy and I only recently started coaching more trad teams.

Framework and theory:

• I love: debate about the forum, method, role of the judge/ballot, and impact calc. Making the other team justify their method is almost always a good thing.

• I strongly dislike: generic fw, arbitrary spec shells, K's are cheating args, and most debate theory arguments that ask me to outright dismiss your opponent for some silly reason.

• Real talk, almost none of us are going to be future policymakers (meaning alternative ways of engaging the topic are valuable), and wiki disclosure/pre-round prep checks most abuse.

• In short, I want you to engage with your opponent's case, not be lazy by reading a shell that hasn't been updated since 2010.

• Of course, as with most things though, I will vote for it if you justify it and win the flow (you might be sensing a theme here....).

Topicality:

I L-O-V-E a good T debate. Here are a few specifics to keep in mind:

• By "good" I mean that the neg needs to have a full shell with a clear interp, violation, reasons to prefer/standards and voters.

• Conversely, a good aff response to T would include a we meet, a counter definition, standards and reasons why not to vote on T.

• Since T shells are almost totally analytic, I would also suggest slowing down a bit when reading the shell, especially the violations or we meets.

• I usually consider T to be an a priori issue though I am open to the aff weighing real-world impacts against the voters (kritikal affs, in particular, are good for this though moral imperative arguments work well too).

• Reasonability vs competing interps: absent any debate on the issue I tend to default to reasonability in a K round and competing-interps in a policy round. However, this is a 51/49 issue for me so I would encourage engaging in this debate.

• There does not need to be demonstrated in-round abuse (unless you provide an argument as to why I should) for me to vote on T but it does help, especially if you're kicking arguments.

• Aff RVI's on T are almost always silly. K's of T are ok though the aff should be prepared to resolve the issue of whether there is a topical version of the aff and why rejecting the argument and not the team does not solve the k.

• One caveat: in a round where the aff openly admits to not trying to defend the resolution, I would urge a bit more caution with T, especially of USFG, as I find the turns the aff can generate off of that to be fairly persuasive. See the sections on K's and framework for what I consider to be a more strategic procedural in these situations.

• This is mentioned above but applies here as well, please remember that I do not think an aff must roleplay as the USFG to be topical. Advocating for the resolution can (and should) take many forms. Most of us will never have a direct role in policymaking, but hopefully, most of us will take the opportunity to advocate our beliefs in other types of forums such as activism, academia, and community organizing. Thus, I do not buy that the only real topic-specific education comes from a USFG plan aff.

Counterplans:

• I like the idea of the CP debate but I'm honestly not well versed in it (I probably closed on a CP twice in 7 years of debate). My kids have been running them a lot more recently though so I am getting more competent at assessing them ????

• Basically, I understand the fundamentals quite well but will admit to lacking some knowledge of the deeper theoretical and 'techy' aspects of the CP.

• So feel free to run them but if you are going to get into super tech-heavy CP debate then be warned that you will need to explain things well or risk losing me.

Speed and delivery:

As mentioned above, fine in-person. Mostly fine online unless you are super fast. Also, I really want clarity when speaking even more than I care about speed.

Slow down for analytics and tags. Especially analytics on things like T, theory of framework. These are the most important things for me to get down, so be aware of your pacing when you get to these parts if you want me to flow them.

Pet peeve: speed=/=clear. "Speed" is for how fast you are going. "Clear" is for mumbling. I can handle pretty fast speeds, I can't handle a lack of clarity. I will usually give you one warning, two if I am feeling generous (or if you request it), and then will start docking speaks. I am also good with you going slow. Though since I can handle very fast speeds, I would suggest you give some impacted out reasons for going slow so as to avoid being spread out of the round.

LD

Argument ratings

• K debate (pomo or ID tix): 10 out of 10

• Performance: 10 out of 10

• T/theory (when run correctly): 8.5 out of 10

• LARP/plan-focus: 8 out of 10

• Phil (aka trad): 7 out of 10

• T/theory (when blipped out and poorly argued): 5 out of 10

• Tricks: 0 out of 10 (boooo boooooo!!!)

These are just preferences though. I have and will vote for anything (even tricks, unfortunately, but my threshold is extremely high)

Speed (for context, conversational is like a 3 or 4 out of 10)

• Speed in person: 8.5/10

• Speed online: 6 or 7/10 (depends on mic quality)

The most important specifics:

• (This has increasingly become an issue in LD so I am moving it up to the top) Mumbling through a bunch of cards with no clear breaks before tags or variance of pace is not good or effective. A lot of LDers I have seen don't seem to understand that speed should never come at the expense of clarity. I judge policy most weekends. I can handle speed. No one can understand your mumbling.

• That said, I generally feel that disclosure is good and spreading is fine (even an equalizer in some ways). However, there is a lot of debate to be had here (especially when topics like opacity and the surveillance of non-white debaters or ableism get raised), and I have voted for both sides of each issue multiple times.

• I consider myself a games player, so I primarily am looking to evaluate what 'wins out' in terms of argumentation in the debate.

• I love creativity and being intellectually engaged, so I’m a good person to run your Kritik/project/performance/non-topical aff/art case in front of. Of course, I still need you to make it an argument if you want me to vote for you (singing a song isn't an auto-win, especially if you sing it poorly), but otherwise, fire away.

• Strike me if you have to use tricks or similar bad strategies (i.e. blippy and arbitrary theory spikes/shells/tricks such as "aff only gets 2 contentions" or "aff auto wins for talking" or "neg doesn't get any arguments") to win rounds. They are not debating in any sense of the word, and I cannot think of any educational or competitive value that can be derived from promoting them. If you decide to ignore this, I will likely gut your speaks (ie a 26 or maybe lower).

• If you want to win a theory debate, warrant your arguments in every speech. Really, I guess that's true of all arguments, but it's most frequently a problem on theory. Don't just say "limits key to competitive equity, vote on fairness" and call it a day. I'm a T hack when it's run well, but most people don't like to take time to run it well.

• Beyond that, I like just about every style of LD (again, other than tricks). I have greatly enjoyed judging everything from hyper-traditional to extremely fast and critical. I don't see any type as being inherently 'superior' to the others, so do what you do and I'll listen, just justify it well.

• For your reference in terms of what I am most familiar with arguments wise, I coach a team that has typically run more critical and identity lit (po-mo, anti-blackness, Anzaldua, D&G, cap, fem, neolib, Judith Butler etc) and often plays around with what some might call "nontraditional strategies." Though we often run more traditional philosophy (typically Levinas, Kant, util, or Rawls) and plan-text style cases as topics warrant.

How I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

**Note: this is all assuming that no other debate happens to establish specific burdens or about the importance of any particular level of the debate. In other words, I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should.

In short:

ROB/ROJ/Pre-fiat Burdens > Procedurals (T/thoery) > Framing (value/crit) > Impacts

Not so short:

-First, the role of the ballot, the role of the judge, and the burdens of each side are up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I tend to believe that these are a priori considerations (though that is up for debate as well) and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

- Next, I will resolve any procedurals (i.e. topicality, theory shells, etc) that have been raised. I will typically give greater weight to in-depth, comparative analysis and well-developed arguments rather than tagline extensions/shells. If you're going to run one of these, it needs to actually be an argument, not just a sentence or two thrown in at the end of your case (again, no "tricks").

-Absent a ROTB/ROJ or procedural debate I next look to the value/crit/standard, so you should either A) clearly delineate a bright-line and reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's (not just the obnoxious 'mine comes first' debate please) or B) clearly show how your case/impacts/advocacy achieves your opponent's framework better (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I finally look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will always get preference over blippy extensions (you might be sensing a theme here).

-For a more detailed breakdown of how I judge certain arguments, please see "argument specifics" in my policy paradigm below. The only major difference is that I do think aff RVI's are semi-legit in LD because of time limits.

PF

Theory (since this will probably impact your strikes the most, I will start here)

In short, I think theory has an important role to play in PF as we develop clearer, nationwide norms for the event. When it's necessary and/or run well, I dig it.

I have sat through enough painful evidence exchanges and caught enough teams misrepresenting their evidence that I would prefer teams to have "cut cards" cases and exchange them by the start of their speech (preferably earlier). If one side elects not to do this, I am willing to vote on theory regarding evidence ethics (assuming it's argued and extended properly). Questions about this? Email me in advance (my email is up top).

To clarify/elaborate on the above: I am very much down for disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory in PF. Irl I think both are true and good arguments. If you don't want to disclose or you refuse to run cut card cases rather than paraphrased cases, you should strike me.

I am not quite as keen on other types of theory in PF, but given how quickly my attitude was changed on paraphrasing, I am very much open to having my mind changed.

Overview for PF

Generally speaking, I see PF as a more topic-centric policy round where the resolution acts as the plan text. This, of course, depends on the topic, but this view seems to generally provide for a consistent and fair means to evaluate the round.

Truth vs tech:

While my default in other events is tech over truth, I find that PF tends to lend itself to a balance of tech and truth due to the fact that teams are rarely able to respond to every argument on the flow. "Truth" to me is determined by warranting and explanation (so still tied to an extent to tech). As such, better-warranted arguments will get more weight over blippy or poorly explained arguments.

Speed:

I can handle pretty much any speed however, if you're going fast, your analysis better be more in-depth as a result. In other words, speed for depth is good, speed for breadth (ie more blippy arguments) is bad. A final word of caution on speed is that PFers often suck at proper speed reading in that they lack any semblance of clarity. So be clear if you go fast.

Other PF specifics:

I tend to prefer the final focus to be more focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story; and less focused on line-by-line. Though again, given my experience in LD and Policy, I can definitely handle line-by-line, just don't forget to warrant things out.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides and the judge. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense). I also reserve the right to start a team's prep time up if they are taking an excessively long time to share their stuff.

On that note, I will call for evidence and I appreciate it when teams help me know what to call for. I know that paraphrasing is the norm at this point but I do not love it as it leads to a lot of teams that excessively spin or outright lie about evidence. Tell me to call for it if it's junk evidence and I'll do so. I will apply the NSDA guidelines regarding paraphrasing when it is justified, so make sure you are familiar with those rules so that you can avoid doing it and know to call your opponents out when they slip up.

I hate bullying in crossfire. I dock speaker points for people that act like jerks.

(not sure this is still a thing anywhere but just in case....) The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet. In fact, I prefer they don't as it decreases clash and takes the only advantage they have from speaking first.

Bio (not sure anyone reads these but whatever): I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity (16 years coaching, 7 years competing). My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. As such, please read my feedback as me being invested in your success. Also, if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post-round questions as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged (just don't be a jerk please).

Nebraska only: I expect you to share your evidence and cases with your opponents and me. It can be paper or digital, but all parties participating in the debate need to have access to the evidence read in rounds. This is because NSDA requires it, because it promotes good evidence ethics in debate, and because hoarding evidence makes debate even more unfair for small programs who have fewer debaters and coaches. Not sure why we're still having this discussion in 2023.

To be clear, if you don't provide both sides with copies of your evidence and cases, then I will be open to your opponent making that an independent voting issue. I might just vote you down immediately if I feel it's especially egregious.Oh and I'll gut speaks for not sharing cases.

PFD addendum for NSDA 2024

I am incredibly concerned about the quality of the evidence read in debates and the lack of sharing of evidence read.

Teams who send evidence in a single document that they intend to read in their speech and quickly send an addendum document with all evidence selected mid speech will be rewarded greatly.

I will ask each team to send every piece of evidence read by both teams in ALL speeches.

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

Debate Coach - University of Michigan

Debate Coach - New Trier High School

Michigan State University '13

Brookfield Central High School '09

I would like to be on the email chain - my email address is valeriemcintosh1@gmail.com.

A few 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. This also includes forwarding the argument that death is good because suffering exists. I will not vote on it.
• 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 a very expressive judge. Look up at me every once in a while, you will probably be able to tell how I feel about your arguments.
• I don't think that arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates are at all relevant to my decision and I will not evaluate them. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.

Pet peeves

• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start
• Asking if I am ready or saying you'll start if there are no objections, etc. in in-person debates - we're all in the same room, you can tell if we're ready!
• 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
• Disappearing after the round

Online debate: My camera will always be on during the debate unless I have stepped away from my computer during prep or while deciding so you should always assume that if my camera is off, I am not there. I added this note because I've had people start speeches without me there.

Ethics: 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 zero speaker points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points.
*NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me.

Organization: I would strongly prefer that if you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn that it go on its own page - its super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders. Ditto to reading advantage CPs on case - put it on its own sheet, please!

Cross-x: Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions. If you don't start the timer before you start asking those questions, I will take whatever time I estimate you took to ask questions before the timer was started out of your prep. 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.

Translated evidence: I am extremely skeptical of evidence translated by a debater or coach with a vested interest in that evidence being used in a debate. Lots of words or phrases have multiple meanings or potential translations and debaters/coaches have an incentive to choose the ones that make the most debate-friendly argument even if that's a stretch of what is in the original text. It is also completely impossible to verify if words or text was left out, if it is a strawperson, if it is cut out of context, etc. I won't immediately reject it on my own but I would say that I am very amenable to arguments that I should.

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. This can also be accomplished by reading those lines in cross-x and then referencing them in a speech or just making analytics about their card(s) in your speech and then providing a rehighlighting to explain it.

Topicality: I enjoy judging topicality debates when they are in-depth and nuanced. Limits are an an important question but not the only important question - your limit should be tied to a particular piece of neg ground or a particular type of aff that would be excluded. I often find myself to be more aff leaning than neg leaning in T debates because I am often persuaded by the argument that negative interpretations are arbitrary or not based in predictable literature.

5 second ASPEC shells/the like that are not a complete argument are mostly 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: I would say that I generally 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, but obviously am more than willing to vote for them if they are debated better by the negative.

I think that CPs should have to be policy actions. I think this is most fair and reciprocal with what the affirmative does. I think that fiating indefinite personal decisions or actions/non-actions by policymakers that are not enshrined in policy is an unfair abuse of fiat that I do not think the negative should get access to. The CP that has the US declare it will not go to war with China would be theoretically legitimate but the CP to have the president personally decide not to go to war with China would not be. Similarly CPs that fiat a concept or endgoal rather than a policy would also fall under this.

It is the burden of the neg to prove the CP solves rather than the burden of the aff to prove it doesn't. Unless the neg makes an attempt to explain how/why the CP solves (by reading ev, by referencing 1AC ev, by explaining how the CP solves analytically), my assumption is that it doesn’t and it isn’t the aff’s burden to prove it doesn’t. The burden for the neg isn’t that high but I think neg teams are getting away with egregious lack of CP explanation and judges too often put the burden on the aff to prove the CP doesn’t solve rather than the neg to prove it does.

Disads: Uniqueness is a thing that matters for every level of the DA. I am not very sympathetic to politics theory arguments (except in the case of things like rider disads, which I might ban from debate if I got the choice to ban one argument and think are certainly illegitimate misinterpretations of fiat) and am unlikely to ever vote on them unless they're dropped and even then would be hard pressed. I'm incredibly knowledgeable about politics and enjoy it a lot when debated well but really dislike seeing it debated poorly.

Theory: Conditionality is often good. It can be not. Conditionality is the ONLY argument I think is a reason to reject the team, every other argument I think is a reason to reject the argument alone. 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?

Kritiks: I've gotten simultaneously more versed in critical literature and much worse for the kritik as a judge over the last few years. Take from that what you will.

Your K should ideally be a reason why the aff is bad, not just why the status quo is bad. If not, you're better off with it primarily being a framework argument.

Yes the aff gets a perm, no it doesn't need a net benefit.

Affs without a plan: I generally go into debates believing that the aff should defend a hypothetical policy enacted by the United States federal government. I think debate is a research game and I struggle with the idea that the ballot can do anything to remedy the impacts that many of these affs describe.

I certainly don't consider myself immovable on that question and my decision will be governed by what happens in any given debate; that being said, I don't like when judges pretend to be fully open to any argument in order to hide their true thoughts and feelings about them and so I would prefer to be honest that these are my predispositions about debate, which, while not determinate of how I judge debates, certainly informs and affects it.

I would describe myself as a good judge for T-USFG against affs that do not read a plan. I find impacts about debatability, clash, iterative testing and fairness to be very persuasive. I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I am not very 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 generally 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 roleplaying.

I am uncomfortable making decisions in debates where people have posited that their survival hinges on my ballot.

Misc procedural things:

1. He/him/his; "DML">"Dustin">>>"judge">>>>>>>>>>"Mr. Meyers-Levy"

2. Debated at Edina HS in Minnesota from 2008-2012, at the University of Michigan from 2012-2017, and currently coach at Michigan and Glenbrook North

3. Please add me to the email chain: dustml[at]umich[dot]edu. College debaters only: please also add debatedocs[at]umich[dot]edu (note that this is not the same as the community debatedocs listerv).

4. Nothing here set in stone debate is up to the debaters go for what you want to blah blah blah an argument is a claim and a warrant don't clip cards

5. Speaks usually range from 28.5-29.5. Below 28.5 and there are some notable deficiencies, above 29.5 you're going above and beyond to wow me. I don't really try to compare different debaters across different rounds to give points; I assign them based on a round-by-round basis. I wish I could give ties more often and will do so if the tournament allows. If you ask me for a 30 you'll probably get a 27.

6. If you're breaking something new, you'll send it out before your speech, not after the speech ends or as it's read or whatever. If you don't want to comply with that, your points are capped at 27. If you're so worried that giving the neg team 9 extra minutes to look at your new aff will tip the odds against you, it's probably not good enough to win anyway.

7. You will time your own speeches and prep time. I will be so grumpy if I have to keep track of time for you.

8. Each person gives one constructive and one rebuttal. The first person who speaks is the only person I flow (I can make an exception for performances in 1ACs/1NCs). I don’t flow prompting until and unless the assigned speaker says the words that their partner is prompting. Absolutely no audience participation. If you need some part of this clarified, I’m probably not the judge for you.

9. I am a mandatory reporter and an employee of both a public university and a public high school. I am not interested in judging debates that may make either of those facts relevant.

10. If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

11. Online debates: If my camera's off, I'm not listening. Get active confirmation before you start speaking, don't ask "is anyone not ready" or say "stop me if you're not ready," especially if you aren't actually listening to/looking at the other participants before you check. If you start speaking and I'm not ready or there, expect abysmal speaker points.

TOC notes:

I cannot express just how bad I am at economics. It is my kryptonite. I am an extremely unreliable judge for any debate that involves treating anything more complicated than the supply-and-demand graph as a given. What's a bond? No idea. Keynes? Never heard of him. Gini coefficient? Sounds like a bad coffee shop. I will be lost in any debate that is more complicated than your freshman year econ class (I'm talking pre-AP) without a lot of explanation. Conversely, it will be much easier to impress me by walking me through your arguments and breaking them down as simply as you possibly can, telling me what it means when your evidence references basically any economic concept, etc. More explanation can only help. This also means you can probably convince me of just about anything if you make it simple enough and line it up with what your evidence says.

Good judge for:

• Process counterplans that are topic-specific, especially versus new affs.
• Presumption arguments against affs without a plan. I prefer depth over breadth--I'm more likely to vote for one well-developed presumption argument that sets up a clear burden for the aff than I am three or four "vote neg on presumption" one-liners scattered across the flow without a warrant.
• K affs that explicitly redefine what being "topical" means, especially when paired with reasonability arguments about what I should choose to understand as a "reasonable" affirmation of the topic. I think affs should be topical, but I'm open to arguments about why being "topical" doesn'tneed to be based in definitions.
• Ks with developed alternatives that you're willing to defend the details of. I'm an easier sell on Ks that let the aff weigh the plan and give the neg some leeway on what they get to defend with regards to the alt than "you link you lose"-adjacent framework pushes.

Not a fantastic judge for:

• Complicated econ DAs. I'm very sorry. While you were studying the markets, I studied the blade (by which I mean Deleuze).
• 1ACs/1NCs that are largely opaque or obfuscatory, especially when the team in question is unwilling to clarify in cross-x. If you aren't willing to answer basic clarification questions about your argument from an opponent who isn't following, strike me.
• Neg framework blocks that don't change based on the aff. I think framework is best deployed as an internal link turn to the aff's method and appreciate when neg teams use the aff's language/phrasing to explain that. When that's not happening, I think it's a lot easier for the aff to characterize the neg's arguments as exclusive.
• Arguments about anything other than the things that both teams say during the span of the round that I'm judging. If you can connect some external thing to an argument that your opponent is making, that's fair game. If you want to win (or your opponents to lose) based purely on that external thing in a vacuum, you may want to focus on the other judges on the panel.
• Fiat Ks.

Top-level:

When making my decisions, I seek to answer four questions:

1. At what scale should I evaluate impacts, or how do I determine which impact outweighs the others?

2. What is necessary to address those impacts?

3. At what point have those impacts been sufficiently addressed?

4. How certain am I about either side’s answers to the previous three questions?

I don’t expect debaters to answer these questions explicitly or in order, but I do find myself voting for debaters who use that phrasing and these concepts (necessity, sufficiency, certainty, etc) as part of their judge instruction a disproportionate amount. I try to start every RFD with a sentence-ish-long summary of my decision (e.g. "I voted affirmative because I am certain that their impacts are likely without the plan and unlikely with it, which outweighs an uncertain risk of the impacts to the DA even if I am certain about the link"); you may benefit from setting up a sentence or two along those lines for me.

Intervention on my part is inevitable, but I’d like to minimize it if possible and equalize it if not. The way I try to do so is by making an effort to quote or paraphrase the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR in my RFD as much as possible. This means I find myself often voting for teams who a) minimize the amount of debate jargon they use, b) explicitly instruct me what I need in order to be certain that an argument is true, and c) don’t repeat themselves or reread parts of earlier speeches. (The notable exception to c) is quoting your evidence—I appreciate teams who tell me what to look for in their cards, as I’d rather not read evidence if I don’t have to.) I would rather default to new 2AR contextualization of arguments than reject new 2AR explanation and figure out how to evaluate/compare arguments on my own, especially if the 2AR contextualization lines up with how I understand the debate otherwise.

I flow on my computer and I flow straight down. I appreciate debaters who debate in a way that makes that easy to do (clean line-by-line, numbering/subpointing, etc). I’ll make as much room as you want me to for an overview, but I won’t flow it on a separate sheet unless you say pretty please. If it’s not obvious to me at that point why it’s on a separate sheet, you’ll probably lose points.

Consider going a little bit slower. I prefer voting on arguments that I am certain about, and it is much easier to be certain about an argument when I know that I have written down everything that you’ve said.

Presumption always initially goes negative because the affirmative always has the burden of proof. If the affirmative has met their burden of proof against the status quo, and the negative has not met their burden of rejoinder, I vote affirmative.

I am "truth over tech." I will not vote for something if I cannot explain why it is a reason that one side or the other has done the better debating, even if it is technically conceded by the other team. Obviously, this is not to say that technical concessions do not matter--they're probably the most important part of my decisionmaking process! However, not all technical concessions matter, and the reasons that some technical concessions matter might not be apparent to me. A dropped argument is true, but non-dropped arguments can also be true, and I need you to contextualize how to evaluate and compare those truths.

I appreciate well-thought-out perms with a brief summary of its function/net beneficiality in the 2AC. I get frustrated by teams who shotgun the same four perms on every page, especially when those perms are essentially the same argument (e.g. “perm do both” and “perm do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt”) or when the perm is obviously nonsensical (e.g. “perm do the counterplan” against an advantage counterplan that doesn’t try to fiat the aff or against a uniqueness counterplan that bans the plan).

I appreciate when teams read rehighlightings and not insert them, unless you’re rehighlighting a couple words. You will lose speaker points for inserting a bunch of rehighlightings, and I’ll happily ignore them if instructed to by the other team.

I prefer to judge engagement over avoidance. I would rather you beat your opponent at their best than trick them into dropping something. If your plan for victory involves hiding ASPEC in a T shell, or deleting your conditionality block from the 2AC in hopes that they miss it, or using a bunch of buzzwords that you think the other team won't understand but I will, I will not be happy.

I generally assume good faith on the part of debaters and I'm very reticent to ignore the rest of the debate/arguments being made (especially when not explicitly and extensively instructed to) in order to punish a team for what's often an honest mistake. I am much more willing to vote on these arguments as links/examples of links. Obviously, there are exceptions to this for egregious and/or intentionally problematic behavior, but if your strategy revolves around asking me to vote against a team based on unhighlighted/un-underlined parts of cards, or "gotcha" moments in cross-x, you may want to change your strategy for me.

K affs:

1. Debate is indisputably a game to some degree or another, and it can be other things besides that. It indisputably influences debaters' thought processes and subjectivities to some extent; it is also indisputably not the only influence on those things. I like when teams split the difference and account for debate’s inevitably competitive features rather than asserting it is only one thing or another.

2. I think I am better for K affs than I have been in the past. I am not worse for framework, but I am worse for the amount of work that people seem to do when preparing to go for framework. I am getting really bored by neg teams who recycle blocks without updating them in the context of the round and don’t make an effort to talk about the aff. I think the neg needs to say more than just “the aff’s method is better with a well-prepared opponent” or “non-competitive venues solve the aff’s offense” to meaningfully mitigate the aff's offense. If you are going for framework in front of me, you may want to replace those kinds of quotes in your blocks with specific explanations that reference what the aff says in speeches and cards.

3. I prefer clash impacts to fairness impacts. I vote negative often when aff teams lack explanation for why someone should say "no" to the aff. I find that fairness strategies suffer when the aff pushes on the ballot’s ability to “solve” them; I would rather use my ballot to encourage the aff to argue differently rather than to punish them retroactively. I think fairness-centric framework strategies are vulnerable to aff teams impact turning the neg’s interpretation (conversely, I think counter-interpretation strategies are weak against fairness impacts).

4. I don't think I've ever voted on "if the 1AC couldn't be tested you should presume everything they've said is false"/"don't weigh the aff because we couldn't answer it," and I don't think I ever will.

5. I think non-framework strategies live and die at the level of competition and solvency. When aff teams invest time in unpacking permutations and solvency deficits, and the neg doesn’t advance a theory of competition beyond “no perms in a method debate” (whatever that means), I usually vote aff. When the aff undercovers the perm and/or the alt, I have a high threshold for new explanation and usually think that the 2NR should be the non-framework strategy.

6. I do not care whether or not fiat has a resolutional basis.

Ks on the neg/being aff vs the K:

I am getting really bored by "stat check" affs that respond to every K by brute-forcing a heg or econ impact and reading the same "extinction outweighs, util, consequentialism, nuke war hurts marginalized people too" blocks/cards every debate. That's not to say that these affs are non-viable in front of me, but it is to say that I've often seen teams reading these big-stick affs in ways that seem designed to avoid engaging the substance of the K. If this is your strategy, you should talk about the alternative more, and have a defense of fiat that is not just theoretical.

I care most about link uniqueness and alt solvency. When I vote aff, it's because a) the aff gets access to their impacts, b) those impacts outweigh/turn the K, c) the K links are largely non-unique, and/or d) the neg doesn't have a well-developed alt push. Neg teams that push back on these issues--by a) having well-developed and unique links and impacts with substantive impact calculus in the block and 2NR, including unique turns case args (not just that the plan doesn't solve, but that it actually makes the aff's own impacts more likely), b) having a vision for what the world of the alt looks like that's defensible and ostensibly solves their impacts even if the aff wins a risk of theirs (case defense that's congruent with the K helps), and/or c) has a heavy push on framework that tells me what the alt does/doesn't need to solve--have a higher chance of getting my ballot. Some more specific notes:

1. Upfront, I'm not a huge fan of "post-/non-/more-than/humanism"-style Ks. I find myself more persuaded by most defenses/critical rehabilitations of humanism than I do by critiques of humanism that attempt to reject the category altogether. You can try your best to change my mind, but it may be an uphill battle; this applies far more to high theory/postmodern Ks of humanism (which, full disclosure, I would really rather not hear) than it does to structuralist/identity-based Ks of humanism, though I find myself more persuaded by "new humanist" style arguments a la Fanon, Wynter, etc than full-on rejections of humanism.

2. There's a new trend of Ks about debt, debt imperialism, etc. I may not be the best judge for these arguments, simply because of my difficulty with understanding economics on its own terms, let alone in the context of a K. It's not for lack of trying to understand or familiarize myself, I just have tremendous difficulty understanding even basic economic concepts at a fundamental level, and this is seriously amplified when those concepts are being analyzed by relatively complex critical theory. This isn't to say these arguments are unwinnable in front of me (I've voted for them this year and in past years), but you may want to consider something else and/or investing a really large amount of time in explaining the fundamentals of your arguments to me.

3. I also don't really get all these new Ks about quantum physics in IR and stuff. Again, it's me, not you. I was an English major; every time I try to read these articles I get a headache. I'm interested, I promise, and if you can explain it to me I'll be very appreciative! But for transparency's sake, I think it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to both explain the argument to me in a way that I can comprehend AND invest the time necessary to win the debate in your 36 collective minutes of speaking time.

4. I'm quite interested in emerging genres of critical legal theory. I think I would be a good judge for Ks that defend concrete changes to jurisprudence and are willing to debate out the implications of that.

5. I think that others should not suffer, that biological death is bad, and that meaning-making and contingent agreement on contextual truths are possible, inevitable, and desirable. If your K disagrees with any of these fundamental premises, I am a bad judge for it.

6. I don't get Ks of linear time. I get Ks of whitewashing, progress narratives, etc. I get the argument that historical events influence the present, and that events in the present can reshape our understanding of the past. I get that some causes have complex effects that aren't immediately recognizable to us and may not be recognizable on any human scale. I just don't get how any of those things are mutually exclusive with, and indeed how they don't also rely on, some understanding of linear time/causality. I think this is because I have a very particular understanding of what "linear time" means/refers to, which is to say that it's hard for me to disassociate that phrase with the basic concept of cause/effect and the progression of time in a measurable, linear fashion. This isn't as firm of a belief as #5; I can certainly imagine one of these args clicking with me eventually. This is just to say that the burden of explanation is much higher and you would likely be better served going for more plan-specific link arguments or maybe just using different terminology/including a brief explanation as to why you're not disagreeing with the basic premise that causes have effects, even if those effects aren't immediately apparent. If you are disagreeing with that premise, you should probably strike me, as it will require far longer than two hours for me to comprehend your argument, let alone agree with it.

7. "Philosophical competition" is not a winning interpretation in front of me. I don't know what it means and no one has ever explained it to me in a coherent and non-arbitrary way.

8. There's a difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism. I'm open to critiques of the former; I have an extremely high burden for critiques of the latter. I'm not sure I can think of a K of consequentialism that I've judged that didn't seem to link to itself to some degree or another.

Policy debates:

1. 95% of my work in college is K-focused, and the other 5% is mostly spot updates. I have done very little policy-focused research in the preseason.

For high school, I led a lab this summer, but didn't retain a ton of topic info and have done exclusively K-focused work since the camp ended. I probably know less than you do about economics.

2. “Link controls uniqueness”/“uniqueness controls the link” arguments will get you far with me. I often find myself wishing that one side or the other had made that argument, because my RFDs often include some variant of it regardless.

3. Apparently T against policy affs is no longer in style. Fortunately, I have a terrible sense of style. In general, I think I'm better for the neg for T than (I guess) a lot of judges; reading through some judge philosophies I find a lot of people who say they don't like judging T or don't think T debates are good, and I strongly disagree with that claim. I'm a 2N at heart, so when it comes down to brass tacks I really don't care about many T impacts/standards except for neg ground (though I can obviously be persuaded otherwise). I care far more about the debates that an interpretation facilitates than I do about the interpretation's source in the abstract--do explanation as to why source quality/predictability influences the quality of debates under the relevant interpretation.

4. I think judge kick makes intuitive sense, but I won't do it unless I'm told to. That said, I also think I have a lower threshold for what constitutes the neg "telling me to" than most. There are some phrases that signify to me that I can default to the status quo by my own choosing; these include, but aren't necessarily limited to, "the status quo is always a logical policy option" and/or "counter-interp: the neg gets X conditional options and the status quo."

5. I enjoy counterplans that compete on resolutional terms quite a bit; I'd rather judge those than counterplans that compete on "should," "substantial," etc.

6. Here are some aff theory arguments that I could be persuaded on pretty easily given a substantive time investment:

--Counterplans should have a solvency advocate ideally matching the specificity of the aff's, but at least with a normative claim about what should happen.

--Multi-actor fiat bad--you can fiat different parts of the USFG do things, and international fiat is defensible, but fiating the federal government and the states, or the US and other countries, is a no-no. (Fiating all fifty states is debatably acceptable, but fiating some permutation of states seems iffy to me.)

--No negative fiat, but not the meme--counterplans should take a positive action, and shouldn't fiat a negative action. It's the distinction between "the USFG should not start a war against Russia" and "the USFG should ban initiation of war against Russia."

--Test case fiat? Having osmosed a rudimentary bit of constitutional law via friends and family in law school, it seems like debate's conception of how the Supreme Court works is... suspect. Not really sure what the implications of that are for the aff or the neg, but I'm pretty sure that most court CPs/mechanisms would get actual lawyers disbarred.

--“…large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.” -Kevin "Kevin 'Paul Blart Mall Cop' James" James Hirn

Current Director of Debate at the University of Northern Iowa #GoPanthers!

high school = Kansas 2012-2016 (Policy and LD)

undergrad = Emporia State 2016-2020 (Policy)

grad = Kansas State 2020-2022 (Policy Coach)

edited for the youth

Updated 4/18/24

Policy Debate

Yes, put me on the email chain.Squiddoesdebate@gmail.com

Virtual Debates --- Do a sound check before you start your speech. Simply ask if we can all hear you. I will not dock speaks because of audio issues, however, we will do everything we can to fix the audio issue before we proceed.

SEND YOUR ANALYTICS - if you want me to flow every word, it would behove you to send me every word you have typed. I am not the only one who uses typed analytics. Don't exclude folks from being able to fully participate just because you don't want to share your analytics.

The first thirty seconds of the last rebuttal for each side should be what they expect my RFD should be. I like being lazy and I love it when you not only tell me how I need to vote, but also provide deep explanations and extensive warrants for why the debate has ended in such a way to where I have no other choice to vote that way.My decision is most influenced by the last two rebuttals than any other speech. I actively flow the entire debate, but the majority of my attention when considering my decision comes down to a flow-based comparison of the last rebuttals. If you plan to bounce from one page to the next in the 2NR/2AR, then please do cross-applications and choose one page to stay on. That will help both of us.

I think debate should be an activity to have discussions. Sometimes these discussions are fun, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they are obvious and clear, sometimes they are not. Sometimes that's the point. Regardless, have a discussion and I will listen to it.

I don't like to read evidence after debates. That being said, I will if I have to. If you can make the argument without the evidence, feel free to do so. If I yell "clear", don't trip, just articulate.--- If I call for evidence or otherwise find myself needing to read evidence, it probably means you did not do a good enough job of explaining the argument and rather relied on author extensions. Please avoid this.

Your speaks start at a 30. Wherever they go from there are up to you. Things that I will drop speaks for include clearly not explaining/engaging the arguments in the round (without a justification for doing so), not explaining or answering CX questions, not articulating more after I clear you. Things that will improve your speaks include being fast, being efficient with your words, being clear while reading evidence, demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of your args by being off your blocks or schooling someone in cross-x, etc. If I significantly hurt your speaks, I will let you know why. Otherwise, you start at 30 and I've only had to go below 26 a handful of times.

my range is roughly 28.7-29.5 if you are curious for open and higher for Novice becauseI love novice debate

Prep time, cross-x, in-between-speeches chats, I'll be listening. All that means- be attentive to what's happening beyond the speeches. If you are making arguments during these times, be sure to make application arguments in the speech times. That's not just a judge preference, it's often devastating.

I like kritikal/performative debate. I did traditional/policy-styled debate. I prefer the previous but won't rule out the latter.

this is less true as I judge more and more high school debate but it is still true for college debate.

General Tips;

have fun

slow down when reading the theory / analytics / interps

don't assume I know everything, I know nothing in the grand scheme of things

don't be rude unless you're sure of it

Ask me more if you want to know. Email me. I am down to chat more about my decisions in email if you are willing.

LD

• theory is wild. i don't know as much about it as you think I do
• tell me how to evaluate things, especially in the later speeches because new things are read in every speech and its wild and new to me. tell me what to do.
• I love the k's that are in this activity, keep that up.

Congress

I reward clash. If you respond to your opponents in a fluent, coherent manner, you will get high points from me.

I am not the most knowledgeable on the procedures of Congress so I don't know what tricks of the game to value over others. But I'm an excellent public speaking and argumentation coach/professor so I mostly give points based off of the speeches than the politics of the game - i.e. blocking others from speaking, switching/flipping, etc.
For P.O.'s --- I reward efficiency and care. I feel like some P.O.'s take things super seriously in order to be efficient but they come off as cold and unwelcoming in the process. P.O.'s who can strike a balance between the two get the most points from me. I don't keep track of precedence so you gotta be on top of that. I don't time speeches, that's on you as well. I just vibe and look for clash.

About me:

Hi! My name is Teddy and I am the JV/Varsity coach for Tartan High School & Head Coach for John Glenn Middle School! I've been coaching Policy in some capacity for the last 3.5 years. I've also coached/judged PF, LD, & various speech events. I debated for Farmington for 2 years (Rosemount for 1) and the University of Minnesota for 3 years.

Pronouns: He/They | Email: tmunson.debate@gmail.com

Topics debated: Arms Sales, CJR, Anti-trust, Legal Personhood, & Nukes

Topics coached: Water, NATO, Fiscal Redistro, & IPR

Paradigm:

I think that debate is probably a game that tests policy options designed to resolve problems outlined by the resolution/1AC--the AFF should identify an issue, propose a solution, and then prove that that solution resolves the issues identified. The burden of the NEG is only to test the AFFs proposal.

I generally default to tech over truth / whoever I think did the better debating (as opposed to policy-making), but can be persuaded to adopt a role of the judge/ballot that prioritizes truth. I think that education can potentially spill over and that discussion rounds are good.

I prefer when links are unique or specific to the 1AC/plan. I don't think you have to win the alt to win the K. I am probably not the best judge for theory debates or high theory Ks. Framework & theory arguments framed around education are particularly convincing to me. Rhetoric matters and has an immediate impact.

Additional notes:

If your position requires a trigger warning, don't read it in front of me. Send out long analytic blocks if you're going to spread them--otherwise you're relying on my ears alone to flow that (which is not to your benefit). I think ridiculous tech/AI impacts are really entertaining (3-D printed WMDs <3).

Hi :)

General Info:

-I use she/her pronouns

-I want to be on the email chain ( email is delanie.n0214@gmail.com)

-I debated for Millard North High School 2018-2021, I ran both policy and kritical arguments, I have a slightly more than a basic understanding of Bataille, Puar, Preciado, Derrida, most cap arguments, and set col

-I study political science at UNL and currently coach policy at Millard North

- I don't care if you sit, stand, walk, or look at the wall when you speak

- Please be kind.

- if I am judging your LD round- I am fine with any kind of debate- LARP or otherwise- I'll listen to whatever you read in front of me

- if I am judging your PF round- I think PF is generally way underdeveloped in argumentation, that being said, please PLEASE have substantive clash in your rounds, especially in relation to evidence

TLDR:

-Read what you like, debate well and respectfully

My preferences:

- I have an extremely high burden for evidence, if you do not have a warranted piece of evidence attached to your argument at the end of the round and your opponent does- I will default to the evidence every single time. this means you need to extend your evidence well- explain your evidence and contextualize it- you can read as many cards as you'd like but if the text of the card doesn't say what you're saying it does I will have trouble buying your argument.

-Tech > truth almost always

-Do not assume I will read your evidence unless you tell me to and why (if you have a fantastic piece of evidence that answers every single argument your opponent is making, tell me how. Don't just tell me to extend it.)

-PLEASE extend author names when you extend a card (not only author name, but please put it in there) but if I don't know what card you're referencing (especially if you have multiple cards that basically say the same thing), I can't evaluate it, and tend to buy responses when it is answered by your opponent.

-POLICY AFF: If you do not garner solvency or do anything due to your case ( performance, etc.), it will be hard for me to vote for you. Defend your solvency or prove you do something.

-I love Kritical arguments, but I need an extremely clear path to solvency to buy your argument.

- Tagteam cross ex is fine

- I frequently give advice for future arguments in my RFD. If you do not want that, let me know, I will not be offended.

- I will and have (more frequently than I would like) vote(d) neg on presumption,at the end of the round, if I have no reason to believe that the affirmative does anything other than the squo ( or worse), I will vote on presumption.

- don't steal prep; emailing/flashing is not prep

-condo is not my fav, but I won't outright reject it.

-I love a good theory argument; you need to flesh out the impact.

-T is a fun and good time, but I need the impact of a nontopical case.

- Speed is fine, read as fast as you want, i'll clear you

-DisAds: I need specific links, but I'm willing to vote on a link of omission if I'm given a reason to.

-Debate is a game, but I don't think cheaters should always lose. Always following the rules of debate takes away the fun. Tell me why cheaters should lose.

-Trigger warnings and generally not okay behavior: if you have a case that involves sensitive material in any form, you should add a trigger warning. If you choose to add a trigger warning, you need another option for a case if the material triggers someone. If you fail to provide another option, you will concede the round. I will not allow you to make this space unsafe for anyone. That being said, if you misgender someone and/or are racist/ sexist/ homophobic /transphobic /general bigotry, I will stop the round, vote you down, and tank your speaks. Quite frankly, I'm tired of extremely rude behavior being allowed in debate, and for debaters to have to fight to be treated with kindness and empathy, I will not submit to the current narrative.

Speaker points:

I generally think speaker points are a terrible way of determining success; my rules are:

30 - I think you should win this tournament

29-29.9- little to no criticism

28-28.9- few strategic issues

27-27.9- more than a few issues or multiple critical errors

26 or lower- you owe someone an apology

I default to 28 for the loser and 28.5 for the winner unless I feel compelled to think about it harder.

Bottom line:

-Do whatever you're comfortable with and do it well. If you don't make an effort to get better, you're wasting everyone's time

she/her

minneapolis south '22

dartmouth '26

annabelledebate@gmail.com

Topic specific:

I do not know anything about this topic! You will have to explain things a bit more than you would like to if I'm judging you at a camp tournament.

I will not evaluate out of round anything - I'm not here to pass moral judgment on the character of any debater.

Top level notes:

I debated for four years at Minneapolis South - policy on the aff and a mix of policy and critical on the negative. I was a 2N through junior year and a 2A senior year. Speed is fine.

T stuff:

I love a good T debate - my favorite T impacts will always and forever be predictability and precision - that being said I will vote on anything if debated well.

Counterplans:

Counterplan/DA debates are my favorite - I think I’m both more willing to vote on perms and more willing to vote on internal net benefits than the average judge so take that how you will

Process counterplans annoy me! I will vote on them but I'll be annoyed about it

Advantage counterplans are awesome - big fan of those debates

DAs:

Politics makes me want to scream but I recognize that it's not your fault - you're going to have to do a lot of explaining about why this specific policy messes up PC or whatever though because this DA probably makes no sense and I don't want to do the work for you

Aff specific DAs are way more fun for me to judge than anything else - always my preference if you have the option

Ks:

I'll completely resolve framework before deciding the rest of the debate.

Contextualize your links to the aff!!! Pull lines, reference specific aff mechanisms, etc...

Every link should have an impact and should be solved by the alternative

Not super well versed in k lit but will do my best

Theory:

I like theory debates - I wouldn't say I'm particularly biased either direction - I'll try to evaluate what happens in the round

ASPEC is dumb - I'm willing to vote on it but you may see steam coming out of my ears if it makes it past the 1NC

cam, they/she, camnofdebate@gmail.com

last time large substance changes were done : nov 2022

if you are a contemporary reading this and i have stolen things from your paradigm, it's because they are good and i will not rehash something already well-written.

bio

- 8 years of cx debate experience and counting

- happily in college debate limbo (transfer student blues)

- lane tech debate captain ('21)

- lane tech debate co-coach (‘22-now)

- went to the toc in hs if that sort of thing has significance to you

- people who have had a significant effect on my debate style and experience: lila lavender, george lee, geo liriano, sam price, uiowa CE, and the entire university west georgia with an emphasis on CL

top level

online debate: please turn your camera on, I hate listening to 4 black boxes - this excludes tech problems, my laptop is also prone to very dramatic tantrums.

don't call me judge, my name will do just fine.

very little offends me. it should be simple for you to prevail if it's so wrong and you're so right.

in my personal career i primarily went for policy aff's and k's or t on the neg. i generally think that good things are good and bad things are bad. i have few stipulations (probably even less than most) on how the "rules" of debate ought to work, if you win the thing that you are running then i will vote on it.

1) an argument is a claim and a reason (at least).

2) evidence supports your argument, evidence is NOT your argument

3) i won't kick arguments for you

4) line by line debating is non-optional

5) tech > truth (this has nuances, you won't read them if i write them...)

5) if you cannot collapse, you are a bad debater

the most significant thing to remember is that i am a human (by most definitions) that does make mistakes (despite my best attempts). i'm generally proficient at flowing, and i will flow the entire round-barring something catastrophic. i've had excellent and extensive conversations with many other college-age judges about this, during which i have concluded the following. my job as a judge is to do my best to fairly adjudicate the round to the best of my ability, which i can assure you that i will do. if you feel the need to hammer me in the post-round, by all means, go for it, but make note that i will respect you as much as you respect me. there are right and wrong decisions in varsity debates, and judges can & do fail to deliver the right ones, which is a regrettable, yet inevitable part of the game; i do my absolute best to avoid this, and i can assure you i have interpreted every argument on the flow to the best of my working ability.

now, much like keryk kuiper outlines, i am a fairly expressive judge. i laugh when things are funny, i do make faces at things, and i have been known to throw flow paper about in a rather dramatic way. you are under no obligation to change strategies based on the way i react to it, and you will win something that i don't "like" as long as you are winning it on the flow. you may, however, choose to alter it. that is your right and your decision. you are also a human with "free will". do as you please - but note that reacting to those things is a crucial part of becoming a better debater - and if your argument is so bad that i look like i’m about to throw up, good luck getting me to hack for you in the rfd.

i believe it goes without saying i would much rather judge a well-executed policy v policy round than a poorly executed k v k round. just because i have a better substantive grasp on a larger body of k lit than an average clash judge does not mean that i think you should pref me higher as a k team. my ideal debate is something you have the best grasp of, and that you are the most excited about. if that happens to be the k, then wonderful, but if it is also a CP you have labored over then i am equally as enthusiastic. all good debate teams do their best to exert themselves on arguments that they think have the most merit - that is what i want to hear.

below are, as the intro would suggest, my many conflicting opinions on debate. do not confuse this with rules for a round. these are just my personal thoughts, and i take pride in my ability to objectively adjudicate whatever presents itself to me.

k things

K's proper: LT PN was explicitly a set col team for many moons, so i am personally most familiar with that set of lit in the context of my own competitive practice. in my time as a coach, i've also worked on plenty of semio-cap/po-mo/ "high theory" based k's. external to debate, i'm fairly well-versed in anti-capitalist and queer theory literature. this is not an excuse to not judge instruct. i have a strong distaste for k teams whose strategy is to confuse the opponent out of ballots with large, and often unnecessary words. i find this practice incredibly disingenuous and i have (unhappily) noticed its presence increase over time. if you rely on obfuscation, the argument is probably quite poor, and you should not be reading it. on a personal note, in working with the lovely lila lavender for quite some time, i have found myself more drawn to k v k debate over time, as i firmly believe it is the most interesting and innovative form that debate can take.

additionally, i do wholeheartedly agree with her analysis of non-colonized and non-black people reading afro-pessimism as a strategy, for more information I have included the same blog link here

https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

K on the aff: you must be willing to commit. it is far too often that i judge k aff teams that are determined to make their aff more middle-of-the-road/palatable. clever k teams should be able to achieve equilibrium with effective policy teams with the amount of tools at their disposal and yet they seem unwilling to use them. i am far more willing to hear that debate is better with no competition models, debate should be thrown off a cliff, or that debating the resolution has no intrinsic value than your average clash judge. that being said, i have a stronger preference for k affs that defend something material (specific political project) than the average k judge. too many k affs shy away from fiating the alt, but i digress. as far as content goes, the material that i have the most personal familiarity is outlined above. i think lila says it best when they say "If you are going to reject the res, which is totally cool with me, you should make sure to have justifications as to why the res is bad, and why rejecting it on the affirmative is key."

if you are going to perform, and it is significant to you that the performance is flowed a certain way, indicate that.

i will probably not flow your overview if it is longer than 30 seconds.

i will definitely not flow your overview if it requires a separate sheet.

K on the neg: should deal with the case in some way (either moot it entirely on the FW flow/ fiat the alt/ what have you). generating philosophical or research practice based competition is most likely to be persuasive to me - i am of the many that believe beyond game theory, debate is a research practice. one team will win their FW interpretation, as most other standards are arbitrary. same content familiarity applies here. generally, the neg shouldn't be lazy with their links, and the aff should be smarter debating fiat arguments. i prioritize specificity and spin above all else. i also think affs should be smarter (and earlier) on the FW flow.

my favorite part of nick rosenbaum's theory of debate is that "you do not need an alternative if you are winning framework OR if your links are material DA's to the aff's implementation where the squo would be preferable OR if your theory of power overdetermines the aff's potential to be desirable OR if you can think of another reason you don't need an alt." same material praxis alternative preference as k aff's (internal or external to debate). fiating mindset shifts/epistemic reorientations (i have yet to hear a sound description of what that is) is probably abusive and generally not a good argument. i will (and have - dont ask) vote on death good - if you win it.

FW: i generally believe that framework is probably true to some extent, and net good for clash v k affs because reciprocity is good and so on and so forth. as my judging record would indicate, i am neg leaning in K v FW debates, mostly for the reasons outlined in the k aff section of this paradigm. i find tournament and season preparation disparity arguments fairly silly. for the negative, use smart defensive tactics like switch-side debating and TVA's, explain the flaws in the counter-interpretation (unlimited topic, links to aff offense), and produce smart arguments about limits, mechanism education, or clash.

making sure there is fairness in a competition between two teams is one of the judge's main responsibilities. judges are fundamentally expected to evaluate the discussion honestly; forcing them to disregard fairness in that appraisal removes the prerequisite for debate. on the aff, you should impact turn the process of policy debates on the topic - this is distinct from the affs on the topic. if you win that the process of debating the topic is bad, then preserving fairness is futile to the game.

policy things

T: probably makes its way into 75% of my own 1NR’s, competing interps/quality of evidence comes first. do not hinge your strat on some vague cross ex answer, clear and concise arguments only. additionally, both or either team reading blocks through the rebuttals without refuting the other team's arguments in depth is very boring and not something I want to watch.

Theory: See T. I err aff on condo generally and for the sake of transparency thing, most consult/agent counterplans are probably abusive, but don't let that sway you, i will still vote on the flow work (yes i am a strong believer in the debate truth that neg fiat is bad). i'm predisposed to believe exactly what YOU think debate ought to be.

Da's: make sure you do plenty of impact work, and PLEASE articulate why the impact of your DA overwhelms the harms of the aff. Links exist on a spectrum; the "chance of a link" has to be qualified and then incorporated into the risk assessment component of impact calculus. Expert turns case analysis is invaluable. “Any risk” is inane. Below some level of probability, signal should be overwhelmed by noise, or perhaps the opposite effect might occur. Pretending that one can calculate risk precisely is stupid. Are you really sure that the risk of a disad is fifteen percent? Are you sure it’s not, say, twenty? Or maybe ten? Or, God forbid, twenty-five? If you are able to calculate risk with such precision, please quit debate and join the DIA. Your country needs you, citizen. If not, recognize that risks can be roughly calculated in a relative way, but that the application of mathematical models to debate is a (sometimes) useful heuristic, not an independently viable tool for evaluation. - mollison stolen from matheson which has now trickled down to here.

CP's: win the net ben and how you access it, otherwise i will vote on a nice Aff perm. That being said, If a perm is present in the 1ar, I will NOT automatically judge kick the CP if the squo is preferable. In this scenario, the 2nr would need to instruct me as to why I should do this, however I think judge kick goes aff easily in the presence of a perm.I think lots of counterplans that steal much of the aff (interpret that as you wish) are illegitimate and the aff should hammer them. the aff still needs has to win theory regardless of my personal disdain for certain CP's. i do like a well executed tricky PIC though on a NATO topic, i find them widely entertaining. not sure of their legitimacy, but at least i'll be in a good mood.

final notes

have fun, debate should be something you enjoy doing. be nice and cordial to your opponents, that being said don't be afraid to be assertive. don't clip cards. i follow the nsda handbook re: evidence violation, so any of those issues must be resolved through tab. if the tournament is not NSDA sanctioned and i am instructed to make the decision, i will default to my best interpretation of what "good practice" looks like on the current college circuit/"general accepted community norms". all that good stuff

bonus speaks section

+0.1 for open sourcing (let me know, i won't look)

+0.1 for any good joke in a speech (this is at my discretion, good luck)

+0.1 for novices that show me their flows after the round has ended

Please put me on the email chain: eriodd@d219.org.

Experience:

I'm currently an assistant debate coach for Niles North High School. I was the Head Debate Coach at Niles West High School for twelve years and an assistant debate coach at West for one year. I also work at the University of Michigan summer debate camps. I competed in policy debate at the high school level for six years at New Trier Township High School.

Education:

Master of Education in English-Language Learning & Special Education National Louis University
Master of Arts in School Leadership Concordia University-Chicago
Master of Arts in Education Wake Forest University
Juris Doctor Illinois Institute of Technology-Chicago Kent College of Law
Bachelor of Arts University of California, Santa Barbara

Debate arguments:

I will vote on any type of debate argument so long as the team extends it throughout the entire round and explains why it is a voter. Thus, I will pull the trigger on theory, agent specification, and other arguments many judges are unwilling to vote on. Even though I am considered a “politics/counter plan” debater, I will vote on kritiks, but I am told I evaluate kritik debates in a “politics/counter plan” manner (I guess this is not exactly true anymore...and I tend to judge clash debates). I try not to intervene in rounds, and all I ask is that debaters respect each other throughout the competition.

Identity v. Identity:
I enjoy judging these debates. It is important to remember that, often times, you are asking the judge to decide on subject matter he/she/they personally have not experienced (like sexism and racism for me as a white male). A successful ballot often times represents the team who has used these identity points (whether their own or others) in relationship to the resolution and the debate space. I also think if you run an exclusion DA, then you probably should not leave the room / Zoom before the other team finishes questions / feedback has concluded as that probably undermines this DA significantly (especially if you debate that team again in the future).

FW v. Identity:
I also enjoy judging these debates. I will vote for a planless Aff as well as a properly executed FW argument. Usually, the team that accesses the internal link to the impacts (discrimination, education, fairness, ground, limits, etc.) I am told to evaluate at the end of the round through an interpretation / role of the ballot / role of the judge, wins my ballot.

FW v. High Theory:
I don't mind judging these debates. The team reading high theory should do a good job at explaining the theories / thesis behind the scholars you are utilizing and applying it to a specific stasis point / resolutional praxis. In terms of how I weigh the round, the same applies from above, internal links to the terminal impacts I'm told are important in the round.

Policy v. Policy:
I debated in the late 90s / early 2000s. I think highly technical policy v. policy debate rounds with good sign posting, discussions on CP competition (when relevant), strategic turns, etc. are great. Tech > truth for me here. I like lots of evidence but please read full tags and a decent amount of the cards. Not a big fan of "yes X" as a tag. Permutations should probably have texts besides Do Both and Do CP perms. I like theory debates but quality over quantity and please think about how all of your theory / debate as a game arguments apply across all flows. Exploit the other team's errors. "We get what we get" and "we get what we did" are two separate things on the condo debate in my opinion.

Random comments:

The tournament and those judging you are not at your leisure. Please do your best to start the round promptly at the posted time on the pairing and when I'm ready to go (sometimes I do run a few minutes late to a round, not going to lie). Please do your best to: use prep ethically, attach speech documents quickly, ask to use bathroom at appropriate times (e.g. ideally not right before your or your partner's speech), and contribute to moving the debate along and help keep time. I will give grace to younger debaters on this issue, but varsity debaters should know how to do this effectively. This is an element of how I award speaker points. I'm a huge fan of efficient policy debate rounds. Thanks!

In my opinion, you cannot waive CX and bank it for prep time. Otherwise, the whole concept of cross examination in policy debate is undermined. I will not allow this unless the tournament rules explicitly tell me to do so.

If you use a poem, song, etc. in the 1AC, you should definitely talk about it after the 1AC. Especially against framework. Otherwise, what is the point? Your performative method should make sense as a praxis throughout the debate.

Final thoughts:

Do not post round me. I will lower your speaker points if you or one of your coaches acts disrespectful towards me or the opponents after the round. I have no problem answering any questions about the debate but it will be done in a respectful manner to all stakeholders in the room. If you have any issues with this, please don't pref me. I have seen, heard and experienced way too much disrespectful behavior by a few individuals in the debate community recently where, unfortunately, I feel compelled to include this in my paradigm.

Glenbrook North- he/him

If you are visibly sick, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

spipkin at glenbrook225.org. Please set up the chain at least five minutes before start time. I don't check my email very often when I'm not at tournaments.

I won't vote for death good

1. Flow and explicitly respond to what the other team says in order. I care a lot about debate being a speaking activity and I would rather not judge you if you disagree. I won't open the speech doc during the debate. I won't look at all the cards after the round, only ones that are needed to resolve something being debated out that are explicitly extended throughout the debate. If I don't have your argument written down on my flow, then you don't get credit for it. As an example, if you read a block of perms, I need to be able to distinguish between the perms in the 2AC to give you credit for them. If you are extending a perm in the 2AR I didn't have written down in the 2AC, I won't vote on it, even if the neg doesn't say this was a new argument. The burden is on you to make sure I am able to flow and understand everything you are saying throughout the debate. If you don't flow (and there are a lot of you out there) you should strike me.

2. Things you can do to improve the likelihood of me understanding you:

a. slow down

b. structure your args using numbers and subpoints

c. explicitly signpost what you are answering and extending

d. alternate analytics and cards

e. use microtags for analytics

f. give me time to flip between flows

g. use emphasis and inflection

3. I think the aff has to be topical.

4. I'm not great at judging the kritik. I'm better at judging kritiks that have links about the outcome of the plan but have an alternative that's a fiated alternative that's incompatible with the world of the plan.

5. I'm compromising on perms. You can insert one perm text into the debate. You can perm by reference. So you can say perm do the cp then the plan. Or perm do the plan and plank 9. And you can also do a functionally intrinsic perm inserted into the debate, but you need to describe what the perm is in the 2AC. So like perm over other issues, text inserted.

6. I flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say the plan fiats something in CX, you don't get to say PTIV means something else on T. So for example, if you say "remove judicial exceptions" means the courts, you don't get to say you're not the courts on T. If you say normal means is probably the courts but you're not fiating that, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are Congress for a DA or CP.

8. If your highlighting is incoherent, I'm not going to read unhighlighted parts of the card to figure out what it means.

Background

Wayzata High School 2015-2019 (4 years of policy debate)

Concordia College 2019-2020 (1 year of policy debate, program now defunct)

University of Minnesota 2020-2024 (4 years of policy debate)

Varsity Policy Coach at Edina High School 2021-Present

I wasn't the most competitively successful debater, but I did nat circuit debate in high school and qualified to the NDT twice in college, so I would like to think that experience makes me at least relatively qualified to judge your round, whatever its content may be.

I use he/him/his pronouns.

Use an email chain, not SpeechDrop, for sharing evidence - my email is prostc3@gmail.com.

Three Most Important Takeaways

1. I would be proud if people described me as a “clash judge” – while I won’t pretend that I’m free of biases, I will try to hold your arguments to an equal standard regardless of what side of the imaginary “policy”/”critical” line they fall on. I’m firmly tech over truth, so please don’t change your pre-round or in-round strategy just because you think I’ll like it more; any preference listed here can easily be overcome by good debating. “Don't overadapt, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine.” – Rose Larson

2. Please be clear – I’m serious. I won’t flow off the doc, so I need to be able to hear every word you say (including on the text of cards) and you need to have some differentiation when you’re switching between cards, arguments and flows. I find it extremely dissuasive when people think that the person who is supposed to be evaluating their speech doesn’t need to be able to understand all of it. Despite this, please don’t get psyched out if I call clear – it doesn’t mean you’re going to lose, it just means you need to speak more clearly.

3. Please try to be kind to each other – while I won’t enforce any strict standards of decorum, debate is just so much more enjoyable as an activity when people treat each other with respect. To that end, if your strategy is based around trying to intimidate, demean, or bully your opponents or anyone else in the room, please strike me.

K Affs/Framework

My voting record is pretty even in these debates, so just explain your arguments and we’ll be good.

On K Affs proper, I tend to be skeptical of affs that, for lack of a better term, “don’t do anything” – having a clearly explained method (examples appreciated) that solves a clearly identified impact will help you a lot. If you can't do that, then I tend to find presumption quite persuasive.

On T-USFG/Framework, I tend to prefer aff strategies based around a counter-interpretation (definitions appreciated) instead of ones based solely around impact turns – explain why their model of debate is bad, not why debate in general is bad.

Is fairness an impact? It can be, but you actually need to explain why it is – just saying that it’s an “intrinsic good” isn’t going to cut it.

I tend to be most persuaded by clash impacts on T/Framework, but feel free to go for topic education, portable skills, deliberation, agonism, or whatever other impacts you want.

Both sides need to explain what debates will look like under their model.

I’m definitely a good judge for “soft” T args, like T-Tactics, if the aff actually violates your interpretation.

I can be persuaded that there’s “no perms in a method debate”, but it needs to be actually warranted.

Ks

I don’t have any issues with the K – it’s where a majority of my current research is done, but I won’t fill in gaps for you.

Explanation of your theory and contextualization of links is paramount – explain why something the aff actually did is bad.

Framework is really important on both sides, and I need judge instruction on what winning your interp actually means in the context of the debate. I won’t decide on an arbitrary middle ground between interpretations unless the two interps aren’t mutually exclusive (i.e. if the aff says “we get to weigh the aff” and the neg says “we get reps links”).

K tricks (fiat illusory, floating piks, serial policy failure, etc.) need to be more than five words in the block for me to vote for them.

Honestly not a fan of reading a K with a link of omission and calling it a procedural, but if that’s your thing go for it.

Policy Affs

I appreciate specific solvency advocates and well-explained internal link stories.

You need to at least reference the impacts you want to be evaluated when extending your advantages.

Impacts that aren't "extinction" are relevant.

Case debate that’s more than impact defense is great and people should do it more – most advantages suck, so make smart analytic arguments and your speaks will thank you.

I like impact turn debates but if you’re reading something that’s patently ridiculous (i.e. warming good) it will definitely require more technical debating to win my ballot.

CPs

Not too much to say here – I like advantage counterplans, topic counterplans, case-specific counterplans, agent counterplans – do whatever you want.

I’m capable of evaluating technical process counterplan debates but I don’t have too much experience with them – if you want to go for tricky competition args or funky perms I’m going to need a little more explanation.

DAs

Read whatever you want – I’ll evaluate a topic disad the same as a rider disad.

A good DA + Case 2NR will make me smile.

I’m not a member of the cult of turns case – those arguments can be important, but debating on the substance of a disad tends to matter more in my decision.

I’m fine with politics disads, but telling a story tends to be more important with these disads than others.

Topicality vs. Policy

I don’t have a disdain for these debates like a lot of people seem to, so feel free to go for T if I'm in the back - just make sure to weigh your standards.

No strong preference for what impact you go for – this is my way of saying I haven’t drunk the “limits over everything” Kool-Aid.

Theory

I’ll vote on any theory argument, even if I personally think it's dumb – if you win the flow on new affs bad or no neg fiat, then you’ll get my ballot.

I’ll default to reject the arg not the team on non-condo counterplan theory args unless I’m given a warrant as to why I should reject the team.

Conditionality: I’ll vote on it, but I don’t really have a strong preference on whether it’s good or bad in a vacuum – debate it out!

My feelings on judge kick are complicated. I will come back to this section when my thoughts are more fully developed, but if you're curious or think it will matter feel free to ask me before the round.

I think disclosure is an objective good, so feel free to read disclosure theory, but you still need to win the arg.

In theory debates I tend to find myself focusing a lot on the interpretations that both teams forward, so make sure to make those clear if theory is an argument you want to go for.

Ethics Stuff

If clipping occurs, I will stop the debate and give the offending team an L and the offending debater a 25. I don’t follow along on the doc, so if you want to make a clipping accusation you need a recording. If the tournament rules don't specify what is considered clipping, I will default to assuming it is when a debater skips 5 or more continuous highlighted words in a piece of evidence without verbally marking/cutting the card at the word they stopped reading the card at.

For all other evidence ethics issues, unless it’s something that is specified in the tournament rules, I will default to letting the debate play out and won’t stop the round.

I feel uncomfortable administering justice with my ballot for offenses that occurred outside of the round. However, I do care about the emotional and physical well-being of students, so if you have me in the back of a round that you would really prefer not to occur due to the out-of-round actions of an opposing debater, please talk to me before the round and we can talk to tab.

Like many judges, if something occurs that is actively harmful to students in-round (i.e. use of slurs, blatant disregard of pronouns, etc.) I will stop the round and give L 25s to the offending debater/team. If something occurs in-round that you feel should be an independent voting issue but isn't normally considered egregiously offensive, I encourage you to debate it out, but please make sure to isolate 1. What exactly the other team did, 2. Why what they did was bad, 3. Why me punishing them with the ballot is good, and 4. Why me tanking their speaks is not enough.

Miscellaneous Notes

I will probably take a while to decide if the debate was close at all. I have ADHD and my thoughts often bounce around in my head like a pinball machine, so as a result I like to type out my RFD before I give it. Even if the round wasn't very close, I will still almost always take a couple of minutes to type out my decision. This is probably better for you in the long run, as if I have to give my RFD off the top of my head I often sound pretty incoherent.

Giving a rebuttal completely off the flow is awesome and will result in higher speaker points than if you didn’t.

I like jokes and appreciate bold strategic decisions.

“Have fun, try to learn something.” – Fred Sternhagen

Ashna Rimal

Assistant Coach for Maine East

Add me on the email chain - ashnarimal.debate@gmail.com

Please make sure the tournament name, round number, and both team codes are in the subject of the email chain.

TLDR - You can run any non-offensive arg in front of me, if you run it well I'll probably vote you up. I like judging more technical debates (Theory/T/K) over the same old ptx scenario because I find it more interesting. You will probably get higher speaker points from me if your arguments are original, trust me judges do not want to see the exact same debate happen for 5 rounds in a row. Also, send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things.

K Affs

I like K Affs when they are well explained.

A few things I should not be wondering about when writing my ballot:

Why is the ballot key?

Why is this round specifically key for your offense?

Do you solve for anything and how (spill up, fiat, etc.)

Neg Stuff

Counterplans

I enjoy CPs, but you have to have all the key parts (Net Benefit, Perm Answers, Solvency, etc.)

Disads

Disads are fine - I'm not particularly opinionated about them.

I think DA and Case debates are good as long as the DA scenario makes sense and the line by line is properly executed.

Please don't go for a bad ptx scenario that has no internal link.

Kritiks

If you run a K make sure you really explain it to me.

If you wanna go for the K in the 2NR you must have a strong link to the specific aff, or an alt that solves for the K and/or the impacts of the Plan.

Focus on the link debate - winning the link helps you win FW, prove why the perm won't solve, as well as support the impact.

If I don't understand your K I won't vote for it, especially if it's less commonly run. I'm familiar with most of the more generic Ks, but if you pull out a more complex K, you need to understand it and explain it well. I will hold those types of Ks to a higher standard when writing my ballot.

Topicality

To win on T you have to prove that the Aff is not topical and explain why being topical matters.

Don't only say "Fairness and Education" those are just words, you need to explain what that means and why it's important to debate.

TOPICALITY IS A VOTER!

Theory

I'm from Maine East, I like Theory debates and I'll vote on them - but I probably have higher standards for 'good theory debating'.

PICs are probably fine.

Severance Perms are probably bad, but usually not bad enough for me to write my ballot on it.

Condo is good to an extent. I probably won't vote on Condo if they run like 1-2 off, but if they run 3 or more conditional advocacies I will lean Aff.

Perf Con is bad if you can prove specific instances of in-round abuse.

Don't expect me to vote on the arg that 1-2 CPs/Ks will Time Skew the 2AC, time skew is inevitable.

Don't expect me to vote on the "Err Neg" arg, yes Aff speaks 1st and last but y'all have the 13 min block.

Potential Abuse is not a voter. (Unless you prove to me otherwise)

In Round Abuse is a voter - If you can prove that they were somehow totally abusive I will vote them down.

THEORY IS A VOTER!

In the end what really matters is how you extend and frame the theory debate. I will most likely vote for the team that better contextualizes their theory arg.

I'll vote on a dropped theory arg as long as it's properly extended.

Speaker Points

Under 26: you did something offensive/cheaty

26-26.9: Below Avg

27-27.5: Avg

27.6-28.5: Above Avg

28.5-29.5: Very Good

Above 29.5: Excellent - I was impressed

If you do something interesting, funny, or out of the box in the round, and I enjoy it, I'll boost your speaks.

General Comments

• I will not vote on an argument I don't understand - It's your job in the round to explain your arguments to me.

• Don't be a jerk in round - Respect your partner, your opponents, and the judge(s).
• Do not clip cards or cheat in any way
• I am fine with tag team CX, but don't take over you partners CX, I will dock speaks for that.
• Clarity is more important than speed - If you are spreading a huge analytics-heavy block at full speed I will not catch more than 60% of what you are saying
• Send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things. Plus I will be able to make sure I get al your args when you decide to spread through that 8 min K block
• Time your own Prep/CX/Speeches.

• If the other team doesn't make an argument for why I should not Judge Kick, I will most likely roll with it.
• I do not like judge intervention, I will try to avoid, or at least minimize judge intervention as much as possible. I'd much rather vote based on what you all say in the round.
• I am willing to vote for any argument as long as it is not offensive - but you have to win the argument.

Background: 4 years at Baylor University, 1-Time NDT Qualifier. Assistant Coach at the U.S. Naval Academy, 2018-2022, Assistant Coach at Dowling Catholic High School, 2019-Present. Currently a Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science and I work for the Legislative Services Agency in Iowa.

Yes I want to be on the email chain: Sheaffly@gmail.com. Also email me with questions about this paradigm.

Paradigms are difficult to write because there are so many potential audiences. From novice middle schoolers to varsity college debaters, I judge it all. As a result, I want everyone reading this paradigm to realize that it was written mostly in terms of varsity college debates. I think about debate a little differently in high school and a little differently when it comes to novice debates, but I hope this gives you a general idea of how to debate in front of me

== TL;DR ==

Do line-by-line. I do not flow straight down and I do not flow off the speech doc. I am a DA/CP/Case kind of judge. I am bad at understanding kritiks and I am biased towards the topic being good. Be nice.

== Top Level - Flowing ==

It has become clear to me after years of judging that most of my decisions center not around my biases about arguments (which I won’t pretend not to have), but rather around my ability to understand your argument. My ability to understand your argument is directly related to how clean my flow is. Thus, it is in your best interest to make my flow very clean. I used to think I was bad at flowing, but I've come to the conclusion that line-by-line and organized debate has become a lost art. Debaters who learn this art are much more likely to win in front of me.

You are NOT as clear on tags as you think you are. Getting every 4th word of a tag is okay only if every 4th word is the key nouns and verbs. This is never true. So slow down on your tags, I am NOT READING THEM.

I’m not gonna flow everything straight down and then reconstruct the debate afterwards. The 1NC sets the order of the debate on the case, the 2AC sets the order of the debate off case. Abide by that order. Otherwise, I will spend time trying to figure out where to put your argument rather than writing it down and that’s bad for you.

Another tip: Find ways to give me pen time. For example, do not read 4 perms in a row. It’s impossible for me to write down all of those words. Plus, it’s always first and you haven’t even given me time to flip my paper over. And then your next argument is always an analytic about how the CP doesn’t solve and then I can’t write that down either. So stop doing things like that.

== Top Level – Arguments ==

Basic stuff: I love creativity and learning from debate. Make it clear to me how much you know about the arguments you are making. I don’t think this means you have to have cut every card you read, but understanding not just the substance of your argument, but the tricks within them is important.

As I said above, the thing that will be a problem for me is not understanding your argument. Unfortunately, this probably impacts Kritik debaters more than policy debaters, but I’ll get to that in a minute.

I am probably a little more truth > tech than most judges. I believe in technical debate, but I also believe that debate is a place where truth is important. I don't care how many cards you have that say something, if the other team asserts it is not true and they are correct, they win the point.

== Top Level - Community Norms ==

1) For online debate, prep time stops when you unmute yourself and say stop prep. A couple of reasons for this. a) I have no way of verifying when you actually stopped prep if you come out and say "we stopped 15 seconds ago" and b) neither do your opponents, which means that you are basically forcing them to steal prep. I don't like it so that's the rule.

2) Debate is a messed-up community already. Don't make it more so. Be nice to each other. Have fun in the debate while you are disagreeing. If you make it seem like you think the other team is stupid during the debate, it's gonna make me grumpy. I love debate and I love watching people do it, but I hate confrontation and I hate it when people get angry about debates that don't matter that much in the long term. Be nice. Please.

3) This is mostly for high schoolers, where I see this issue all the time: If you are going to send a document without your analytics in it, making the version of the doc without the analytics in it IS PREP TIME. You don't get 45 seconds to send the document. Y'all are GenZ, I know you can send an email faster than that. You get 15 seconds before I break in and ask what the deal is. You get 20 seconds before I start prep again.

== Specifics ==

Affirmatives...

...Which Defend the Topic - I enjoy creativity. This includes creative interpretations of topicality. You should also read my thoughts on DAs as they apply to how you construct your advantages. Clear story is good.

...Which Do Not Defend the Topic - I am likely not a great judge for you. I think I may have a reputation as someone who hates these arguments. That reputation is not unearned, I built it up for years. But over time I’ve come to become a lot more accepting of them. There are many of these affirmatives that I think provide valuable debate. The problem I have is that I cannot figure out an interpretation of debate that allows the valuable "K Affs," but limits out the affs that I think are generally created to confuse their way to a win rather than provide actual valuable propositions for debate. I will always think of framework as a debate about what you JUSTIFY, rather than what you DO, and every interpretation I have ever seen in these debates simply lets in too much of the uneducational debates without providing a clear basis for clash.

I realize this sounds like I have been totally brainwashed by framework, and perhaps I have. But I want to be honest about where I'm at. That said, I think the above makes clear that if you have a defensible INTERPRETATION, I am willing to listen to it. You should also look at the section under kritiks, because I think it describes the fact that I need the actual argument of the affirmative to be clear. This generally means that, if your tags are poems, I am not ideologically opposed to that proposition, but you better also have very clear explanation of why you read that poem.

Negative Strategies

Framework: See discussion above. Good strategy. Impact, impact, impact. Education > procedural fairness > any other impact. “Ks are bad” is a bad argument, “their interpretation makes debate worse and uneducational” is a winnable argument. Topical version of the aff goes a long way with me.

Topicality: Good strategy. Impact, impact, impact. Case lists. Why that case list is bad. Affirmatives, you should talk about your education. I love creative interps of the topic if you defend them. But for the love of god slow down.

Disads: Absolutely. Well constructed DAs are very fun to watch. However, see truth vs. tech above – I have a lower threshold for “zero risk of a [link, impact, internal link] etc.” I love Politics DAs, but they’re all lies. I am up-to-date on the news. If you are not, do not go for the politics DA using updates your coaches cut. You will say things that betray that you don’t know what you’re talking about and it will hurt your speaks. Creative impact calc (outside of just magnitude, timeframe, probability) is the best impact calc.

Counterplans: I'm tired of the negative getting away with murder. I am VERY willing to listen to theory debates about some of these crazy process CPs which compete off of a net benefit or immedicacy/certainty. Theory debates are fun for me but for the love of god slow down. Otherwise, yeah, CPs are fine.

Kritiks: Eh. You can see the discussion above about K affs. I used to be rigidly ideological about hating the K. I am now convinced that the K can make good points. But because I was so against them for so long, I don’t understand them. I still think some Kritiks (here I am thinking mostly of French/German dudes) are basically designed to confuse the other team into losing. Problem is, I can’t tell the difference between those Kritiks and other Kritiks, because all Kritiks confuse me.

Very basic Ks are fine. Realism is bad, heg is bad, capitalism is bad, I get. Get much beyond that and I get lost. It's not that I think you're wrong it's that I have always been uninterested so I never learned what you're talking about. I cannot emphasize enough how little I understand what you're talking about. If this is your thing and I am already your judge, conceptualize your K like a DA/CP strategy and explain it to me like I have never heard it before. Literally, in your 2NC say: "We believe that X is bad. We believe that they do X because of this argument they have made. We believe the alternative solves for X." I cannot stress enough how serious I am that that sentence should be the top of your 2NC and 2NR. I have had this sentence in my judge philosophy for 3 years and this has been the top of the 2NC once (in a JV debate!). I do not know how much clearer I can be. Again, I am not morally opposed to Kritiks (anymore), I just do not understand them and I will not vote for something I do not understand. I believe you need a good link. Yes, the world is terrible, but why is the aff terrible. You also need to make your tags not a paragraph long, I never learned how to flow tags that were that long.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Updated - 1/4/24

Background: I debated in high school at Minneapolis South and in college at the University of Minnesota '17. I've coached policy debate for 10 years, and am currently the Head Coach of Minneapolis South high school.

If you have any questions about my paradigm/rfd/comments, feel free to email me at: tauringtraxler@gmail.com & also use this to put me on email chains, please and thank you.

I will enforce the tournament rules (speech times/prep/winner and loser, etc.), but the content of the round as well as how I evaluate the content is up to the debaters. Judge instruction is important -- my role is to decide who did the better debating, what determines that is up to you.

I'm comfortable with anything you want to do in debate as long as you're respectful of others. I give a lot of nonverbal feedback.

Impact calculus is very important but don't forget the links. For example, how should I weigh solvency deficits and links ? In my mind, the lower the risk of the link, the lower the risk of the impact.

Offense-defense: this is the second most important issue. Realize that winning a bunch of defensive arguments will most likely make it hard to win if your opponent has an offense against you.

Nexus question: what is the most important thing to evaluate a debate. You don't have to clearly flag this in the 1 AR for me, but I should at least see the inkling of the doors to analysis you are going to blow up in the 2 AR.

1 ARs and 2 NRs if you could clean things up for me, it would be so much appreciated. Labeling groups of arguments helps me know what you are extending or responding to.

Prep time starts when cross x ends. Please don't try to steal prep time.

If the aff is going for theory against the neg like process counter plans bad, they should know I have a high threshold for rejecting the team and not the argument. I think the 2AR has to provide examples of arguments they would not have been able to run or examples of in-round abuse. This is not impossible. It just requires some thought on your part going into the 2 nc and 2 nr as to what kind of topic-specific education you think is lost or round advantages the neg procures. Against topicality try to use offensive reasons to prefer your counter-interpretation. I may have trouble voting on reasonability unless you can articulate what the vagueness of the resolution is this year and what might be considered reasonbly topical or untopical.

arontrujillo@gmail.com

Name : Lauren Velazquez

Affiliated School: Niles North

Email: Laurenida@gmail.com

General Background:
I debated competitively in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common.

Director of Debate at Niles North

Laurenida@gmail.com

ME

Experience:

I competed in the 90s, helped around for a few years, took a bit of a break, have been back for about 7 years. My teams compete on the national circuit, I help heavily with my teams’ strategies, and am a lab leader at a University of Michigan. In recent years I have helped coach teams that cleared at the TOC, won state titles and consistently debated in late elim rounds at national tournaments. TL/DR--I am familiar with national circuit debate but I do not closely follow college debate so do not assume that I am attuned to the arguments that are currently cutting edge/new.

What this means for you---I lean tech over truth when it comes to execution, but truth controls the direction of tech, and some debate meta-arguments matter a lot less to me.

I am not ideological towards most arguments, I believe debate structurally is a game, but there are benefits to debate outside of it being just a game, give it your best shot and I will try my best to adapt to you.

The only caveat is do not read any arguments that you think would be inappropriate for me to teach in my classroom, if you are worried it might be inappropriate, you should stop yourself right there.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good story telling and evidence analysis. Strong teams are teams that frame impact calculations for me in their rebuttals (e.g. how do I decide between preventing a war or promoting human rights?). I should hear from teams how their internal links work and how their evidence and analysis refute indictments from their opponents. Affirmatives should have offense against disads (and Negs have offense against case). It is rare, in my mind, for a solvency argument or "non unique" argument to do enough damage to make the case/disad go away completely, at best, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but t is up to the teams to conduct a risk analysis telling me how to weigh risk of one scenario versus another.

TOPICALITY

I will vote on topicality if it is given time (more than 15 seconds in the 2NR) in the debate and the negative team is able to articulate the value of topicality as a debate “rule” and demonstrate that the affirmative has violated a clear and reasonable framework set by the negative. If the affirmative offers a counter interpretation, I will need someone to explain to me why their standards and definitions are best. Providing cases that meet your framework is always a good idea. I find the limits debate to be the crux generally of why I would vote for or against T so if you are neg you 100% should be articulating the limits implications of your interpretation.

KRITIKS
Over the years, I have heard and voted on Kritiks, but I do offer a few honest caveats:

*Please dont read "death good"/nihilism/psychoanalysis in front of me. I mean honestly I will consider it but I know I am biased and I HATE nihilism, psychoanalysis debates. I will try to listen with an open mind but I really don't think these arguments are good for the activity or good for pedagogy--they alienate younger debaters who are learning the game and I don't think that genuine discussions of metaphysics lend themselves to speed reading and "voting" on right/wrong. If you run these I will listen and work actively to be open minded but know you are making an uphill battle for yourself running these. If these are your bread and butter args you should pref me low.

I read newspapers daily so I feel confident in my knowledge around global events. I do not regularly read philosophy or theory papers, there is a chance that I am unfamiliar with your argument or the underlying paradigms. I do believe that Kritik evidence is inherently dense and should be read a tad slower and have accompanying argument overviews in negative block. Impact analysis is vital. What is the role of the ballot? How do I evaluate things like discourse against policy implications (DAs etc)

Also, I’m going to need you to go a tad slower if you are busting out a new kritik, as it does take time to process philosophical writings.

If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesnt have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is competitively fair and educationally valuable.

COUNTERPLANS
I am generally a fan of CPs as a neg strategy. I will vote for counterplans but I am open to theory arguments from the affirmative (PICs bad etc). Counterplans are most persuasive to me when the negative is able to clearly explain the net benifts and how (if at all) the counterplan captures affirmative solvency. For permutations to be convincing offense against CPs, Affs should explain how permutation works and what voting for perm means (does the DA go away, do I automatically vote against neg etc?)

Random

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex and dominating. You are part of a 2 person team for a reason.

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you have a ton of analytics in a row or are explaining a new/dense theory, you may want to slow down a little since processing time for flowing analytics or kritkits is a little slower than me just flowing the text of your evidence.

I listen to cross ex. I think teams come up with a lot of good arguments during this time. If you come up with an argument in cross ex-add it to the flow in your speech.

mich 2024 note: awalberg@umich.edu only, do not add gmail or rockchalkdebate. email only from your umich emails and please always copy a second adult (likely lab leader, maybe coach) if emailing with questions.

——

Updated 1/7/23 for clipping/ethics challenge policy (at bottom)

4 years in Kansas in high school, 4 years at Baylor University, now a lecturer and coach at KU and an assistant coach at The Barstow School.

Add me to the email chain please: aewalberg@gmail.com and rockchalkdebate@gmail.com (college only)

Top Level

Do what you do best, I will do my best to be unbiased when evaluating arguments. I tend to take a long time making decisions regardless of the round, so don't read into it.

Judge instruction/telling me how to write my ballot is really important, points will be higher and you'll be more likely to win if you put the pieces together in the 2NR/2AR, are honest about the parts of the debate you're winning and losing, actually make decisions about what to go for, etc.

As I continue to judge, I find myself prioritizing tech over truth more and more, exception being when arguments/debates are violent, unsafe, etc. This means that you might think an argument is totally nonsensical, nonresponsive, etc. and I might agree, but you have to make those arguments in a speech in order for me to consider them when making my decision. If you want me to evaluate the debate through a lens other than tech, you should say that and explain what that means/why that mode of evaluation is better.

I think you should probably have to read re-highlighted ev, not just insert it. Open to persuasion but debates where both teams are inserting re-highlightings without analysis or explanation are negative persuasive to me.

I am generally open to whatever arguments you want to run, the substantive exception is wipeout. More critical arguments about death are fine, but I am not particularly interested in listening to or voting on suffering outweighs any potential for pleasure/we are primed to be afraid afraid of death but should die anyway.

I will read along with you in the doc while you are reading cards but I will not read along with the analytics you send, that's not a substitute for clarity or slowing down to give pen time. I also don't generally re-read a ton of evidence at the end of the debate unless told to, your analysis/explanation in round is much more important to me. If I'm in a position at the end of the debate where I have to put things together myself by sorting through a lot of evidence that received very little explanation, neither of us will probably be particularly happy with the decision.

Pet peeves: talking over each other in CX excessively---I cannot hear or understand anyone when this happens especially online, asking what cards were/weren't read in a speech if it's not prep time or cx, not having the email chain ready or sent when round start time hits, stealing prep (if it's not speech, cx, or prep time you shouldn't be typing/talking), calling me by my first name when we don't know each other. They're small things and old grumpy judge complaints, but they'll give you a sizable speaker point boost.

Online Debate

Slow down, be clearer. Make sure you can hear judges/other people in the round so you don't miss people telling you to pause or repeat an order.

Theory

I will vote on it if you win it, but that probably means you need more than one sentence on it in the 2AC. Slow down on these debates. I lean condo being the only reason to reject the team.

T

Slow down some. Impact it out in the 2NR. Don't forget to explain what winning competing interps or reasonability actually means for you.

DAs and CPs

I don't do a lot of topic research, so it'll be helpful for both of us if you do a little more explanation on topic specific things like link stories/solvency mechanisms/etc.

Good analytics can definitely beat a crappy DA. Winning terminal defense/zero percent risk is possible.

Ks

Explain why winning framework matters for you and how you still win the debate even if you lose framework.

You don't necessarily need a material alt to win if you go for framework.

2ACs should explicitly answer each of the link arguments even if it's just by explaining that it's a link to the status quo, a block that can impact out a dropped link argument well is likely to get my ballot as long as they are somewhat ahead on the framework or impact framing debate.

K Affs

Good. I do think it is possible to vote neg on presumption, so specific analysis about aff solvency or method is important. I find myself voting overwhelmingly aff in debates where the negative concedes the aff in the 2NR, so I strongly recommend extending your best 1 or 2 case arguments regardless of what else you're going for.

Framework

Neg: Best neg args are usually about models but can be persuaded it's about this round. Explain why fairness, clash, etc. is an impact and how your model accesses the aff's impacts. A well-developed TVA is great. These debates are pretty hard to win in front of me if you fully concede case.

Aff: Explain what debate looks like under your counter interp or counter model of debate or explain why you don't need a counter model. I am not a huge fan of the 2AC strategy of saying as many disads to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out, two well-developed disads are more powerful than seven one-line ones.

Debate Ethics

If I cannot follow along in the evidence as you're reading it due to clarity issues or I can see you're skipping words as I'm following along, I will clear you once. If you continue skipping words or clipping and the other team does not call it out, I will let the debate continue and give feedback for educational purposes but will drop the team clipping. If you're clipping and the other team does call it out and issues an ethics challenge or otherwise ends the debate, I will end the debate, drop the team clipping, and give feedback based on the debate thus far.

If there is an ethics challenge issued and the debate is stopped, the team who is correct (about the clipping, miscut evidence, citation problem, etc.) wins the debate. Arguments about evidence ethics can be made absent an ethics challenge and without stopping the debate; for example, when connected to a citational politics argument. However, if one team says to stop the round because something is an ethics challenge, the round will stop and the team who is correct about the issue will win.

Arguments that are racist, transphobic or queerphobic, sexist, or that otherwise make the debate violent or unsafe will result in contacting your adults/coaches and a response proportional to/appropriate given what is said.

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Rosemount High School (MN)

Debate Experience: 4 years HS policy (Rosemount HS, 1987-1991), 2 years CEDA (Truman State - formerly NE Missouri St 1991-1993)
Coaching/Judging Experience: 32 years judging, 18 of these actively coaching
Rosemount 2013-present
Farmington 2018-2020
St. Thomas Academy 1993-2001

Last update: 2022-11-19

--

New 2022-11-19 / Clarified 2023-12-2

Building on evidence highlighting argued below. If the highlighted portion of your evidence is word salad and/or changes the author's intent when read in isolation, I will stop the round and immediately vote on an ethical violation. This means a loss and minimum allowable points to the offending team. National circuit evidence standards are atrocious and need to be changed. This may be quixotic, but so be it.

The note about stopping the round will be only when evidence is taken out of context. In other circumstances, particularly (but not limited to) where cards are formed by taking one to four words from each of ten or more sentences, I will treat the argument as an analytic with no evidence support.

--

Yes, email chain.

I have changed the email address I use for email chains. The old one will still work, but please use wodarz.debate@gmail.com going forward

New 2021-10-02: Your evidence highlighting should read in grammatically correct sentences when read in isolation. I will consider exceptions on a case-by-case basis (generally, there should be a legitimate argumentative purpose for doing otherwise).

None of the older profile information below is out-of-date, feel free to refer to it for additional information.

I'm definitely an older coach but I like a lot of what K debate has brought to the community. I'm unique among the Rosemount coaching staff in that respect.

I most enjoy judging rounds where the aff and the neg have an underlying agreement on how the round should look. I prefer to judge either policy v policy debates or K v K debates.

Some details:

* I prefer that the negative engage with the affirmative. The better the specificity of link arguments, the more likely the negative is to win their chosen arguments.

* I roughly think of my judging philosophy as "least intervention". My hope is to try to not do any work for debaters, but this is the ideal and rarely occurs in practice. So I generally look at what I would need to do to vote for either team and choose the outcome that requires the least work on my part. I do my best to not interject personal beliefs into the debate, but realize this isn't always possible.

* I don't like most process or actor CPs, but often vote for them. When neg CP lit says a topic should be left to the states, that lit never means "all 50 states act in concert" but instead usually means "states should be free to not do anything". Affs could do a lot with this, but never do.

* I despise politics DAs, but again find myself voting for them. In 30+ years of debating and judging these, I think I've heard one scenario that had any semblance of truth to it. I think negative over-simplification of the political process and the horse-race mentality engendered by these DAs has been bad for debate and bad for society as a whole. But again, I rarely see Affs making the arguments necessary to win these sort of claims.

* I have a debate-level knowledge of most Kritiks. My knowledge of the literature is about 20 years old at this point and I rarely cut cards for my teams. What this means if you're running a K (either aff or neg): assume that I'm a judge who is willing to listen to (and often vote for) what you say, but don't assume any specific knowledge. This is particularly important at the impact level. If I have a warranted and detailed explanation as to why your model of debate is essential,

* In debates between similarly skilled teams, Framework debates usually come down to "is the aff in the direction of the resolution?". If so, I usually vote aff. Otherwise, neg. If you're a policy team, you're probably better off going for even a Cap K in front of me than for Framework.

* Even in person, you're not as clear as you think you are. This is doubly so in online debates. Slow down a little and you'll likely be happier with my decision.

* It's come to my attention that some teams have shied away from going for theory because of what I've written below. If you believe your violation is true, go ahead and go for it. My preference is to decide debates on the issues, but if I can get good clash on a theory or T flow, that's OK too.

* Disclosure theory is exempt from the preceding bullet. If you can win the debate on disclosure theory, there are better arguments you can make that you can also win on.

* If you're a big school on the circuit where I'm judging you, running a "small schools DA" will likely see speaker points reduced.

* I don't like a 6+ off neg strategy. If you're obviously far more skilled than your opponents and still do this, speaker points will suffer. Regardless, I'm probably more likely to vote on condo bad or perf con than most judges (but see everything else I've written on theory)

* I love good topicality debates. I also love creative (but defensible) affirmative interpretations of the topic. I default to "good is good enough"/reasonability for the aff on topicality, but can be persuaded to vote for the competing interps model. Just saying "reasonability invites judge intervention" isn't enough though. Believe it or not, so does competing interps.

==============

Older Profile:

I actively coached from 1993 until 2001 before largely leaving the activity for a dozen years. I got back into coaching in 2013 and have been in the activity since then. My time away from the activity proved to profoundly affect the way I view debates.

I view debate as an educational activity and my primary responsibility as a judge as facilitating that education. It is important to note what this means and what it does not mean. What it does not mean is that I like arguments that impact in "voting issue for reasons of education." Leaving aside the irony of the lack of educational value in those sorts of arguments, I am not saying that I will vote for the "more educational" team, whatever that means. What I do mean is that the round can be a very educational environment and my position is to assist that as best as I can. Argumentatively, I am looking for well-reasoned logical arguments, preferentially with strong evidential support. Counterplans which are contingent on successful consultation of any sort are almost always lacking here. Almost all politics DAs that I've ever heard have this problem as well. You're going to have a much easier time if you run a DA, CP, or a K with a solid literature-based link story.

Theory and Analytics: In-round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse. I have a large presumption against voting on theory, although I have voted on it. To win on theory, you'll probably need to spend substantial time in the last rebuttal and offer a persuasive story. SLOW DOWN when arguing theory. Give me a tag that I can get on my flow and then explain it. Five consecutive four word responses will likely get the first one or two responses flowed, and the rest missed. If it's not on my flow, I can't vote on it. The explanation is the most important part of the argument.

Topicality: Topicality stems from plan action. Placing the resolution in plan text or looking to solvency do not prove topicality. My default view is that if the affirmative interpretation provides an equitable division of ground and plan meets their interpretation, they will win the argument. Generally speaking, if the negative wins topicality, they win the debate. I have been persuaded to vote contrary to my default views in the past. The negative need not win that their interpretation is best for debate, but it helps.

Non-traditional Affirmatives: I don't insist that the affirmative run a plan but any planless aff better be prepared to explain how they engage the resolution. I'm much more willing to accept a non-traditional interpretation of the terms of the resolution than I am to accept an aff that completely ignores the resolution or runs counter to the direction of the resolution.

Evidence sharing/email chains: As of 2017, I have updated my philosophy on these. I would now like to get all speech docs that are shared. Please add me to any email chain using wodarz.debate@gmail.com. Please note that I will not use the speech doc to help flow your speech.

One notable change for the worse over the last decade is the terrible practices that paperless debating has fostered. I approve of paperless debating in the abstract and in a good deal of its implementation, but teams have taken to receiving a speech doc before the speech as a crutch and flowing and line by line debate have suffered as a result. I'm not happy with the blatant prep time theft that pervades the activity, but I recognize that any gesture that I make will be futile. I will take action in particularly egregious cases by deducting from prep time (or speech time, if no prep remains).

Please ask before rounds for clarification.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy:

I judge far more policy than LD, but I'm not a stranger to judging or coaching LD. I have no predispositions toward any particular style, so largely you should feel free to do what you're most comfortable with. I will not vote for a policy argument just because I'm predominantly a policy judge, although I will listen to them. Be sure to offer full explanations. LD time formats can be challenging, prioritize explanations over evidence. Anything above that isn't specific to policy will apply in LD as well. Your explanations are the most important part of the debate.

Updated 1/9/2019 to add LD

As a debater: 4 years HS debate in Missouri, 4 years NDT-CEDA debate at the University of Georgia

Since then: coached at the University of Southern California (NDT-CEDA), coached at the University of Wyoming (NDT-CEDA), worked full-time at the Chicago UDL, coached (and taught math) at Solorio HS in the Chicago UDL

Now: Math teacher and debate coach at Von Steuben in the Chicago UDL, lab leader at the Michigan Classic Camp over the summer

HS Email Chains, please use: vayonter@cps.edu

College Email Chains: victoriayonter@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Clarity > speed: Clarity helps everyone. Please slow down for online debate. You should not speak as fast as you did in person. Much like video is transmitted through frames rather than continuous like in real life, sound is transmitted through tiny segments. These segments are not engineered for spreading.

2. Neg positions: I find myself voting more often on the "top part" of any neg position. Explain how the plan causes the DA, how the CP solves the case (and how it works!), and how the K links to the aff and how the world of the alt functions. Similarly, I prefer CPs with solvency advocates (and without a single card they are probably unpredictable). I love when the K or DA turns the case and solves X impact. If you don't explain the link to the case and how you get to the impact, it doesn't matter if you're winning impact calculus.

3. K affs: Despite my tendency to read plans as a debater, if you win the warrants of why it needs to be part of debate/debate topic, then I'll vote on it. As a coach and judge, I read far more critical literature now than I did as a debater. My extensive voting history is on here. Do with that what you will.

4. Warrants: Don't highlight to a point where your card has no warrants. Extend warrants, not just tags. If you keep referring to a specific piece of evidence or say "read this card," I will hold you to what it says, good or bad. Hopefully it makes the claims you tell me it does.

Random Notes:

1. Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

2. Questions about what your opponent read belong in cross-x or prep time. You should be flowing.

3. While we are waiting for speech docs to appear in our inboxes, I will often fill this time with random conversation for 3 reasons:

i. To prevent prep stealing,

ii. To get a baseline of everyone's speaking voice to appropriately assign speaker points and to appropriately yell "clear" (if you have a speech impediment, accent, or other reason for a lack of clarity to my ears, understanding your baseline helps me give fair speaker points),

iii. To make debate rounds less hostile.

High School LD Specific:

Values: I competed in a very traditional form of LD in high school (as well as nearly every speech and debate event that existed back then). I view values and value criterions similarly to framing arguments in policy debate. If you win how I should evaluate the debate and that you do the best job of winning under that interpretation, then I'll happily vote for you.

Ballot Writing: LD speeches are short, but doing a little bit of "ballot writing" (what you want me to say in my reason for decision) would go a long way.

Public Forum Specific:

I strongly believe that Public Forum should be a public forum. This is not the format for spreading or policy debate jargon. My policy background as a judge does not negate the purpose of public forum.