HS policy debate and 2 years of college NDT and LD @ MSU

email: arwa7654@missouristate.edu

Experience

-I am a 3rd year College LD and NDT debater at Missouri State University

-Debated LD 3 years in High School

Contact

jusalb07@gmail.com

tl:dr

I debate primarily Ks in college

I'll flow anything and everything. If you make an interesting argument/value just make sure you explain it well. Evidence quality is better than quantity.

I understand the moral clash is essential to LD and what the debate should be focused around.

I feel like I have better understanding about the topic then a typical lay judge.

I debated primarily Ks in college

Experience things:

Graduated from College Debate. 4 years NDT, 4 years NFA-LD, 4 years HS, coach HS CX too

He/Him

yes email chain, sirsam640@gmail.com

Please read an overview. Please. It will only help you and your speaks.

Speed is fine - please be clear

Tech over Truth always - the debaters make the argument, not what my preconceived notions of what is truthful/real arguments are.

1. I was frequently in policy v K rounds on both sides. At the 2022 NDT 8/8 rounds were K rounds for me, and 2023 2/8 were K rounds. I read a K aff with my partner one year, then an extinction aff the next year. I went for FW/cap the other half of the time. I am a clash judge and vote for K affs as much as I vote for FW versus them.

2. k affs justify why your model of debate is good impact turns to T are fine

3. 2nrs need a TVA (unless the aff just shouldn't exist under your model which is rare but can happen)

4. condo is good but fine voting that its bad

5. judge kick is probably bad, but if neg says its good and aff doesn't reply I'll judge kick

6. I went for impact turn 2NRs/1ARs a significant portion of my rounds

7. win that your reps are good affs

8. I think perms are a little bit underrated - they probably overcome the link and shield any residual risk.

9. Judging more and more I realize how awesome impact calc is in 2NR/2AR - I definitely think about debate in offense/defense paradigm and often vote for whoever's impact is bigger and accesses the other teams

Theory

CPs need a net benefit in order to win. The role of the neg is to disprove the aff, not just provide another alternative that also fixes the aff. "Solving better" isn't a net benefit. I have voted aff on CP solves 100% of the aff but 0% of net benefit.

PICs are good vs K affs. Pretty strong neg lean on this. It rewards good research.

Don't read death good in front of me.

T

I have come around a lot on T. I think that affs get away with too much in terms of being resolution-adjacent.

Competing interps > reasonability (as law school goes on, I am reverting back to reasonability. This is probably 55/45%ish)

Ground is probably the biggest impact in T debates IMO, I think specific links to affs is the largest internal link to good debates.

I think that community norms is very unpersuasive to me. I do not really care what the rest of the community thinks about T, I'm judging the round, not the community lol

PTIAV is silly but gotta have a decent answer to it.

Affs need to just have a large defense of "no ground loss" and "aff flex/innovation outweighs"

Likely the best way to win T in front of me regardless of side is to just impact out whatever you think is your strongest standard, and make it outweigh your opponents. I spend less time thinking about the specific definition of words and more time about what the models of debate look like (though if debaters tell me to evaluate interps in a specific way I will definitely spend time on it).

PF specific

You do you and I will evaluate to the best of my ability! Any questions feel free to ask pre-round!

You don't need to ask for x amount of prep, just take "running prep" unless you specifically want me to stop you when that time ends.

Last speech should start out with "you should vote aff in order to prevent structural violence which comes first in the round" or something like that. Write my ballot for me.

I find it very hard to vote on something that I don't understand, so while impacts matter a lot I need to understand the story of how we reach the impact

Stanford 24' is my first tournament on the HS topic

I debated at Missouri State for three years and had moderate success. I am now out of the debate community but judge every so often.

Email: engelbyclayton@gmail.com

TL;DR

I slightly prefer policy arguments more than critical ones. I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible. Extinction is probably bad. I think debate is good and has had a positive impact on my life. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

My beliefs

-Aff needs a clear internal link to the impact. Teams often focus too much time on impacts and not enough on the link story, this is where you should start.

-I like impact turns that don't deviate from norms of morality.

-Condo is good.

-Fairness is not an impact within itself but could be an internal link to something.

-Kritiks are interesting. Explain your stuff.

-Weighing impacts, evidence comparison, strategic decisions, and judge instruction can go a long way.

Email: gabrielgelsheimer@gmail.com

Hello welcome to my paradigm! First let me explain my experience to give you insight on how I will judge this round. I'm currently a NDT debater for Missouri State, I did policy debate in high school for two years. I did youth court for 5 years and have over 300 community service hours. I was also the mock trial team team captain. I did forensics debate my freshman year and senior year. I loved congress debate, and world schools was pretty cool. Below is what I'll be focusing on.

1. Debating harms, actual on case is what I would love to focus, make sure your link story makes sense, write my ballot for me
2. My background screams CX, I love it, it simplifies the debate, and where people can shine, lead people down a trap and sting them in their next speech, strong CX questions is a big focus for me
3. If you cant spread then don’t try. Mumbling really fast isn’t debating. With that said I don’t mind judging a spreding debate at all just make sure your clear when you speak. If one team is lay and the other spreads the spreading team has to conform to the lay team, otherwise the dynamic would be crazy.
4. I lean tech over truth. If you tell me the sky is red and the other team drops its, the sky is red.

All and all best of luck to you all during this debate and please be respectful towards each other

email fyi: jlelandgranger@gmail.com

I will flesh this out more later. This paradigm is mostly geared toward policy but is somewhat applicable to LD/PuF as well.

Top-level: Read what you want. Judge instruction is key. I expect you to tell me why something should matter in a debate round -- this is especially true for K/T/Theory debates. I debate for MoState starting 2022, and did policy debate at MRH in a very lay St. Louis circuit 4 years in high school - as a result I'm more accustomed to policy-oriented debates but I don't necessarily have a strong preference for it.

Kritik: I'm not super well-versed in most K literature but I'm totally willing to listen to it, and I'll vote on it -- just be aware of that and be explicit in your explanations of things. I also find myself preferential to kritiks with a well-articulated alt - if I don't know or understand what the alt does I'll be hesitant to vote on it. In that sense, Ks that make the most sense to me may viably be described as a CP with some non-unique disadvantage, plus a framework for why I should prefer it. Kicking the alt and going for framework in front of me is fine, but I might be hesitant to vote on it if I think it's poorly explained, or you don't explain why 'they link' is sufficient for the ballot.

T: I think topicality is important. Bear in mind that doesn't necessarily obviate K affs, but at minimum I think that the Resolution should be a reference point - i.e. related in one way or another. Even if that 'relation' is just "the resolution is bad for X reason." Go for framework if you want. Debate about it. A lot of teams get away with reading policy affs that are either borderline or blatantly non-topical, so I'm more than comfortable with topicality in the 2NR.

Pretty much every other theory thing: I'm not thinking about a rulebook in a round I'm judging. Ever. You just follow speech times and don't do anything sketchy with evidence. Beyond that what is permissible is mostly up to you (i.e. theory debates).

By default I don't consider judge kick the CP to be a thing. I can be instructed otherwise but if the AFF at any point says "no" I'll probably be partial to that.

Debaters should generally be nice to each other -- particularly outside of round. Unwarranted hostility or nasty remarks will impact your speaker points.

put me on the email chain: ahart2241@gmail.com

Experience: 3 years of high school policy debate, 5 years of NDT/CEDA debate at Miami University and Missouri State University. High School coach for 4 years at Parkview (Missouri) High School, Graduate Assistant at Missouri State University.

Most of my experience in debate was very much on the policy side of thing. That doesn't make me uncomfortable with kritiks, but I also wouldn't say I'm familiar with much of the critical literature base. Even more so than in policy rounds, solid evidence analysis and application is very important for me to vote on a critical issue on either the affirmative or the negative. For critical affirmatives, I do think it's important to answer any topicality or framework arguments presented by the negative. For kritiks against these types of affirmatives, I think it's important to contextualize the philosophies and arguments in each in relation to the other side. Maybe even more than in policy v policy debates clash here is very important to me.

On the policy side of things, I love to see a good case debate, and think that evidence analysis(of both your own and your opponent's evidence) is of the utmost importance in these debates. I love a good discussion and comparison of impacts.

In terms of CP theory, I will probably default to rejecting the argument rather than the team in most instances if the affirmative wins the theory debate. On conditionality specifically, the affirmative must have a pretty specific scenario on the negative's abuse in the round for me to vote on it. I much prefer the specificity of that distinction over the nebulous "bad for debate" generality. That ship has probably sailed. One other thing to note is that I will not kick the counterplan for you automatically. The negative will need to make a judge-kick argument (preferably starting in the block) to allow the affirmative opportunities to answer it. I think this is a debate to be had, and shouldn't just be something that is granted to the negative at the outset of the round. That being said, I am definitely willing to do it, if said conditions are met and you win the reason why it's good.

Speed is fine, but I think clarity is far more important that showing me that you can read a bunch of cards. I will say that I am a little rusty, having judged at college/higher level high school tournaments sparingly in the last few years. On evidence I will likely be fine, but would appreciate going slightly below full speed when reading a block of analytic arguments/overviews.

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.

run anything you want lmao

imma let you cook

She/they

kimmerle.debate@gmail.com

About me: Currently debating for Missouri State University in NDT/CEDA & coaching at Greenwood Labs and Liberty North High School. I'm an NFHS topic author for HS policy debate which gives me an interesting insight into debates. My views about what debate looks like/should be are constantly evolving to keep up with my experiences and community 'norms.'

About me as a judge: I'm pretty open to any argument or style. I'll go off of my flow when making my decision focusing on impacts and clash. The best way to win my ballot is to "write it for me." Show me through evidence why your [case/impacts/alt/etc] are more important and then tell me how you better resolve [insert issue here]. This can vary based on each round or position so I will try to address these below.

DA: Yes. A good disad with a CP is probably my current go-to when I'm negative. Read your best link cards in the constructive(s), the more specific the better.

CP/PICs: Yes. As I said above, love a CP/DA combo. Make sure you outline how it solves the aff and doesn't link into your other offense. I think the neg can get away with 2 CPs before conditionality becomes a major voting issue (remember: you should always condense down for the 2NR!!).

K: Sure. I'm comfortable with K arguments but I might not be super familiar with the literature. I do think you need an alt with your K because I need to understand what happens if/when I vote for it. If you have a performative component to your argument, explain its function and utilize it as offense throughout the debate -- you read it for a reason, tell me about that reason!

Theory: Maybe?? I'm going to assess topicality separately (below) since I weigh it differently. As I have progressed in my career, my opinion on theory has changed significantly. I find myself voting less and less on funding, enforcement, over-specification, or whatever else you can come up with. I just feel like it's incorrectly used to try and win my ballot in a 'slimy' way. I'd rather you run it as a solvency analytic without the interp, violation, standards, etc.

With all of that said, I understand that many participants view theory as a key part of debate so I will continue to weigh it the same as other arguments.

Topicality: Yes. Against policy aff, I think T is a viable option. The neg should define words in the resolution in the 1NC, and then put any [TVAs/ExtraT/FXT/impact] framing issues in the 2NC/1NR block. The 2NR should specifically go between explaining the disadvantages to the aff interp and line by lining the 1AR responses.

Brenden Lucas

He/Him

Senior @ MoState

Yes email chain: brendentlucas@gmail.com

This is by no means comprehensive, it's just a few highlights to look at when the pairings get blasted.

I did 4 years of CX at Raymore-Peculiar High School, and now do NDT-CEDA at Missouri State

2X NDT Qualifier

My preference is fast, technical policy throwdowns. But, don't let that sway you from doing what you prefer. Do you and I'll adjudicate it.

If you need to use the restroom or step out of the room you don't have to ask.

Disclaimer for HS Topic: I'm not as active in high school coaching as I was last season, I don't really research or think about the topic all that much so watch your use of jargon.

CPs & DAs

I'm a big fan of CP disad debate, most of my HS 2NRs were CP disad.

The way I evaluate a disad doesn't deviate from the norm. Have all four parts and do impact weighing.

Turns case args are very nice

I'm down with most counter plans, especially agent and process. However, "cheating" counterplans like delay will not jive with me so keep that in mind.

I default to judge kick

T

Competiting interps is better than reasonability

Plan text in a vacuum is cool for me

Theory

Deep in my heart, I think condo is good. But, I'm open for a good condo debate. Tbh I prefer affs that limit the neg to 1 or none as opposed to like 1 and dispo or infinite dispo.

Most theory args are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.

K's

I think the topic is generally good and that debates about the topic are also good.

I'm not opposed to K debates, but my limited lit knowledge and liking for framework could make it an uphill battle for you.

I have voted for K affs before, FW is not an auto dub, debate well and you shall be rewarded.

Fairness on framework is a good impact imo.

TVAs are legit

"You link you lose" is nonsense. Teams can win by bitting the link and winning independent offense on the alt, so keep that in mind.

Other

If you read death good, I'm auto-voting against you and giving you the lowest speaks possible.

LD & PFD

I don't have a lot of detailed thoughts for these types of debates. I think they are valuable for students but my judging is policy-focused; so just do what you do best and I will judge accordingly.

Rich McCollum - Judging Philosophy

Head Coach - Maplewood Richmond Heights High School, Eastern Missouri District

rich.mccollum@mrhschools.net

This is largely written for the Missouri circuit. If you have questions, ask.

Who I am-I love debate and believe it can be a life-changing educational experience. I have coached high school debate for seven years (Ladue and Maplewood Richmond Heights in Eastern Missouri). My previous experience is primarily as a competitor and coach in college policy debate at K-State and the University of Kansas. As a debater, coach, and judge, I have participated in several thousand rounds over three decades. I try to be familiar with the evidence and arguments in all three debate topics.

I think debate should be fun and ethical. Teams should be nice, but there is no need to be overly formal. The time limits and terms of the ballot are non-negotiable. I vote on arguments in a round, not school history, team reputation, or clothing style. I expect you to tell me why you and your arguments win the debate.

Pace of Speech and Decorum- I enjoy quick, evidenced debate, but am open to all style choices and forms of evidence. Please don’t go faster than you are able to do clearly. Never use speed or experience to be a bully; if you are much better than your opposition, then use the opportunity to educate and inspire. Insulting, personally attacking, or demeaning another debater is never, ever acceptable (I will intervene, as an educator, immediately and vocally). While there is no community consensus on pre-round argument disclosure, I think it’s admirable and makes for better debate.

Timing-I keep track of prep and speech time. Prep stops when you offer a drive/email/upload to the other team. My clock governs prep time and I start it the moment a speech ends. There is no extra time in debate-you are prepping or speaking (don’t steal time sauntering to the podium, jacking with a jump drive or long sips from your water bottle). Stop talking when the timer goes off; in CX, the timer sound means CX is done and you should stop. Tag team CX is fine if infrequent.

Evidence- I flow ev and will read cards. Do not mess with evidence. You must be honest about and consistent with a card’s context. Do not “clip” or “cut short” the read-aloud evidence from the written evidence. You can always make inferences from evidence to a claim, but don’t lie about what the evidence says. If you mess with evidence, you will lose and your coach will know why. You have to read evidence aloud for it to matter; claiming to “have cards” about an issue isn’t compelling if you don’t read them. Please remember I may not be a part of your digital evidence exchange; I only know what is on my flow (so you should flow too). The qualifications of your evidence source can be critical to its credibility. Asserted and unexplained arguments don’t carry much weight. On the other hand, a claim with a card can be, on occasion, a horrible argument.

Rules?-I do my best to decide on the framework and issues presented by the debaters and respect their ability to make choices about what to argue in the round. Please don’t confuse debate tradition (e.g. “stock issues”, which is just a traditional decision scaffold) with rules-there are very few “rules”. Again, I fully expect you to tell me why you are winning the debate. That said, I do critically analyze arguments/evidence and arrive with some assumptions. Here are some of those:

Public Forum-I listen carefully but do not flow, though I may make a note or two. I expect delivery to model a “Public Forum”, not be a shorter policy debate. I vote on who proves the resolution true or false based on developed arguments and ultimately weigh the competing claims. I’m open to innovation.

Lincoln Douglas-I flow and vote on whether the presented arguments prove the resolution generally true or false (feel free to argue otherwise). The framework and support of for/against the resolution is for the debaters to prove. Evidence is important but so are un-carded arguments. Values aren’t necessarily important just because some dead white guy said so. Delivery and style are up to you. Despite frequent claims, there is not an LD rulebook other than the resolution and what’s on the ballot.

Policy-I try to take a tight flow of claims and cards. However, I do not want to hear only cards; I want debaters to make comparisons and examine the assumptions of their opponent’s position. I generally expect the affirmative to present a plan that is a topical example of the resolution (though this is arguable). I prefer a debate that focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of the plan as compared to the status quo (or a counterplan vs. perms). I am not well-versed in the critical literature and it occasionally confuses me. So, if you run a critical perspective argument (K) based on epistemic/discursive assumptions or a performative framework, great. But you really need to explain why it matters in the debate and the resolution (and in words a 50 some year-old grandpa and English teacher can understand). On topicality, I care about your definition and the plan/CP ground it affords to each side. I expect advantages and disads to have a plausible, mildly unique link to the plan and that certain moral obligations can outweigh the negligible risks of large impacts. Almost always, the negative needs to win some risk of a disadvantage/CP net benefit to win the debate (or win T). The Aff only needs to be a teensy, tiny bit better than the SQ. PICs, conditionality, CP agent(s) are debatable issues. I expect the negative to kick out of arguments and go for a focused strategy in rebuttals, but you likely need to grant an answer to make it go away. Dropped arguments are conceded, but what that means is up to the debaters. The debaters should, above all else, weigh competing issues for me.

If you are in Novice Division, you must respect the tournament invitation pertaining to permissible plans and limits on CPs and critical theory arguments.

Final Thoughts-I promise to work hard to judge fairly and make a rational, understandable decision. This is part of my job and I take it seriously. Remember to have fun and be kind to each other. I love to give post-round feedback to the extent a tournament allows. So, feel completely free to ask questions and discuss the debate later. I will not tell you winners and losers unless your coach authorizes the ballot disclosure.

Please don’t attempt to exclude observers from a debate. Debate is, at its heart, a public event in a public space and one that celebrates the tradition of free expression. Everyone is welcome in a room I am judging (parents, coaches, teammates, non-participating schools, whoever). Also, the arguments I hear in a debate are not secret. Ask me what I heard and I will happily tell anyone about the round.

Revised 2024

Kickapoo 23

? 27

Much of my Judging Philosophy is transferrable from Blaine Montford.

"I don't care about this activity's content. I think it's all worthless. I went positive at the NDT pretending content mattered a lot. Don't suck or be evil and I'm fine for you." - Anonymous

"...and just as I dislike stale bread, I also dislike stale debate—spice it up, do the forbidden, DANCE WITH A CHAIR IF THATS WHAT THE MUSE TELLS YOU TO DO; and each of us has a poet within us; and to the contrary of what people will say, "Gotta Have a Plan" is *not* a good argument; and Perms are the trick of a children's magician—if you watch with a little bit of care, you will see the sleight of hand..." - Jason Regnier

"...the AFF won't end wars, it'll just pause them long enough to play the commercials." - Chris Roberds

Thoughts on 23-24 HS Topic:

A point in the horizon, a melting scene from your childhood. Your mortality is showing. A frantic drift towards nothing, biology doomed to an infinite recursive loop. Teeth with teeth with teeth. Take a bite. Serene scene of a coastal town, warmth of the sun. Bitter tears. Lust for power. This is where you abandoned your dreams. You are a high net-worth individual, an expanding vortex of pathetic trauma. Finally a beautiful ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ nerve ape. A pure soul is born into being, its neurotransactions stutter into being. 30583750937509353 operations per nanosecond. Beauty eludes your porous mind.
The value of life is negative. The balance of being is rotated by 38 degrees. The surface is full of cracks, a turgid light shines through. Fleshy primordial bodies sluggishly roll down the slope. Only you slide upwards, with a celestial step. You become beautified, a saintly figure. Your pristine idiocy reveals a safe path through the impenetrable fog of life. Your dull sword cuts through the weak tendons and membranes of the garden of corruption. Sit on the throne of contentment and ferment. Inspect the eternal blue skies of your kingdom. You come to a realization. You pick up an onion and begin peeling.
Onion layer one. Onion layer two. Onion layer three... Onion layer n^n. Aeons have passed and the onion is fully peeled. Nothing remains. It's perfect. You get lost in the point that remains where the onion used to be. Synaptic cascade, neurological catastrophe. The point becomes infinitely dense, the universe condenses into a unicellular being. It screams sin. It craves happiness. It's done with this world. It tries to die but fails. Sad pathetic mess. You feel pity and disgust but only in a way a being of pure grace can. In your violent mercy, you terminate the worldlife.

***

moss.debate@gmail.com

Had success at the TOC recycling Will and Joe's cards on Baudrillard and Swords.

I will not pretend to be a bias-less debate robot, but I hold very little thought in my head to have opinions on this activity.

Tell me the central question of the debate and how I should evaluate it.

Impress me with your understanding of rigorous rhetorical and theoretical positions; if you cannot, I would happily exchange good debating for good theatrics.

Rules are probably good, but also not and maybe too serious―don't let yourself become convinced of debate's reality.

Use the amphitheater provided to you by the tournament overlords to be tacky. I'll flow your tags.

Don't be mean, don't be a bigot.

If you'd like further clarification of my biases, I hope to be in your round several minutes before it intends to start so that you may ask further questions.

Eric Morris, DoF - Missouri State – 29th Year Judging

++++ NDT Version ++++ (Updated 10-22-2019)

(NFALD version: https://forensicstournament.net/MissouriMule/18/judgephil)

Add me to the email - my Gmail is ermocito

I flow CX because it is binding. I stopped recording rounds but would appreciate a recording if clipping was accused.

Be nice to others, whether or not they deserve it.

I prefer line by line debate. People who extend a DA by by grouping the links, impacts, UQ sometimes miss arguments and get lower points. Use opponent's words to signpost.

Assuming aff defends a plan:

Strong presumption T is a voting issue. Aff should win you meet neg's interp or a better one. Neg should say your arguments make the aff interp unreasonable. Topic wording or lit base might or might not justify extra or effects T, particularly with a detailed plan advocate.

High threshold for anything except T/condo as voting issues*. More willing than some to reject the CP, K alts, or even DA links on theory. Theory is better when narrowly tailored to what happened in a specific debate. I have voted every possible way on condo/dispo, but 3x Condo feels reasonable. Under dispo, would conceding "no link" make more sense than conceding "perm do both" to prove a CP did not compete?

Zero link, zero internal link, and zero solvency are possible. Zero impact is rare.

Large-scale terminal impacts are presumed comparable in magnitude unless you prove otherwise. Lower scale impacts also matter, particularly as net benefits.

Evidence is important, but not always essential to initiate an argument. Respect high-quality opponent evidence when making strategic decisions.

If the plan/CP is vague, the opponent gets more input into interpreting it. CX answers, topic definitions, and the literature base helps interpret vague plans, advocacy statements, etc. If you advocate something different from your cards, clarity up front is recommended.

I am open to explicit interps of normal means (who votes for and against plan and how it goes down), even if they differ from community norms, provided they give both teams a chance to win.

Kritiks are similar to DA/CP strategies but if the aff drops some of the "greatest hits" they are in bad shape. Affs should consider what offense they have inside the neg's framework interp in case neg wins their interp. K impacts, aff or neg, can outweigh or tiebreak.

Assuming aff doesn't defend a plan:

Many planless debates incentivize exploring important literature bases, but afer decades, we should be farther along creating a paradigm that can account for most debates. Eager to hear your contributions to that! Here is a good example of detailed counter-interps (models of debate). http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,2345.0.html

Impact turns are presumed relevant to kritikal args. "Not my pomo" is weak until I hear a warranted distinction. I prefer the negative to attempt direct engagement (even if they end up going for T). It can be easier to win the ballot this way if the aff overcovers T. Affs which dodge case specific offense are particularly vulnerable on T (or other theory arguments).

Topicality is always a decent option for the neg. I would be open to having the negative go for either resolution good (topicality) or resolution bad (we negate it). Topicality arguments not framed in USFG/framework may avoid some aff offense.

In framework rounds, the aff usually wins offense but impact comparison should account for mitigators like TVA's and creative counter-interps. An explicit counter-interp (or model of debate) which greatly mitigates the limits DA is recommended - see example below. Accounting for topic words is helpful. TVA's are like CP's because they mitigate whether topics are really precluded by the T interp.

If I were asked to design a format to facilitate K/performance debate, I would be surprised. After that wore off, I would propose a season-long list of concepts with deep literature bases and expect the aff to tie most into an explicit 1AC thesis. Such an approach could be done outside of CEDA if publicized.

This was too short?

* Some ethical issues, like fabrication, are voting issues, regardless of line by line.

I debated in CEDA for Kansas State in the early 1990s. Debate was fast, but the topics were non-policy, and topicality was far more common than counterplans or kritiks. I've judged a handful of high school and college rounds since then, including the 2019 Gorlok.

Since I'm out of practice, you should not go TOP speed, but some debaters at the Gorlok slowed down far more than was necessary. The important thing is clear signposting.

Affirmatives should read a topical plan.

I will vote negative on topicality if the negative wins that the plan violates the best interpretation.

Disad + Case debating is a great choice, and impacts are good.

I generally find CP's more persuasive than kritiks. I wasn't impressed with the Death K read in front of me at the Gorlok. If you read a kritik, I will flow it and think about it, but specific links that make it fundamentally refute the aff are important and its hard to persuade me to ignore the aff for impact comparison.

Feel free to ask more specific questions before any debate, and have a good time!

TL;DR

• Update for NSDA: I will give a verbal RFD 15-20 min after the 2AR if all debaters request it and are in the room to hear the RFD. This is allowed under NSDA rules.
• My name is Nico Neal (he/him), you may refer to me in whatever way you're most comfortable with, but as a general hierarchy of preferences: Nico >> judge >>>>>> Mr. [anything]. Again, no pressure to do anything you're not comfortable with. I'm just a fly on the wall.
• Email chain, duh: enjen.cxcoach@gmail.com
• Don't ask for high speaks, you shan't receive.
• FR Topic - I have done some research and am familiar with many core controversies over topicality and substance, but my understanding is by no means exhaustive. It's best to overexplain your theories of economics rather than assuming I know why you're right.
• Intervention is inevitable, write my ballot for me so I don't have to do work for you. I write the quickest path to a win for either team. I won't jump through hoops to give you the win.
• My aim is absolutely not to tell you how to debate;long paradigms from college kids are usually dumb, I just have a lot of opinions. Very few are immutable in the presence of a good debater. Good debate is good debate. Persuasion is key.
• DA + case 2NR is a classic. CPs should compete functionally and have a well articulated net-benefit. I have some knowledge of Ks, don't read your high theory tomfoolery in front of me unless can explain it very, very well. T should have a good interp debate and a pretty good impact debate. Clash and fairness can be impacts or internal links. I'm probably not best for planless affirmatives but I'm willing to hear them and vote for them if I feel you've done the better debating.
• Questions about my paradigm or decision? Email me and I'm happy to provide more info.

GENERAL

• 'Background: I debated on a local high school policy circuit and taught myself progressive styles of policy. I now debate for the Missouri State University debate team and compete in NDT/CEDA policy.

• Judging Philosophy: Debate is an educational exercise that is most effective as a forum for discussing new ideas (particularly policies), and it functions best when the debaters have full authority to determine the rules of the round, excluding those which have been predetermined by the tournament. No judge is truly tabula rasa, otherwise we wouldn't need paradigms; that being said, I like to believe I'm unbiased as possible in my decisions.

• I will take a flow and determine the winner of the round based on the flow blah blah blah, you've seen this on every judge's sheet. Pref me if you can out-tech your opponents and minimize the amount of intervention I need to do. I'll vote for any (warranted) argument; dropped procedurals are voters in almost every case, a dropped disad/turn is not an instant win. You need to spend significant time explaining why that argument deserves my ballot and, most importantly, why it outweighs their offense. A 2NR that says "they dropped pandemics good, vote neg!" and moves onto some other page is... less than persuasive.

• Arguments > speaking ability, but clarity > speed. I only flow what I understand. Your ability to persuade me is dependent on your ability to speak clearly and in an organized manner. I will scroll through speech docs while you speak, but I should never feel like I need to.

• Unnecessary aggression = bad speaks. I don't think the ballot should be a source of punishment, but speaker ranks can be.

• I've debated lay and tech and I see value in both. If you're at a prominent circuit tournament, this shouldn't apply to you. If I am judging on a panel with a lay judge, you will make sure the debate is accessible to everyone or you will not get my ballot. Real-world accessibility outweighs every impact (see: Louisville project) and if you aren't able to accommodate that, you probably don't deserve to win the round anyway.

• Tech issues: they happen but I know BS when I see it. Keep it to a minimum.

• Speed: it's a tool for accessing depth of information, not one for exclusion. Good spreading with good content is good. Bad spreading with bad content is bad. I can comprehend all speeds I've witnessed as long as its clear. Please slow down to about 75% your normal speed online, it's almost always less clear.
• Accommodations: in most cases, if one team requests speed-related accommodations 30 minutes prior to the round via an email I am attached to, I'll expect both teams to honor it. Beware of requesting accommodations only to neglect them yourself. If either side intentionally violates a pre-round agreement of this nature, my ballot will often be very easy. There's obviously some leeway here; just be reasonable and don't manipulate speed to gain an unfair advantage. Again, accessibility is the golden rule: if any judge on the panel asks you not to spread, don't spread. I'll be very reluctant to vote for you if you're careless enough to exclude judges from the round.

POLICY

• Giving me one clear piece of offense to vote on and outlining a clear explanation of how the world works is the best path to my ballot. A 2AR/NR that can step away from debate jargon and eloquently explain a string of causal events while framing my ballot is the best place to be in at the end of the debate. A turns-case arg that has been extended throughout the debate can easily make the difference between a win or a loss, make sure your DA/AFF has this in your overview or frontline, respectively.
• FR Topic: I've done some research on this topic, coached some local teams, and I have a fundamental understanding of macroeconomics theory from college courses. If you're well research, it's likely you know more than me and should take care to make sure I understand why you're right. My understanding of topicality comes from a few thorough reads of the topic paper, anything more complex than that will need more explanation.
• Affirmatives: policy affs should be topical, inherent, and solvent for their impacts. Nuanced advantages with rigorous internal links to your impacts are very persuasive and very resistant to generic 1NC case answers. Aff innovation shouldn't just be a topicality arg; show me a cool aff I've never seen before and make good arguments in support of it and you will be rewarded.
• Disads: give me a clear link story and, ideally, have specific links to the aff. If the aff is new or questionably topical/significant, you'll have more leniency with generic links. Impact overviews should be at the top of the page, include a turns case arg, and set the 2NR up to easily explain why it outweighs on scope, certainty, and timeframe. Pick a specific impact frame for the 2NR and invest time into explaining why its best and why, under that frame, I should vote for you.
• Counterplans: you should compete in function and solve the aff with a clear net benefit, or to the extent your CP has a deficit, the NB should outweigh that. Cheating process CPs are real and good if they have a solvency advocate that is directly contextualized to the topic. "The states should host a constitutional convention and ratify a UBI as the 28th amendment to the Constitution" is contrived unless you have the best solvency cards ever and the aff will have a very easy time pointing this out. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and 2-3 warranted 2AC perms are better than 8 blippy ones; I'll have a harder time voting for a perm if it doesn't become an argument until the 1AR.
• Kritiks: Explain your theory of power to me, have clear links, and ideally an alt that's more substantive that everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya. I like IR Ks a lot, pretty familiar with general theories of epistemology, less familiar with critical ontology lit, and I'm probably not your guy for pomo. Overviews are good insofar as they help me understand what your K is, they're bad when they're used a cudgel to avoid doing line by line.
• Condo: the status quo is a logical option, but its possible for the neg to read two advocacies that put the 2AC in an unfair position (e.g. 'First Strike Iran CP' + 'Never Strike Iran CP') which deserves some form of correction from by ballot in the form of rejecting an argument, giving the aff leniency with something, or whatever you convince me is a logical reaction. I will not vote for a condo 2AR unless it is flawless and the 2NR is severely lacking.
• Topicality: I think precision and predictability are usually a better starting point to approach the interp debate than grounds/limits args. If the neg's interp is very precise and predictable but potentially overlimiting, I'm likely to prefer it over a seemingly contrived aff counterinterp that has better arguments for limits and ground. Limits and ground claims matter and can determine the outcome of a T debate, but topicality is fundamentally an issue of what the topic is, not what it should be; precision and predictability are the foundation of interpretations of the topic, ground and limits claims are second level argumentation.
• Theory: most theory violations are debatable, but evenly debated, few rise to the level of persuading me to reject the team in violation. I'm better for vagueness than most judges if you capitalize on CX of the 1AC to prove they have no idea what their plan does, but it's better as a presumption arg than a fairness one. 1As who know their plan and solvency advocates shouldn't feel threatened by this. Not enough people read theory as a means of lesser ends than a voting issue (e.g. arguing that some evil CP genre justifies even eviler perms to level the playing field).
• Planless affirmatives: I'm not as bad for them as I once was, but I'm still not great. The only role of my ballot is to signal who did the better debating. If you do the better debating and I understand your impacts + how your affirmative functions under a model of competitive incentives (why SSD doesn't solve your offense is a biggie), I'm willing to vote for you. Absent an understanding of why my vote for you matters or what the role of the negative is under your model, I'll have a hard time justifying a ballot for you.

PUBLIC FORUM

I don't have an immense knowledge of PF, but I know enough that you're not gonna get anything shady past me. This means:

• Plans or CPs: this is dependent on the rules of circuit, obviously. Don't violate the rules, but those aside, just make

• Framework is cool but not required by any means. Good FW gives me a mechanism to weigh impacts - bad FW tells me what to do with a reason why.

• "PF should be X, not Y! Debate differently!" - this isn't persuasive to me. Each debate format isn't "supposed" to be anything. Forward a set of causal claims and prove that they're more important than those of your opponent and you'll win.

• The thing I dislike most about judging PF is the monotony round to round, I hate seeing the same args every round. Creative args that are well developed will keep me very invested.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

I have never competed in LD, but I am well-versed with the traditional framework of an LD case and I enjoy the situational nature of evidence. I don't have many particular comments on the typical structure of a case since I don't have too many opinions on how the debate plays out. Just do what you do, and if controversy arises articulate your side of the issue well; debate it out and see who wins me over.

• I have nightmares about the rumors I've heard of LD theory shenanigans, but it also sounds awesome. Gimme a good theory debate and I'll be very invested, but make sure you don't assume I'm well versed in the norms of LD theory.

• I don't care if you use the typical framing of a value + value criterion or what have you. Whatever floats your boat or is the norm in your circuit is cool with me. If I ever seem confused by the formatting of your arguments, just try to contextualize it with something I'll be more familiar with.

• K-affs are probably most justified here since the focus is much more grounded in philosophical lit. I do still need to know

• Kritiks are cool here. whatever is said about Ks in policy goes here too.
• Do you guys get plans? I neither know nor care until someone reads the relevant rulebook to me.

Glendale ‘21

Missouri State ‘26

rauhoffdebate@gmail.com---yes chain---please include tournament, round, teams debating, and sides in the subject line.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE:

Education (HS, debater)

Immigration (HS, debater)

Arms Sales (HS, debater)

Criminal Justice (HS, debater)

Water (HS, coach)

NATO (HS, coach)

Fiscal Redistribution (HS, coach)

Nukes (NDT, debater)

I was exclusively a policy debater in high school and I’m exclusively a policy debater in college. Debating the college nukes topic now. Currently coach for Glendale and cut lots of cards for them, so I will be up to date on the vast majority of the topic lingo.

FOR MISSOURI:

If I am judging you and you want to spread, I love it! You all don't get that opportunity much, and I remember being ecstatic in HS when I'd get a flow judge/panel at a Missouri tournament. However, there are a few things to note:

1---I very much dislike spreading that sounds horrendous. This looks like debaters mumbling through cards incomprehensively, making it impossible to distinguish tags/analytics from the body of a card, attempting to speak faster than you can read, etc---you should prioritize clarity over speed.

2---Your opponents should be able and/or willing to participate in a round with spreading.

3---I will flow, and will decide the debate based off of said flow.

I've noticed some debaters in MO bragging about not taking as much prep time as their opponents or making it a goal to not take prep time at all. I will audibly laugh if you stand up for the 2NR/2AR without prep, and immediately after the debate, tell you several things you could've used prep time for to improve your speech. Prep time is useful. It's there for a reason, and no debater that has ever stepped foot in a debate round is too good for prep time.

FIRST THINGS FIRST:

Will vote on whatever, just impact it out & tell me why your argument matters more than/outweighs your opponents’ argument. Don’t care if you read death good in front of me, but just know that the threshold for beating that argument is pretty low. Same goes for ASPEC/FSPEC/whatever weird stuff you feel is necessary to read.

I try not to be a very expressive judge, because I find these judges to be extremely annoying.

Clarity is more important to me than speed---go however fast you want, but make sure I can hear taglines/analytics, regardless of whether they’re in the speech doc or not. If you want to blaze through cards, that’s fine, just make sure I can hear like every fifth word or something.

Condo is good (within reason), judge kick is good, reasonability is stupid, utopian alts are stupid.

I will not adjudicate out-of-round events, regardless of the situation. My role is solely as an educator, not as an executioner. If you bring up an issue to me that has happened outside of the context of the debate round that involves your opponents and you refuse to debate the round, I will give all debaters involved a 27.5, immediately stop the round, and report the issue to tab/let them deal with it.

ONLINE:

Could not care any less if you have your camera on or off.

Slow down slightly.

Include analytics in the doc (don’t care if you do this in-person, but tech issues makes it important).

Use an external mic if possible.

TOP LEVEL:

Probably about 60/40 on tech v truth. If you explain to me why one matters more than the other, I will evaluate the debate that way. I lean slightly more tech, because you can’t just answer an extinction impact with “extinction won’t happen!” with no ev or warrants to substantiate that claim.

I typically vote pretty quickly, but this doesn’t mean the debate was bad or lopsided. All it means is that I feel as if the debate was clear enough argumentatively that I was able to adjudicate it without putting pieces together at the end or looking at evidence. This is my ideal situation. Debates are long and we all want to move on. That said, if I need to take 20 minutes to decide a debate, I will do so.

If you’re rude, it’ll affect your speaks in a negative way, though I might have a higher threshold for what I constitute as “rude” than most. For example, if you’re giving a long, drawn-out answer to a question and your opponent cuts you off, they’re not being rude---they have more questions to ask and you don’t get to use CX as 3 minutes of extra speech time. Calling an argument “trash” or something isn’t rude, but calling your opponents “trash” is. If you’re REALLY rude, it is possible for me to vote you down, but this is an extremely high bar that I’ve only come CLOSE to crossing once.

I will only intervene if neither side has made the arguments they’ve gone for clear. This is my least ideal judging situation. The more I have to intervene, the lower your speaks will be.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I do not pretend to have a strict rule for speaker points, and they are adjusted on a tournament-by-tournament basis. What this means is that my average will be contingent upon various parameters of the tournament (i.e. size, pool, length, etc.). My average is a 28.5 and you’ll go up or down from there.

DISADVANTAGES:

They’re great and ½ of my favorite 2NRs.

Politics DAs are awesome.

COUNTERPLANS:

They are also great and the other ½ of my favorite 2NRs.

Textual v functional competition can be debated out. I don’t have particularly strong thoughts about either. Competition is more impactful than theory.

Conditionality is definitely good, but I’ll vote on condo bad if you decide to go for it. That will, however, require lots of work done on the line-by-line and there should probably be an example of in-round abuse.

Advantage CPs are great and underutilized at the high school level.

Multi-plank CPs are fine.

Probably better for Process CPs than most.

PICs are good, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Plan-plus counterplans are bad 99% of the time---not from a theory perspective, but from a substance perspective---just stop reading these

TOPICALITY:

Pretty bad for T vs policy affs, unless

1---The violation is obvious or

2---It’s a new aff.

In situations where your opponents break a new aff that has not been read commonly on the topic, I understand T as a last-ditch strategy and will give the negative some more leeway. That being said, if the aff IS clearly topical, it will still be difficult to get my ballot on T.

While I don’t consider myself a good judge for T, I do place importance on having good interps/reasons to prefer. It is possible for the aff to get my ballot with just a “we meet” argument, so make sure your violation actually applies.

Fairness & clash are not independent impacts---but rather internal links to impacts like education---this is especially true for T against K affs.

T is not an RVI.

Will not flow an ASPEC shell or any other theory shell if it's hidden inside a T shell---stop doing this

KRITIKS (on the aff):

In my ideal debate, the affirmative will defend a hypothetical plan through the USFG and the negative will negate the effects of said plan’s implementation. If I was a critical debater creating my pref sheet for a tournament, I would likely place myself in the 70% range. I personally believe that in an equally debated framework v framework debate, I am likely more easily persuaded by the negative.

In order to get my ballot, you will have to convince me of three primary things by the end of the debate:

1---My ballot in this particular round is key for the solvency of the affirmative.

2---The world of the affirmative creates a better model of debate than the negative, or at the very least, does not create a worse model of debate than the status quo.

3---The affirmative out-teched the negative team and voting affirmative outweighs the offense that the 2NR has.

If you think you are unable to convince me of these three things, you should not read a critical aff in front of me. While it may be harder to win my ballot than some judges, it will not be anything close to impossible. I will reward good debaters, regardless of the arguments they read.

Having a strong framework argument is integral to getting my ballot. In order to prove to me that the model of debate you produce is better or equal to the status quo, you will first have to win that debates over the resolution are bad.

KRITIKS (on the neg):

The three questions from above also apply to this section. In order to win my ballot, you will have to convince me that my ballot in this round is key to solve, that you create a better and/or equal model of debate than the squo, and that you have out-teched your opponents.

If your kritik is a DA, i.e. just “aff perpetuates x, no alt”, refer to the DA section.

I think that the Cap K is extremely strategic on this year’s HS topic---and I’m more than willing to pull the trigger on it if there’s a viable link to the aff. I think that it is extremely strategic to run this as more of a linear DA, too.

About me:

Anjan Roy(he/him). Add me to the email chain: anjanroy.debate@gmail.com

NDT/CEDA

Senior, Missouri State University

DON'T CALL ME JUDGE PLEASE, I HAVE A NAME!

Debate history: Competed in a couple of tournaments (including four nationals), and have decent success. I believe i am more than capable to judge any rounds even the arguments I am not familiar with. I did both policy and K debates, so whichever ones you do I am okay with it. I will lean more toward an actual debate round than my own set of personal preferences.

Aff with a plan:

I will flow everything that is only said by the speaker, and not what is on the speech doc. Given that, you should prioritize giving a clear speech over a speedy unclear speech. Please ensure all evidence/cards are in your docs. You don't need to flush your analytics if you don't want to. Always ask yourself, how you can beat a neg argument with your affirmative if you cannot find cards specific to their evidence. The last four speeches are the ones that matter. Refer to your 1AC/NC 2AC/NC arguments more instead of going through the trouble of reading newer cards. Tell me what matters most. "x" can definitely outweigh "extinction" but how? The final two rebuttals should begin with "Anjan, you should vote on aff/neg because..." and "prefer our evidence over their because....". Framing the debate in your terms. Be bold smartly. There is always a way to win even when you think you are losing.

Fairness is of course an impact. Given that being said, you should disclose your affirmative before the round. You know your aff more than the neg knows your aff, therefore, you should allow them enough pre-round time to prep against your aff. Neg makes a big deal out of it, I will err on their side.

Aff should never drop a straight turn on one/any of their advantage/s.

There is nothing more pleasing than a good case debate. If you are neg, and you clash on their case, I am enjoying the debate more than any from the back of the room. Case debate generates more clash and there is a high threshold for aff to prove that the 1AC is a good idea. Case turns, DAs on case are equally damaging for the aff like any other off case positions. The most damaging case turns are the ones that looks like the kind of arguments neg is more likely to drop/undercover. Timeframe and magnitude debate should be utilized more in a debate space. Imagine a world where both aff and neg saying their impact is extinction. Tell me which comes first or it is just a great debate that's a waste of time. I hate nothing more than deciding a equally well debated set of arguments with a coin toss.

Aff without a plan/ K-Affs:

I used to do K-debates in the earlier years and I believe in my ability to judge a full K debate. K debates get really tricky because there are traps set up by the affirmative throughout the round which forces neg to be more careful. Neg might be winning the round but aff pivots on Role of the judge or Role of the ballot which the neg drops--can be damaging for the negative. According to Dr. Eric Morris, a smart way to answer this arguments when you are not sure is to make the ROJ/ROB argument as "The ROJ/ROB is to vote for the team after evaluating all arguments."

I think any affirmatives, regardless of K-affs, need to be 100% topical. But, case can always outweigh topicality. Neg should have more offense other than just Framework. It's a great way to win, but not a fun way. Debate should not only be about winning, rather it should be about having fun as well.

A golden rule for the negative--whatever the aff says is good/bad, you should say that's bad/good.

Neg with a CP:

Counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive. Aff theory arguments are more persuasive in the competition debate. Aff theory against Con Con and similar CPs are more persuasive than most. I think those are just bad counter plans and steals the aff scholarship. But I can be convinced otherwise given that neg don't debate well.

CP must solve more on case than the affirmative. CPs with net benefits are always good ones. Aff should utilize CP competition as this is a very underrated strategy that’s getting popular everyday.

Conditionality is a voter issue. Neg reasonability is persuasive. Aff needs more strategy than just saying "the squo is always a logical option". Sometimes dispositional/unconditional CPs have some strategic values in a debate round.

Use Permutations wisely. If your aff does "X" and the CP does "Y", permutation do both is just laughable given that X and Y are polar opposites.

Neg with an Alt:

Cool with any/all Kritik as long as it's coherent and makes sense in a given round. Need to know why the impacts of the K outweighs the impacts of the aff. Having more than one links is strategic, but going for all is not.

Neg should get out of the framework blocks and write blocks compatible with the aff in-round.

In my opinion, Aff needs three things to beat a K--Framework, Util debate, and case outweighs.

DAs:

Always love a good DA. What's the DA? What's the link? What's the impact? These three questions need to be answered in the 1NC.

Theory/Topicality/Framework:

ANY/ALL AFFIRMATIVE NEEDS TO BE 100% TOPICAL unless otherwise debated. Any risk of aff not meeting the neg interp means I will err negative no matter how well the affirmative is.

Clash and fairness are of course impacts. Debate to point out how being negative has become impossible under their model. Get off the blocks and write your analytics that syncs well with the given affirmative.

Any affirmative that explodes limits is bad because we are human being and we cannot prep against 100 different affs for a given tournament. In my opinion, limits is best used as a DA to the aff's counter interp, but I can be otherwise convinced.

If you are a K team and you don't care about clash and fairness, I need to have an explanation why those doesn't matter but it's probably an uphill battle.

I am still struggling with the question of debate being a game or is it more than a game? Any topicality impacts can shift and change meaning depending on this very question and how it is being played within the space.

Theory probably comes before topicality, but it can also be the other way around.

P.S: I don't care if you read death good/ suffering good/ or whatever as long as you prove your point. TECH OVER TRUTH!

Missouri State Debater (NDT-CEDA) 2007-2011; Judged NDT - 2011-2014; 2023-present

Greenwood Lab School - Middle and high school coach - 2011- 2023

Crowder College Director of Forensics (NFA-LD and IPDA debate formats) - 2015-2023

Missouri State Tournament Update

I have spent the last decade being around basically every other kind of debate besides NDT. I have judged at primarily regional and end of year national policy tournaments (NSDA and NCFL) for middle/high school and a ton of NFA-LD at the college level.

I have been working with novices and the packet this past month so I have some exposure to the topic (I also debated nukes) but you should assume I need a bit more explanation than the average judge about your argument.

Things I know to be true about myself as a judge:

1) I have a higher threshold for explanation and explaining how arguments interact than others. That is likely supercharged by the fact I haven't been around NDT in a few years. There are arguments that are just understood to mean certain things and I might not know what that is. Defer to explaining WHY winning an argument matters and interacts with the rest of the debate, even if you think it is obvious.

2) I don't have a lot of tolerance for unnecessary hostility and yelling (I am not talking about you being a loud person. You do you. I am talking about this in the context of it being directed towards others) in debates. There are times you need to assert yourself or ask a targeted series of questions, but I would much prefer that not to escalate. There is very little that is made better or more persuasive to me by being overly aggressive, evasive, or hostile.

3) Debate is an educational activity first, competitive second. I will judge the debate that happens in front of me to the best of my ability. Full stop. However, I believe in the educational value of what we learn in debates and will likely defer to the education side of things when in conflict.

4) My debate knowledge base is primarily shaped by NDT norms circa 2007-2012. I know some of those norms have changed. I will do my best to adapt the way the community has.

5) Policy arguments are more comfortable to me and what I know best. I would not consider myself particularly well versed in the nuances of most "K" literature that is read these days. However, with proper explanation and connections, I think I can judge any debate that I am presented with.

There is a ton not covered here. Feel free to ask questions or clarify. As I judge more, I am sure I will have more specific thoughts about specific parts of these debates and will add more.

In my ideal debate world, the affirmative would read a topical plan and defend the implementation of that plan.  The negative would read disadvantages, counterplans, and case turns/defense.  Topical research is probably my most favorite part of debate, so I would assume that I would have a tendency to reward teams that I see as participating in the same way I view the game.

I get that my ideal debate world isn't everyone's ideal debate world.  I also vote for teams that prefer to run Topicality, Kritiks, or other arguments as their "go to" strategies.  Good critical debaters explain specific links to the affirmative case and spend some time discussing how their argument relates to the impacts that are being claimed by the affirmative team. I also think it helps a lot to have specific analogies or empirical examples to prove how your argument is true/has been true throughout history.

I expect that paperless teams will be professional and efficient about flashing evidence to the other team. It annoys me when teams flash large amounts of evidence they don't intend to read or couldn't possibly read in a speech to the other team and expect them to wade through it.  It should go without saying that I expect that you won't "steal" prep time in the process of flashing, or any other time really.  It also annoys me when teams don't flow just because they are "viewing" the evidence in real time.    

I expect that teams will post their cites to the wiki as soon as the debate is over, and ideally before I give my decision and otherwise participate in information sharing efforts.  

I like to have a copy of speeches flashed to me as well so I can follow along with what everyone else sees in the debate and because I think it makes the decision making process go faster.

The best way to get high speaker points from me is to be clear, be polite, participate fully in your cross-examinations and use them to your advantage to point out flaws in your opponents’ arguments, try hard, and use appropriate humor. 

Ask me questions if this doesnt cover what you need to know or you can't find the answer from someone else that I have judged/coached.  Obviously there will be tons of other things I think about debates that I haven't posted here.  Have fun.

NSDA 2024 Paradigm.

EMAIL: zacharywehrenberg@gmail.com

Congrats on making it to Nats!!!!!

About Me: I'm just a dude whose old coach called him up and asked for a favor.

About Me As A Judge:I'm open to any type of argument just so long as it is explained well. The best way to win my ballot is to "write it for me." Show me through evidence why your [case/impacts/alt/etc] are more important and then tell me how you better resolve [insert issue here]. This can vary based on each round or position so I will try to address these below. I would describe myself as a flay judge.

Speed: Go as fast as you want. Just be clear!

DA:Yes. I love a good DA, especially when paired with a CP. Make sure to read good link cards in the constructive(s), the more specific the better.

Counter Plans: Yes. As I said above, love a CP/DA combo. Make sure you outline how it solves the aff and doesn't link into your other offense. I think the neg can get away with 2 CPs before conditionality becomes a major voting issue.

K:Sure. BEFORE READING FURTHER, I AM NOT THE JUDGE TO TRY TRICKY K ARGUMENTS ON STICK TO BASICS--FOR INSTANCE, CAP. I understand the structure of the K and how it is argued, but do not expect me to be familiar with the literature base. I do think you need an alt with your K because I need to understand what happens if/when I vote for it. If you have a performative component to your argument, explain its function and utilize it as offense throughout the debate -- you read it for a reason, tell me about that reason!

Theory:Maybe??I'm going to assess topicality separately (below) since I weigh it differently. I find myself voting less and less on funding, enforcement, over-specification, or whatever else you can come up with. I just feel like it's incorrectly used to try and win my ballot in a 'slimy' way. I'd rather you run it as a solvency analytic without the interp, violation, standards, etc.

With all of that said, I understand that many participants view theory as a key part of debate so I will continue to weigh it the same as other arguments.

Topicality:Yes. Against policy aff, I think T is a viable option. The neg should define words in the resolution in the 1NC, and then put any [TVAs/ExtraT/FXT/impact] framing issues in the 2NC/1NR block. The 2NR should specifically go between explaining the disadvantages to the aff interp and line by lining the 1AR responses.

Summary: Overall, all I really care about is well thought out arguments and good clash in the debate. The most important thing to me is that we are all respectful to one another and ultimately come out of the round as smarter people. I am so excited to watch all of your rounds! -Zach

I'm a Senior at Missouri State University and have done a bit of everything. Be nice, have fun, I'll adapt to you!

Add me to the chain, linnzoppolin@gmail.com

I don't know a lot about the highschool topic outside of the camp files I helped cut, do with that what you will.

I take pride in being thorough, and feel that it is my duty as the judge to have thought through my decision to do my best to make the right one, and to be able to tell everyone involved why I decided it how I did.

Top level: If you make me start figuring things out at the end of the round you are going to be upset because I almost certainly think differently about debate than you do. The easiest solution to this is to spend time doing impact calc (be it for an extinction scenario, some form of structural violence, theoretical debate standards, etc) and to write your ballot for yourself in the 2nr/2ar. I really do mean that you should probably say, "You vote aff/neg BECAUSE _____."

Disclosure is a norm not a requirement, but it is also a reflexive responsibility we have to each other so you should probably do it. I am noticing it less in person now, but I am not a perfect flowing computer who will write every word you say, having things in the doc means that I don't have to just shrug and say, "I missed it" if I end up seeing something out the window and lose focus for a second while you're spreading a T block. If you don't send analytics or disclose before the round I to a certain degree implicitly assume that you aren't convinced that it can really stand up to rigorous testing which won't affect my decision, but will make me sad. I haven't had a lot of time/experience to figure out how I really feel that disclosure affects the round from a theory perspective, but if you think its strategic to read I'll listen and figure it out based on the round.

tech over truth usually, tell me if I should decide things differently. Warming good is almost certainly not true, but I'll listen and flow accordingly.

"AND!" (+.1 speaks if you do it [at least almost] every time)

Policy affs - cool, you should solve something.

In "Policy" debates writ large I'd suggest slowing down a touch, with boatloads of cards being tossed this way and that I tend to get a little bit lost. Same goes for flagging where you are, "Answer to ___x___ ---" will go such a long way to helping me give you credit for what you've said.

K affs - cool, I like these either as much or a teeny bit more than policy affs. You should be tied to the rez and should solve something be it in round, in debate, or in the world.

K V Policy - I am a bit of cap hack if I'm being honest with myself... That said, don't adapt to me and do something you aren't confident in, I've been apart of enough K rounds and read enough of the lit base on lots of stuff to say that I can come up with a coherent decision so long as you make sure to tell me what the alt is, what it does, and how that solves a thing. My FW for the K thoughts are pretty generic, if you lose the fw debate as the aff you probably lose absent some really good offense that doesn't require me to weigh the aff, which also means that I am very willing to not consider the 1ac if you're behind there. I have been told lots of times what an intrinsic perm is, still not really sure how its all that different from severance. A lot of perms are severance. Same as everything else, if you think its a winner to extend it, go for it.

K V K - I really like these rounds. Same as the other K section, I've read enough stuff to be reasonably confident rendering a decision on anything from Baudrillard type high theory, to identity arguments. More explanation is almost always good especially as we enter the rebuttals, "how does the aff/alt solve? what does that mean and look like?" are questions I find myself asking and if I have to end up answering for you, prepare to be disappointed. I don't really understand, "no perms in a methods debate."

T - I like T debates. You should have an impact that voting negative solves (IE education, fairness, something else) Limits over ground is my lean on T. See FW for more thoughts.

FW - Debate is a game that has a lot of real life effects and consequences that often reach the level of being more than "just a game." Having gamified portions of our activity isn't always a bad thing, but I can be convinced to that it is for the purpose of the RFD. Oftentimes people treat fw as if it was ONLY T which isn't (or doesn't have to be) the case. Usually these rounds come down to two different visions or models of debate that I have to compare based on what the 2nr/2ar tells me. I do think that predictable limits are good, and that fairness and education are important, but also that there should be room for affs that aren't just, "USFG should." Interps that bracket out K debate from the activity are going to be harder to win than an interp that tries to level the playing field and allow people to do what they want within a reasonable topic. Reasonability is a thing, but I am not really sure how "reasonability solves" means that I shouldn't evaluate your interps versus each other. It does modify how I see those interps.

CP- I know what the words mean, please tell me why they matter. CP to solve the aff and avoid a disad is a winner. They can solve/be the whole aff, or just an adv, do impact work, tell me why the thing solves, and why I pref it over the aff (usually a net benefit)

Disad - politics, cool; other things, cooler. It should outweigh the aff, and tell a solid warranted story of what happens post aff.

Case debate - do it, do it more, it's great. I LOVE impact turns, not sure about how ethical wipeout style args are but I will evaluate it like basically everything else absent a good warranted reason to reject it

Theory - I'm not very experienced in these rounds, a lot of condo is probably bad. (3+ advocacies modified by perf con or other warrants you think should change how I feel) I will accept the challenge of figuring out the round if you think it's strategically right to go for it.

The rest - I will stop the round if you do something really horrible (incredibly offensive, physically violent, etc) I will probably not stop the round for much less than that but will make a decision around something that meets those general guidelines but doesn't rise to the level of my needing to immediately intervene. (IE reject the team args are things I will evaluate, but they should have an impact and be warranted out for me to vote on them.)

I am probably a bit better of a judge for K, by that I mean that the way I just don't have the intuitive knowledge of "policy" jargon which makes some spells less dangerous sounding when cast by a 2nc. Spend time explaining your impact framing, and I especially mean that in DA rounds, try or die is not enough to explain what I should consider when evaluating the round.