conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

TL;DR: Speed is fine, tech> truth, send a speech doc, read cut cards, disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad.

Background

I currently coach a few teams and worked at a debate camp this past summer for a month so I like to think I am above the level of a washed second-year-out.

I debated public forum at Marist for 4 years (2019-2023). Competed in lots of rounds on the national circuit and went to TOC my junior and senior year.

I expect there to be an email chain sent up for evidence exchange every round. My email is:

jescayg@nd.edu

General Paradigm

Outside of issues of ethics I don’t believe it is my role to tell you how to debate the round. However, it is your responsibility to tell me how you wish me to judge the round. Debate is an inherently comparative activity which means that it is your obligation as a debater to provide me with a frame of reference for how my decision should be made. Weighing is paramount. Unless both teams use the same form of weighing, you should probably be answering the meta question about why your type of weighing is preferable. For example, why does it matter that your impact is bigger if there one is more likely? You need to win offense to access your weighing, but I have never written “you weighed too much” as a reason for a losing ballot.

Big debates aren’t usually better debates. You only need to have one good path to the ballot to win the round. Condensing the round will almost always be to your benefit. Rebuttal is your chance to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. The back half is where you need to make strategic decisions about how to win the round. The speech times shrink, so your speeches should as well.

All offenses you plan on going for along with turns must be front-lined in second rebuttal. That being said, defense is not sticky. Given that summary must mirror final that doesn't make structural sense. If a team kicks out by extending a delink, it is typically safe to assume the remaining defense on the argument is conceded. Often, defensive concessions can be taken advantage of elsewhere on the flow. You all need to be taking time to think about the round as a whole and consider how arguments interact with each other at both a practical and technical level.

Yes, I can flow speed. Debate is competitive, so you don’t need to slow down for your opponent. What you do need to do is be clear. Poor clarity is not a reason for me to flow off the doc. If you are a team that is inexperienced with speed and hit a team that goes fast, the best solution is not to try spreading for the first time in a round. Take some time to think about their arguments and try to condense the debate. Quality will always overwhelm quality. Debating smarter usually bests debating faster.

Evidence

I strongly prefer full cut cards and no paraphrasing when introducing evidence. If you don't do this, you will probably lose the theory debate.

Call out bad evidence practices! If I am on a panel where theory is not an option you can still make general arguments about rejecting the argument that I will be partial to.

Compare evidence and author quality. Teams don’t do this enough and it can give a major lef up in the round.

If you want me to call for a card, you should tell me in speech. You also need to tell me why it matters.

I prefer author qualifications be included in the citation. This wasn't a belief I held as a debater but is something I have come into believing as a coach. I think author qualifications allow the debate to be more educational as it facilities better evidence comparison.

Verbal citations are a must and need to include author name and publication year. Otherwise it is plagiarism.

Progressive​​

Theory

If this is a Nat Circuit Tournament and a team is not disclosing or paraphrasing you should probably read theory :)

If you include author qualifications for ALL of your evidence and your opponent doesn't, I think this could be a situation where theory is justified and persuasive.

I default to compete interps and think rvis are largely regressive unless the shell is frivolous

If you disclose round reports may be beneficial, if not then I think they are a waste of time

Not a fan of trigger warnings unless an argument is actually graphic. My threshold for what it takes to be considered graphic has never been met thus far in debates I have either competed in or judged. Gabe Rusk’s paradigm has a long excerpt on why trigger warnings are likely bad that is worth a read and corroborates most of my admittedly less educated views.

Ks

Time constraints make Ks hard in PF, but I can’t say I don’t like a good K debate. Just make sure you understand the literature you read.

Win the K on the flow and you will be good, but don’t presume I have knowledge on the more unorthodox positions. Basically just extend and weight effectively and you are fine

If you hit a non-topical K and don’t read topicality I will be disappointed. I am not biased either way but think it makes for a good debate

If you are reading an argument that talks about changing the debate space, please don't have an opt-out form, it is counter-intuitive, and potentially terminal defense on your method if you are willing to not debate an argument that aims to change the space

Speaker Points

I’ll start at a 28.5 and adjust based on a mixture of style and strategy.

Have fun, you should never not enjoy a round.

Strath Haven '23

Georgetown '28

LD (14 career bids; TOC quarters 2x; won a few tournaments + RRs), dabbled in CX

I coach withDebateDrills - the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

PFI (2/2024) Update - Topic: I'm relatively out of debate/not cutting prep. While I have (some) general knowledge about the Middle East and follow the news pretty closely, I don't know the topic meta, which means . . . I need clear case lists for T debates (which you should already do! see the T section) and you should explain non-intuitive acronyms (yes, I know what ISIS stands for).

PFI (2/2024) Update - Paradigmatic: This paradigm got quite long, you don't need to read through everything. I like policy debates, I can adjudicate K/T debates, and loathe trix/friv theory. I'll always vote on the flow, even if that means voting for an argument I don't like, so please don't make me do that. (Caveat: argument = claim warrant impact, which means "condo is a voting issue for strat skew" = 0 weight the same way "zeno's paradox means we can never reach an end point so vote for me" = 0 weight)

https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Library

Yes, I want to be on the email chain! amanaker17@gmail.com

Speechdrop heg, but email is fine too.

Absent an email chain, don't be a sad panda, use an SDI flash drive!

I probably hold similar views to Jeffrey Kahn, Gabe Morbeck, Ben Morbeck, and Eli Manaker. I share a brain with Iris Chen and there is a 99% chance we vote the same way in every round. I am a marginally more fascist Elmer Yang, less-dead inside Tej Gedela, the antithesis of my family members (Sophia Tian/Shrey Raju), and strive to judge like Sam McLoughlin.

I read almost exclusively policy until the end of my senior year, so my ideal 2NR is probably DA+CP or impact turns, but I went for the K a decent amount (shoutout to the clown AFF), so I'm comfortable in most non-pomo kritik debates.

Tech > truth

You do you, debate is a game, let's all have fun and make this a nice, non-offensive, non-toxic place, etc.

I do not flow author names.

I'm very expressive, but smiles tend to indicate amusement rather than agreement with your argument.

Concessions do not need temperature! Arguments are not "cold conceded" or "hot dropped."

I'm probably less dogmatic than this paradigm makes me seem. Except for tricks. Grow up and read a real argument.

LD:

Tl;dr: pref me for policy, meh for K, strike for anything else.

***Most of this paradigm is geared towards circuit debate, if you're a novice, don't worry about it.

I don't flow author names. Yes, you can insert re-highlightings. I care more about evidence than most judges and do not think reading evidence is intervention -- arguments have as much weight as the warranting they get, which means that reading the words you said from a piece of evidence determines whether you have made an argument, or just written a tag-line.

Policy:

Impact turns are fun! If the 1NC is 7 minutes of impact turns (not spark/wipeout), you will enjoy your speaks.

I am a card carrying, Kool-aid drinking member of the "politics is sick bro" club. I love international relations and anything related to foreign policy. This means I am a fantastic judge for voting on "case/DA has as close to zero risk of impact as is possible in debate" (zero-risk =/= a thing) because most arguments in debate are so mind-bogglingly stupid they should lose to CX + smart analytics.

Cheaty counterplans are fun, but I'll be sympathetic to cheaty perms. I adore counterplan competition debates. Like, ADORE. (2/2024 Note: probably adore them less now cuz I haven't seriously thought about how to write perm texts in almost a year.)

Turns case is not offense, it is comparative impact calc and/or complicates AFF solvency.

"I think I care about evidence quantity much more than most judges. Reading 5 cards on something in the 1AR is much more likely to get you back into the debate than explaining why you think its wrong." -- Gabe Morbeck.

Look, honestly, if you have me in the back for something that's not a policy round, I'm going to want to vote for whoever was making policy arguments. I'll always vote on the flow (provided you're making complete arguments, so not trix), so as long as you don't drop a bunch of things, and you give me a way to justify a policy ballot, I'll probably vote on it.

Kritiks:

I'm not a "no plan, no ballot" person, but I'm also not not a "no plan, no ballot" person. Fairness is an impact. Impact turns vs K AFFs = <333333.

K vs policy AFF: neutral ideologically + good for both sides

topical K AFF: neutral ideologically + good for both sides

non-topical K AFF: will vote on the flow, but persuaded by T

K vs phil: how did you get me in the back . . . I will be confused . . .

AFFs should probably get to weigh case versus the K. Links are often more important than arbitrary, impact-justified frameworks. Unless your opponent has specified it makes them uncomfortable, I don't think a debater's identity influences argument choice. Pomo is nonsense, albeit fashionable. Condo probably justifies perf cons (e.g. security K + ME War DA), but the more egregious (multiple Ks) the abuse, the more likely I am to vote on condo.

I am quite comfortable not voting on arguments I didn't get or don't understand (especially when it comes to dense phil/pomo, it doesn't matter if the argument is dropped if I can't understand it). If I can't explain your argument back to the other team, I'm not voting for it.

Theory:

Slow on theory and analytics, please. I cannot stress enough that I would prefer slow + efficient >>>> speed, because I just won't be able to flow a million blips.

"Independent voting issues" are rarely voting issues. Infinite condo is good, but I am willing to listen to a condo 2AR (I will just be pre-disposed against it). RVIs make me sad. The 1AR gets theory, but reasonability and/or RANT are most likely sufficient to answer it. The only kind of spec I like is "spec your favorite multi-purpose fighter jet" (answer: F-35).

You should disclose open source. Period. I'll still evaluate the flow, but will err heavily towards os theory. Disclosure interps beyond that (cites, round reports, etc.) are significantly less appealing (e.g. if you're reading tournament name theory, the chance I vote on it is minimal).

Topicality:

I would prefer a DA+CP strategy, but I actually really like topicality vs policy AFFs (actual topicality, e.g. T-Appropriation on the JF22 LD topic). Please give case lists at the top. I'm typically unpersuaded by LD silliness that says semantics is completely divorced from pragmatics -- you need a definition to win a T debate, but you also need offense and reasons why that definition should be preferred.

Extremely unlikely to vote on Nebel-T/plans bad; chances are they violated another T shell --- read that! (Side note: please call it T-[topic word] instead of T-Nebel . . . what is this, T-Tassof again?) Far less likely to vote on the "grammar DA"/Niemi, and it is absolutely not an RVI.

Trix:

Here is what will happen if you read trix: I will sleep/do some homework and then vote for whoever tried to have an actual debate.

Phil:

I actually really enjoy pure philosophy (e.g. Sophia-style phil (Prospect ST)), but you should not be preffing me for it if you read trix-y phil/super complicated stuff because I won't make a good decision. If you end up with me in the back, explain your theory the way Oscar explains what a surplus is to Michael (for uncultured people who haven't seen The Office: explain like I'm 5).

Examples --> Ava understands --> W + good speaks.

Epistemic modesty makes exactly zero sense --- how do you combine weighing deontic and consequentialist impacts? Collapsing to calc indicts will make my eyebrows go like this: v

Trad/What If I Hit a Novice And Don't Want to Make Them Sad But Also Want to Win???:

You can be circuit, but be nice and make the round educational (e.g. don't read 10-off, spread at 40% speed). I won't dock your speaks if you sit down early.

Note for PFI: I did lay-debate in high school, and while I personally enjoyed circuit LD more, I'm comfortable evaluating these rounds. I will always judge by the flow, but that doesn't mean you need to change your strategy for me.

PF:

I'll probably be able to evaluate rounds fine, but don't know event specific norms. Please read actual evidence(why do PFers not cut cards properly??? Your cards should be cut! They should be disclosed on the PF wiki (https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/)! They should be sent out in a speech doc!). The faster you go and more evidence you read the happier I'll be, but do not do "progressive" PF. There is an event for that. It is called policy. Stop ruining PF.

Speaks:

CXes where you are knowledgeable and funny = higher speaks.

***I WILL NOT BE ADDING SPEAKS FOR ANY OF THE NOTES BELOW -- the only reason I'm not deleting them is because I am sentimental and they bring me happiness; plus, I remember being a smol freshman who read paradigms in her free time cuz she wanted to learn everything about debate, so for anyone else who needed to get a life as much as I did, here are some funnies:

-.1 per each time you say "LARP" instead of policy. In the wise words of my wife: "LARP??? we're not at a FURRY convention???" --- Sophia Tian

-.1 per every 10 seconds spent reading an underview

-.1 every time you add temperature to concessions. It's annoying and inefficient.

+.5 if you answer Peters 04 with Byman 10

+.1 if you say "heehoo" correctly

+.5 if you say "heehoo" in front of Elmer (recordings of reaction, please!)

+.1 for a good SNL reference or HS impact quote. (I have an embarrassingly encyclopedic knowledge of both). Remind me before RfD or I'll forget.

+.1 if you're "free to be me." I will laugh hysterically. Please ensure I have not passed out from lack of oxygen. Let me know before RfD.

+.1 if you use Jeff Winger's explanation for Lacan. Flag it before the RfD.

+.1 if you guess who wrote the joke paradigm.

---- OLD (JOKE) PARADIGM ----

Introduction

Hi! I’m Ava Manaker (aah-vaah man-acre). Call me Mrs. Wikipedia or "The Cub" else I give you an L0. No, I do not want to be on the email chain but if you really want me to be and lose a speak, here is my email: amanaker17[at]gmail[dot]com.

Overview

I am a debater at Strath Haven High School, but I secretly wish I went to Mission San Jose High. As a debater, I primarily read Kant+trix, but I’m very tab. Here is my preference of argumentation to judge (in terms of comfortability and desire):

1--Trix/Friv Theory

2--Phil/High Theory Ks

3--Legit T/Theory/IdPol Ks

Strike--Larp

PS: If you tell me your favorite song by Troye Sivan or Why Don't We, I'll give you an extra speak.

Larp

I hate it! I hate it with all my heart! The only larp argument I like is spark, I won’t vote on anything. Is this intervention? Yes. Do I care? No. Oh also, weighing is overrated!

Kritiks

I only like high theory. If you read identity politics, I will vote for the other side on presumption. Weighing case and perms are not persuasive--when responding to Ks, people should only make link or impact turns.

Phil

Love it! I am most versed in Kant and virtue ethics. Not persuaded by util. Please explain the syllogism clearly.

Theory

I love friv shells - it makes debate entertaining. A good 2nr/2ar on a frivolous shell gets you a W30. I’m willing to vote on actual shells, but they’re soooo boring like c'mon people get creative. Default drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps. Don’t make me default stuff or you’re forcing me to intervene, and that’s on you.

Tricks

YASSSS!! My favorites are logcon and external world skep, but I’m just as willing to vote on the resolved a priori and evaluate the debate after the 1ac. Just remember, I don’t flow off the doc, but for tricks I’ll make the exception so I can follow along.

Speaks

Unlike many judges, my range is a 0-30. You start at a 25. If you’re good, I go up by increments of 1. If you’re bad, you get an L0.

If you guess who wrote this paradigm (correctly), I'll give you plus .1.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

I did primarily PF for 4 years and now coach a bit. I studied political science and international relations and now work in state politics. I'm a very average flow judge.

add me to the email chain and label the round please: morgandylan183@gmail.com

Flip, pre-flow, and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get there.

please do not go more than 5 seconds over time or prep steal call your opponents out if they do this

Don't shake my hand

I evaluate the round: first, by looking to framework, then, if there is none, weighing to see where I should look to vote first. If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link into their impact. I default to probability, then scope. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do any of this.

Speed: I do not want to have to follow along in a doc, be understandable. I flow on paper, I can keep up pretty well. If you are going really fast, look to see if I am writing, and adjust if I'm not.

Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow.

You can paraphrase if you have cut cards but properly explain each argument, I will not get blippy args on my flow and I shouldn't have to.

General Preferences of Arguments

quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)

Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!

Frontline at least turns in 2nd rebuttal, anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides more comparative weighing.

I love tons of warranting, smart analytics, good knowledge of your evidence and real-world stuff, and making up sound arguments on the fly that you can defend well.

Progressive Arguments

I'll listen to and vote off anything BUT I strongly prefer substance debates and I don't care. BUT If there's legitimate abuse I kind of understand how to evaluate theory. I'm not that familiar with K's or any other progressive args. I do know I strongly prefer topical K's.

With progressive debates, I am a lay judge. Slow down and explain everything more. I require sending speech docs for these.

Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. More commonly 28-29, just do what I talked about above and you'll be fine. I will doc speaks if you do not do things I specifically ask, i.e. slowing down during progressive args.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

My name is Maria and I debated at NSU (‘23) for about 4 years. I am currently a freshman at Georgetown University and coach for NSU.

During my career I won NSDA Nationals, finaled at Glenbrooks, UK, TOC Digital, Ivy Street RR, and qualled to the TOC twice (octas senior year).

Add me to the email chain: mjr343@georgetown.edu and also add uschoolpf@gmail.com

TL;DR: Tech>truth, speed is fine, read any argument you want (not offensive).

General:

-I’ll vote on any argument that is won on the flow as long as it's not offensive/problematic.

-Any speed is fine, just send a doc if you plan on going extremely fast. If I miss something it's on you.

-Tell me where you’re starting — you don’t need to give me a three minute roadmap tho, just signpost.

-PLEASEEE pre flow before.

-Please give/extend actual warrants. 30 blippy/paraphrased responses will get you nowhere. Give me an actual warrant that interacts with the argument you’re responding to.

-Second rebuttal needs to frontline all offense and defense for the arguments you are going for. Also try to collapse in second rebuttal — poorly attempting to frontline four contentions results in unnecessarily messy debates 99% of the time. If done correctly this can def be good tho.

-WEIGH!!! This is true for EVERY piece of offense you are going for. I am extremely unlikely to vote on a turn with zero weighing. Your weighing should also be comparative. No new weighing in final unless you’re responding to new analysis that was done in second summary. All weighing HAS to be in summary for me to evaluate it.

-Read framing if you know how to properly do so. Recently every team seems to think that reading 2 minutes of structural violence/extinction framing in constructive will win you the debate. Although I ran A LOT of structural violence arguments during my debate career and am inclined to vote on them, I think that debates get unnecessarily messy when teams stop actually debating and just go for unwarranted pre-fiat arguments.

-Everything in final needs to be in summary — these speeches should practically mirror each other.

-Defense is not sticky.

-Don’t be rude.

-I’ll disclose my decision at the end of the round and will give as much feedback as possible. Post-rounding is fine.

-If there's zero offense I'll presume neg unless told otherwise.

More Specific Weighing Stuff:

-Comparative weighing. Tell me why I should prefer your mechanisms over theirs.

-SV and extinction debates should start muchhhhh earlier than summary. I’m unlikely to view any “prefer SV/extinction” analysis as “weighing” since these are framing arguments that should be in constructive or rebuttal.

-I love link-ins and think they are a really effective way to win many debates, especially because teams won’t actually respond to the warrants 90% of the time. However, either a) have evidence for claims like “melting ice caps lead to pandemics which means we link-in” or b) have really good warranting if link-ins are uncarded. Also actually weigh the link-ins. If you access their impact too tell me why is your internal link better.

-Magnitude, time frame, probability > strength of link, clarity of impact, urgency, etc. Please do REAL weighing.

Progressive Debate:

-I’ll vote on theory — Disclosure is good/paraphrasing is bad/round reports are good/open source disclosure is good. I ran disclosure theory countless times when I debated so I am EXTREMELY likely to vote on it. Same with paraphrasing but to a lesser extent. But actually win the debate if you read theory—I won’t automatically vote for you if you read disclosure. I highly dislike friv theory (disclose rebuttal ev, bring stuffed animals to rounds, robot theory, etc.) Tell me what I should default to (reasonability/RVIs, counterinterps.)

-Don’t read tricks. Ngl I have zero clue what these are.

-Kritiks — I've read a few Ks before (femIR, borders, women in debate) and have a somewhat basic understanding of kritiks like homonationalism, transnational feminism, etc. However, most of these rounds were so complicated and messy. Run a K at your own risk, I'll evaluate them to the best of my ability. Pleaseeeee explain them well and slow it down.

-Trigger warnings — I really don’t think these are necessary like 99% of the time. I hate when teams read TW theory just because they don’t know how to respond to gendered violence arguments. When reading identity Ks and such (using personal experiences) these might be needed but again I don’t think TWs are the way to go IN DEBATE. I especially hate TWs that have opt out forms.

Background: I actively coached from the fall of 2002 through the national tournament of 2017. I coached all events at various points, but had strong LD, PF, Congress, and Individual Events experience through the years. I was on the Board of Directors of the National Speech & Debate Association prior to joining the organization as their Director of Community Engagement. Through that work I oversaw processes related to topic writing, competition rules, publications, and National Tournament operations. I am currently the Principal of Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa.

Debate preferences:

1) Clear signposting

2) Give me clear warrants - even in extensions - with specific impacts.

3) I prefer having a framework to compare impacts to, which makes weighing important.

4) I am not against speed, however, I do not judge a lot. Therefore, I don't have the skill that I used to. Slow down for tags and analytics.

5) Theory/Kritiks - I am not inherently opposed, however, I worry about the assumptions people make about how arguments interact with one another and me having that same knowledge. I also worry about the lack of time to develop such arguments.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason