Pronouns: they/he | Email: ixdebate at gmail dot com

Seven Lakes '21, University of Houston '25

Howdy! My name is Nine (pronounced like the number). Assistant coach for Seven Lakes. VP of the University of Houston policy debate team, 2x NDT qualifier.

If you're interested in debating at UH, shoot me a message!

NSDA PF UPDATE:

1) please add sevenlakespf [at] googlegroups [dot] com to the chain.

2) please make the subject of the chain: "NSDA Nats 24 PF Round [#]---[Aff team code] (AFF) vs [Neg team code] (NEG)" or something similar

example: "NSDA Nats 24 PF Round 1---Seven Lakes AR (AFF) vs Seven Lakes MJ (NEG)"

3) pre-flowing is pre-round prep. if you're pre-flowing during round start time, you should be taking prep for that.

NSDA CX UPDATE:

1) please add ixdebate [at] gmail [dot] com and sevenlakespolicy [at] googlegroups [dot] com

2) please make the subject of the chain: "NSDA Nats 24 CX Round [#]---[Aff team code] (AFF) vs [Neg team code] (Neg)" or somethign similar

example: "NSDA Nats 24 CX Round 1---Seven Lakes AR (AFF) vs Seven Lakes MJ (NEG)"

3) the tldr is you do you, i'll flow and adapt to your arguments

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Important Note!!!

If you're looking for a cost-effective speech/debate camp, come to the UH Honors Debate Workshop (HDW). We have top faculty from across the nation and an intense two-week course for CX, LD, PF, WSD, Congress, and IEs.

Check out the website for more info: https://uh.edu/hdw

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- please do not refer to me as ma'am, miss, etc. my pronouns are they/he. if you have questions about this, please ask!

- i do not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, transphobia, etc. please respect people's names, pronouns, and identities. just be respectful, it's really not that hard.

- debate should be a welcoming and accessible place. if you have concerns, please let me know and i will work with you to try to resolve them.

- feel free to email me with questions! i love talking about speech/debate/interp and am more than happy to answer questions or have conversations about it. even if you have questions about college, debating in college, etc., hit me up!

- have a good debate! have a good performance! have a good attitude! and most importantly, have fun!!!

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Debate (Policy, LD, PF):

if you’re WSD, you don’t have to read this section and can scroll below for the WSD section.

five minutes before round? here’s the tl;dr:

- put me on the email chain. set up the email chain even if i'm not in the room yet. email chain >>> speech drop unless there’s an issue with school emails or wifi.

- debate is for debaters! you do you and i will adapt accordingly! i'll vote on almost any arg. specificity, comparison, and contextualizing is important. offense over defense.

- yes, spreading is okay with me. yes, i’m okay to read ks in front of. no, i don’t care how you look or if you stand or sit, etc. just feel comfortable while you’re debating!

- probably not going to vote on condo bad.

- "nine" > "judge”

- i will always try to disclose my decision and provide feedback if the tournament allows it. i will not disclose specific speaker points.

- i flow on paper, so give me pen time and slow down for analytics. you can ask to take pictures of my flows after the round! yes, you can email me with questions later too.

doing prefs? here’s what i’m good for and what args i’m most familiar with. (you should still read the rest of the paradigm though):

- i'm good for both policy and k arguments. i coach both policy and K arguments, and will be good for a policy v policy, K v policy, and K v K throwdowns.

- i’m less good for high theory, phil, and tricks/blippy theory. but, if they are read in front of me, i will evaluate them as best as i can, and i am likely looking for clarity/explanation of the argument and an impact to vote on. burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder. if i can’t explain your theory/shell/k/argument back to you, i won’t vote on it.

- i’m probably a better judge for policy thank you think–-i spent my first few years thinking about, going for, and getting to the NDT with topicality, DAs, CPs, and the cap K (which i went for like a DA/CP). technical policy debate still largely informs my decisions. i haven't completely removed myself from learning policy arguments (still coaching policy arguments and going for them occasionally) but i might be out of the loop of specific topic DAs or CPs, which means you might need to spend 10 seconds more explaining what the argument is.

- recently pivoted to K debate and now spend time thinking about various strands of setcol, cap, quare/trans/queer theory, black fem, and performance debate.

want more explanation? here’s the longer version (in no particular order):

i can not express this enough: debate is for debaters. i will adapt to your debating style accordingly. you do you! i will evaluate based on what’s on my flow. most importantly, have fun :-) !

- tech >>> truth. exceptions are, of course, if you are being explicitly racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. everything else is fair game.

- stealing prep is bad. i will dock speaker points if i catch you stealing prep and tell you to stop multiple times. taking the time to take out analytics/to make a send doc is using prep. time your opponents' prep/speeches and hold them accountable.

- i flow on paper and flow each advantage and off case position on separate sheets of paper. give me pen time to flip pages between sheets. slow down on analytics. when you give an order, give me time to flip between my sheets.

- i flow based on what i hear. i will follow along with a doc to check for clipping BUT i will not flow off the doc, i will be listening to YOU. that means that you should be clear when spreading, you should not flow off the doc, and i will flow tags/analytics that are not on the doc as long as they are said aloud by the debater.

email chains/evidence:

- email chains >>> speech drop. add me to the email chain. please make an email chain before i’m in the room–i want to start on time. speech drop is fine if there are school email issues or if there are wifi issues, otherwise, please use an email chain.

- card docs are appreciated

- clipping cards: i will give a warning if i catch someone clipping cards. depending on how bad it is, i will either stop the round and/or dock speaker points

- ev ethics: missing paragraphs in between highlighted parts, misquoted/misattributed authors, cards starting in the middle of paragraphs, incorrect cites, etc. are reasons for teams to lose the round. if an ev ethics challenge is called, i will stop the round and evaluate the evidence unless tournament rules say otherwise (ex: UIL tournaments)

- for PF: paraphrasing is bad. actually formatted cards are good.

disclosure:

- this section is mostly for ld/pf: disclosure is good.

- personally, i think disclosure as soon as you get pairings/when you know who you’re hitting next is good. but i understand the ld/pf (?) standard of 30 minutes before the round.

- i’m very amenable to not putting things on the wiki for safety reasons.

- i will be slightly annoyed if i have to judge a disclosure debate unless the other team outright did not disclose anything. that being said, i will still flow a disclosure debate and will still default to my flow.

speed:

- yes you can spread at top speed but slow down for tags, authors, and analytics.

- clarity > speed. i will yell "clear" if i can't hear you or if you are unintelligible. if i yell it enough, i will stop flowing.

- i have minor hearing damage in both ears and it flares up once in a while, usually in my left ear. i will let you know beforehand if i'm having a flare up and if you need to be extra clear or position yourself to the right of me. i will say “loud” if you need to be louder.

cross-examination:

- i will take notes on CX on a separate sheet of paper sometimes. but, if you want the answers from CX to be applied to your speech, you need to say it in a speech!

- CX is so under-utilized. debaters need to be making more arguments during CX and aligning it with your speeches. please use CX to make arguments!

- i will boost speaker points for actually good CXs. (i.e., not spending the entire time on clarification questions, not doing flow check questions with the exception of status/reasons to reject housekeeping questions) how do you give a good CX?: matt liu's cross examination lecture

framework:

- you should have an offensive reason to prefer your model of debate or the aff.

- specificity is best, reading generic framework blocks is unpersuasive to me. you need to apply it to the aff.

- TVAs are nice to have but not necessary

- the best fw arguments implicate the aff's theory of power and/or describe why fw turns case.

- please give me judge instruction, framing points, etc.

- i really like implications to skills and iteration/testing. i like fairness if you’ve implicated it to case/the method.

case:

- yes case turns, yes impact turns, yes case debate. there isn't enough case debate in most instances.

- i am comfortable on voting on presumption if there is enough defense and/or i could not tell you what the aff does by the end of the round.

- for PF: defense is not sticky.

topicality:

- more teams should read it!

- T debate is best when the violation args are specific to the aff. but, don't miss the forest for the trees–you should still do comparison on the model/world of debate.

- i default to competing interps, can be changed in round

- will vote on reasonability if a reasonability arg is made, but this can be changed in-round.

K:

- yes, read the K if you want to.

- don't expect me to fill in gaps. don't rely on buzzwords and expect me to know them.

- if you're going for the alt, tell me what it looks like and how it applies to the aff. you can kick the alt if you don't think it's strategic, but you need to flag it and tell me how you win on everything else.

- link turns case args that are specific and contextualized to the aff are >>>>>>!!! please make more of these arguments!!!

- Ks with links to the consequences of the plan are the most intuitive links to me. but don't let that deter you from going for links to reps or similar non-consequence based arguments

DA:

- don't give me a contextless card dump, the more specific with how the DA interacts with the aff the better. i don't have opinions on specific DAs, read whatever you like.

- i will look for a clear link first then evaluate the impacts. link/DA turns case is always nice

CP:

- i don't have strong opinions about any type of CP. go ahead and read any flavor of CP you like, even if they’re “cheaty”.

- uncarded and/or multiplank advantage CPs are fine but generally require more explanation on how they solve. they should be relatively intuitive and/or based on aff warrants/cards. read as many planks as you want (read: condo thoughts in the theory section).

- i default to judge kick. but, this can be reversed in-round as long as there’s ink on my flow for it.

theory:

- condo is good. my threshold for answering condo bad is very low. i will vote on condo bad if it gets dropped.

- RVIs are silly to me, especially when they're just thrown out without a warrant.

- don't have strong thoughts on other theory issues.

- don't blitz thorugh pre-written blocks. again, i flow on paper. give me pen time to write down the analytics.

K affs:

- i like the education/real-world implications of K affs. i really like well thought out, thematically tight, content-packed, and well-structured K affs, especially if there are performance aspects to it.

- i like negs strats v. K affs that engage with K aff's theory of power (which can also include framework!), and am comfortable voting on presumption/framework

speaker points:

- (updated to match reigner's speaker point scale): i start at around 28.8 and go up or down from there. i try to adjust a bit based on the tournament. i evaluate speaker points based on strategic choices and articulations.

- debate can get heated and i don't mind mild roasts or whatever, but if you are just being flat out insulting and making people feel uncomfortable, i will lower your speaks (and stop the round in extreme instances)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

World Schools:

five minutes before round? here’s the tl;dr:

– yes, i know the format. i primarily did WSD in high school and used to primarily coach WSD.

– i flow and will vote based on what’s on my flow. i would rather vote on content, arguments, and warrants over speaking pretty.

– i value organized speeches!!! messy speeches = sad nine = sad ballot. ways to make sure your speech is organized: 1) enumerate your responses, 2) signpost your arguments, and 3) condense into clash.

– i would much rather vote on offensive over defensive arguments. worlds debaters are really really good at making defensive args, but not necessarily offensive ones. please have offense. i want to vote on your argument's impact!!!

want more explanation? here’s the longer version:

– format: follow it. that means no spreading, no “off the clock roadmaps” (i start the clock as soon as you say "as an off the clock roadmap"), taking 1-2 pois, etc. that also means no using heavy debate jargon (topicality, condo, etc.). you’re probably using those words in the wrong context anyway. “fiat” is definitely a word/arg that exists in wsd, but make sure you’re using it correctly.

– explain and characterize! the best debaters are the ones who can best explain their clash, how and why actors will act a certain way, etc.

– strategy and style are important! i value strategic debaters (ex: speech consistency, taking timed pois, not being contradictory, etc.) and if you have style on top of that, you will get some great speaker points at the end of the round. but don’t sacrifice style for content. i'll always prefer analysis > speaking pretty. the best strategic choices debaters can make in wsd is being explicit and giving me some judge direction, telling me what arguments i should prioritize in the round, and *actually* attacking the other team on their highest ground. the best replies are embedded with good judge instruction.

– issues about the debate can be resolved in-round. ex: if there is a debate about whether the team gets fiat or not, make the arguments in round and don't rely on me to default to whatever opinion i have of fiat. or, if you think the team isn't debating the heart of the motion, make those arguments in round. i expect a defense of what exactly the heart of the motion is from both sides in that instance. i'll evaluate those arguments based on what's on my flow.

– replies: the replies should be holding my hand and telling me what happened in the debate. tell me what i should be writing down in my ballot. tell me what you're winning and what they're losing. tell me how you've closed off the other team's path to ballot. please please please give me some judge instruction here.

– ideological lean: just because i do policy debate does not mean i lean towards policy style arguments. i truly and genuinely don't care what kind of arguments you run or go for as long as you give me a reason to vote for it. seriously, you do you. i'll vote on any kind of argument.

– principle debates: if it becomes a practical v. principle debate, i'm expecting a lot of weighing and why the principle outweighs practical or vice versa. i'm also in the camp that principle almost always needs some kind of impact (although it doesn't necessarily need to be utilitarian). for instance, if you're running a principle of democracy, your impact should be... democracy (surprise!). if you're running something about marginalized groups being harmed in some way, the impact could be structural violence or psychic violence to those people, which is on-face, bad and is probably overlooked. i love creative principles and creative impacts here.

– model debates: both models and countermodels need to be characterized. teams should tell me how they're mechanized, what the incentives are for key actors, and how the model might interact with core stakeholders. prop should fully articulate how they get offense from the model (this is where i usually see prop fail). opp's countermodel should articulate how it's mutually exclusive from the prop model and why it is preferable, i.e. net benefits or what the opp countermodel does better/how it avoids prop's model's harms (and this is where the opp team usually fails). i think model/countermodel debates are appropriate for a few policy leaning motions.

if the debate becomes when it is or isn't appropriate to have a model, teams need to establish 1) what in the wording of the motion grants you a model (usually the action verb and applying it to the context of the rest of the motion) and 2) why the model is goldilocks for grounds to debate (why it's not too specific/narrow of a model and why it's not too broad). regardless of what my thoughts are for what's the most strategic way to interpret the motion, i will defer to the arguments made in-round on this question.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

speech/interp:

a speech/interp paradigm feels useless sometimes just because y'all have already memorized/blocked out your pieces and there's little my paradigm will inform you about how to better adapt to me as your judge. but i guess my brief thoughts are here in the off-chance someone reads this and gets something out of it:

you do you, just follow the format and perform the best you can!

for extemp, looking for format things (i.e. having a roadmap, using on-tops, following the speaker's triangle, etc.). i prefer content over speaking pretty most of the time, but since it's a speech event, i still take presentation seriously. i don't really care if you do a three or two point speech, but the content should still be in-depth and make sense.

for oo/info, most of my ballots come down to the implications/why it matters portion. humor (even attempts at humor) is always a plus.

for interp, i'm mainly looking for clarity of plot (also, if there is a plot to begin with), embodiment and distinctions between characters, and clear blocking/binder "mojo".

I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

-----

For WSD

I will be following the conventions and norms from the WSD mandatory judge training.

Put me on the chain email: mrkainecherry@gmail.com

Also, my sister is a film student at UCSF and is in the process of fundraising for the production of her short film Through the Woods to complete her senior thesis if you are able to donate you can do so here and if you are not able to do so if you could at least share the indiegogo link I would deeply appreciate it. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/through-the-woods-post-production-fundraiser#/ If you donate will raise you speaker points to the max of .3

Updates as of 11/28/23

Things to know off the top:

1)Please don’t call me judge but if you need to use a title feel free to use "Honored One" and if that is too much/odd you can call me by my name.”

2) I am not persuaded by new affs bad theory arguments, and while I appreciate open source and disclosure those things are norms that are practiced by the community, not rights guaranteed by the activity.

3) I've been in the activity since 2006 and competed both in High School(UDL and nationally for Baltimore City College HS) and College (2-time NDT Octofinalist/10th Place Speaker, 2015 CEDA Semifinalist) So I'm generally comfortable judging all styles of debate.

4) While old the information below is still mostly relevant. If you need me to clarify anything either shoot an email or ask before the round.

5) Presumption > Ballot "PIC/K" no seriously if you have to choose one presumption is generally more persuasive to me.

6) Highschool Stuff- the Longhorn will be my first tournament on this years resolution, however I did coach LD when they had their UBI rotation a few years back so I do have some familiarity with the content of topic. Regardless of debate styles I evaluate what happens between the students, I have start to judge more policy v policy debates since coming back to college policy debate even if its not what I debated when I competed. Please keep track of your time, it's a resource in the game of debate and youth should start to learn time management skills. If you are a novice I will gladly time with you to help you get into groove of things. Open/Varsity you are on your own. I'm not a particularly formal person so please don't call me judge(see #1) and I won't dock speaker points for using particular words etc. The more relaxed everyone is the better the round will go for everyone :3

Online Debate Stuff: While I will try to do my best to listen and follow along with the round, if you insist on spreading, I would like it if you include analytics in the speech doc(I watch everything with subtitles. I've noticed slight audio processing/latency issues listening to people talk fast in the few online debates I have either watched or judged. If you choose not to do so, I will in no way hold it against you. But "YMMV" in terms of what I get on my flow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Feel free to debate, just make it interesting although I specialize in critical arguments I am familiar with the fundamentals of debate across styles. Don’t call me judge.( see #1 above for suggestions)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking: General Clarity over speed paradigm that most people have, It is a good determinate of speaker points and important for effective communication. When you make an argument clearly I'm more likely to follow its development and depending on how the round goes works well for you. Versus If I miss and important argument and it costs you the round and then you ask "What about x argument" then people are sad.

Style: Is also very important and I think that can become lost in debate rounds, although some people shoot arguments as if they are a machine they still have personalities that I believe should be shown in a debate round. If you are funny, show it, if you can make being "assertive" work more power to you, if you are a geek I'll probably get your references, and so on. Style is not mandatory and should come naturally, but if shown will definitely improve your speaker's points.

Cross-X: Can be a very useful tool and can be both a fun and entertaining experience for me as a judge and a place for people to express some aspects of "style". Cross-X belongs to the person asking questions, so if it seems like someone isn't asking a question let them ramble it really isn't your concern. Of course, there is a threshold that will become really clear, in that I'll probably stop paying attention and start finding something else interesting to pay attention to.


Evidence: Pieces of evidence are like a bullets to a gun. They can be devastating only when aimed properly, I think evidence is a tool to support your arguments and the way you articulate them. So if you extend evidence with little to no explanation to how it functions you are shooting blanks that can probably be easily refuted, evidence comparison is also really important in this regard as it allows you to control the framing of the debate which leads us into. . .

Macro-level issues and Framing: I think these are very important in both debate as they ultimately determine how i look at the flow(s) and situate who is controlling the direction of the debate. So if someone has an overview that contains an impact calculus,framework, "politics" or frontloads an argument on the flow and it doesn't get answered either directly or somewhere else on the flow then it becomes damming to the other team. This is even more essential in the last two speeches that ultimately determine how i should look at the round. Good framing also should happen on the line-by line as well and will also help me write the ballot.

Theory: As someone who's into competitive games I've grown to like theory a lot. It's probably something that should be argued in a CLEAR and COHERENT manner, which means you probably shouldn't speed through your condo bad and agent cp blocks as if you are reading cards, I'll vote on dropped theory arguments as long as there is a clear impact to it when extended. Otherwise, it should be developed throughout the debate. General question that should be resolved in theory debate for me is "What does it mean?" i.e If you say best policy option, what does that mean in terms of what a policy option is and how does it work in terms of debate?

Specific Stuff

Topicality: Its very situational depending on the violation and how the definitions play out. I think a lot of T interpretations can be contrived especially if they are not grounded in codified law or precedent. Interpretations that come from legal academics serve to help lawyers in the event in which they feel they must argue a certain interpretation in front of a particular judge and may not necessarily good for debate(although a certain level of spin and framing could convince me otherwise). Topicality comes down to clash and ground, and is normally resolved by several questions for me; "Is there clash in round?" "What ground does BOTH sides have?" and "How does ground function to create educational debates?" I tend to have a very high threshold for fairness. Just because a K Aff makes a no link argument to you politics disad doesn't mean that it's unfair, negative ground isn't something that is so clearly drawn out. I think there are better arguments that can be made in those situations. That being said I am very sympathetic to aft weighing their case against topicality and see k's of topicality as substantial arguments on the flow.

Just saying you are reasonability topical isn't an argument and makes their competing interpretation claims all the more legitimate. Like all things you have to make a warrant to why you are reasonably topical, may it be that you are germane to the resolution or that you still allow for alternative ways for the neg to engage the aft.

Counter Plans, PICs, and DA's: Not really a generic counterplan person, I think counter plans when researched properly and specific to the aff with a good net-benifit can become a good interesting debate that I would love to see. I don't really like silly "PIC/Ks" and think people can make very convincing, smart arguments about how stupid they are, but I'll still vote for them. It's a question of how the counterplan competes with the aff and makes better room for theory arguments on the aff. I really don't like the politics DA and generally think the link arguments are contrived, strong attacks on the link story of the DA are very convincing and will probably help you on the CP debate.

"Performance": **http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_n1FHX3mBw** Just do your thing- by this I mean I'm in no way hostile to performance debate, but that does not mean negatives can't make arguments as to why that performance is potentially bad or problematic.

K's: I would love seeing a good critique debate more than seeing a bad one that does surface-level work. A good K debate includes specific links to the aff that go beyond " you do state action dats bad judge" or "you sed observation= ablest discourse" as it allows affs to use simple questions to make your links seem stupid and their framing arguments stronger. A strong defense of the alternative, and realistic impacts that are explained and benefit the neg. I really like K's that deal with politics and how we formulate political action and agency in relation to institutions or the State, a good framing of the alternative politics and how that politics can function through the debate round and the ballot is very. Smart questions and simplification of the alt/ K will probably allow it to be more persuasive and stop the k from becoming the blob it normally becomes.

Have fun!

~Kaine

Affirmative teams have to present and defend a rationale for change, and should offer a plan text (which is more than restatement of the resolution) and demonstrate solvency. If the format is need/plan or a modern rendition of same, the problem must be significant and inherent. If the format is comparative advantage or something like it, inherency tends to be about the superiority of departures from present policy over incremental adjustments. Critical affirmative presentations need to be aligned with suggested policy changes.

Negative teams can win by disputing the significance of harms, demonstrating that existing programs (status quo) are sufficient and appropriate for addressing issues (or offer advantages over the affirmative team’s approach), or showing that an affirmative team’s plan can’t solve identified problems. If there is a meaningful challenge to the affirmative team's presentation or if unique and probable and significant disadvantages flow from the adoption of an affirmative plan, that also works. (A single well articulated disadvantage can suffice, but the all-too-common species/planet extinction or end-of-the-world scenarios are unlikely to register with me unless comprehensively and credibly advanced.)

An affirmative team can dismiss most “politics disadvantages” with common sense analysis rather than reliance on “proof” to the contrary, since such argumentation is usually speculative and reflects conventional wisdom, which is as often wrong as correct. Both affirmative and negative teams strike me as more informed and more capable when they are comfortable employing analytics instead of carded evidence when it fits the moment. Given that extensive advance preparation is the order of the day, speakers departing from scripts and thinking on their feet, clashing directly with their opponents' position(s) is refreshing. I also relish seeing/hearing "authoritative" evidence picked apart and challenged instead of being countered with other "authoritative: evidence (although a combination approach is even better.)

When a negative team presents a counterplan, in my view, that is a statement that they agree with the affirmative team’s identification of a problem (or problems) but suggest that a different solution makes more sense—-as such, they concede everything else that's ordinarily debatable. A counterplan should have more than a skeleton text. since I also expect an affirmative plan to be more than just a restatement of the resolution. I frown on introducing a counterplan late into a first negative constructive speech, or introducing more than one counterplan, or abandoning it or them later in the debate. Generally speaking, if a negative team introduces fodder and claims to be just "testing" the affirmative positions, I conclude they are unwilling to take and defend a position, so I am turned off.

When negative teams argue a K position, I like to see/hear obvious links to discussions of public policy. When K positions are being refuted, I enjoy it when one philosopher’s position is undermined by another philosopher’s position. When there is a K argument and a counterplan, I expect them to line up utterly. When an affirmative K is presented, I evaluate it in terms of policy---I think it can be done well, but if it isn’t, it’s often because critical analysis of an issue doesn’t inform policy alternatives.

Humor is an important component of persuasion, so I enjoy injections of mirth in policy debate. Short and sweet and sophisticated is best.

“Speed” in speaking is usually a bore, since robotic recitations of factoids are devoid of persuasive nuance.

Head Coach @ Jordan HS

Wake Forest University – 2022

Jack C Hays High School – 2019

Add me to the email chain: jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

PFBC update: if your evidence does not have a tag at all, or it is functionally nothing (ie “concludes”, “explains”, etc), I will not flow it

General
I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Patrick Fox (former debate partner), Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger

speed is good, pls slow down a little on analytics

if harm has occurred in the round, i will generally let the debater that has been harmed decide whether they would like the debate to continue or not. in egregious instances, i reserve the right to end the debate with 0 speaks and contact tab. violence in the debate space is never ok and i will hold the line. if you have safety concerns about being around your opponent for any reason, please tell me via email or in round.

i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters

you can use any pronouns for me

For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue

please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else

Specific arguments:

K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less


Framework:

I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this

I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff

To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.

DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.

Topicality/Theory:

I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.

I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.

Condo is fine, the amount of conditional off case positions/planks is directly related to how persuaded I am by condo as a 2ar option. it will be very difficult to win condo vs 1 condo off, but it will be very easy to win condo vs 6 condo off.

all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story


LD Specific:

Tricks:
no thanks

LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.

This is a severely abridged version of my paradigm. If you'd like the full version, feel free to reach out to me (college) or have a coach reach out (HS) for it.

WFU '23

Now at UT-Austin for grad school

Yes email chain — ask before the debate.

TOC UPDATE:

If you're a senior at your last TOC ever, please tell me before the debate. I'd like the opportunity to congratulate you on your career and reward your ability to be here with some great speaker points. You should be proud of yourself for the tremendous amount of work you've put in to get this far!

Paradigm:

Say what you want and defend what you say. I reward clash of all kinds and dislike cowardice more than almost anything. I will attempt to write down every argument presented in the way you present it, regardless of your argumentative or speaking “style”, to repeat it in my RFD. This means clarity, both in argument explanation and words coming out of your mouth, is imperative. Don’t over-adapt to what you (probably wrongly) think I want to hear. Debate is for the debaters, just have fun and say smart things and I’m your judge.

The only caveat to this is I have very little interest in parsing through interpersonal disputes between debaters over events that occurred outside of the debate round. I understand that sometimes we have personal disagreements with one another as a community founded on discord, and I also understand that sometimes we don't feel comfortable sharing how we feel with the people we disagree with in other interpersonal settings — and that is reasonable. But I struggle to find why the solution to this is to have that precise conversation during a debate round and for judges to insert their own interpretations over events they have little knowledge of. This applies doubly to high school debate. Given this, while I will not ignore any words you say in a debate, you will notice that my decision proper will not pertain to/include the content of personal disagreements tangential to the topics of the debate. To clarify, if you find something the other team has said or done in the debate round to be objectionable, this is obviously fair game and I am more than happy to hear reasons why it should be a voting issue. I think issues of disclosure fall into this category as well given that prep time is part of a debate round and proper disclosure is what enables proper pre-round preparation.

Also, say words if you want me to judge kick the counterplan. I’m indifferent personally, but prefer to go with what debaters say out loud in a debate.

Speaker Points:

My speaker points vary widely. This is because the quality of debates I judge vary widely. I make no apology for the points I give. I try to adjust my points to the tournament and division, so for example if you got a 29 at a regional and a 28.5 at a major it does not necessarily mean you got worse (in fact, your performance may have improved!)

Here is my approximate scale for the open division (does not apply to JV and Novice):

30: I've only given one of these in policy debate, and it was due to a combination of celebrating a senior's wonderful career at her last tournament ever along with amazingly proficient execution. Requires devastating speeches that show novel and tailored strategy, technical proficiency, and efficient and effective cross-examination periods (on both sides). A 30 is earned if it is apparent to me that not a single second, word, or breath was wasted in the debate.

29.7-29.9: Near perfect execution. If your performance was replicated consistently, you would deserve to be in the top 5 speakers at the tournament and reach deep elims. I do not give this out very often

29.4-29.6: Great execution, but not novel or exciting/parts of the debate seemed like throwaway arguments. There were a couple missed opportunities or mistakes, but overall a proficient performance. If this speaking was replicated consistently, you would be in the top 20 speakers at the tournament and reach the quarters. This is where most of my higher-end points lie.

29-29.3: Very good execution. If replicated, you might get a speaker award, you'd certainly clear, and you may win an elim. This is where most of my "winning" points lie.

28.7-28.9: Above average execution + you could clear.

28-28.6: On par with the middle of the pack. Speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

27.5-27.9: Speeches and CX execution need work, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments, speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills.

27-27.4: Lack of attention to opponent's arguments, improper division of speech/CX time and energy, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, etc.

26-26.9: Speeches seem lost, leaving time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions, etc.

25: You have done something wrong interpersonally and I'm sure we will discuss it before points come out.

Yay debate!

Alumni of Liberty University - Debated 2 years in college - qualified to NDT (2019-2020 season)

Email: jareddemunbrun75@gmail.com

tech>truth

I debated 4 years in high school and 2 years in college.

Top Level Things

Debate to your strengths. My role as a judge is to create an environment where participants feel valued and heard. I believe in the power of well-prepared arguments and encourage debaters to engage in discussions on topics they genuinely understand.

I am most familiar with policy arguments, and I like to see good strategy and evidence quality in these debates (Strategy + Quality Evidence = good speaker points).

"K/Non-Traditional" Teams - While I may not be the most adept at adjudicating method versus method debates due to a less comprehensive familiarity with the literature in these discussions, my inclination leans towards non-traditional affirmative positions in clash debates. Approximately 60% of my votes go to non-traditional affirmatives, reflecting a discerning standard for evaluating framework arguments against most K affs. It's important to note that when policy teams thoroughly warrant their arguments in these debates, my predisposition towards voting for framework strengthens. However, it's worth acknowledging that a majority of teams tend to fall short in providing the necessary depth of argumentation in this regard.

Specific Arguments

T - I tend to default to competing interpretations but will buy reasonability if it is explained well with reasons, it should be preferred over competing interpretations. I love a good T debate as long as there are clear standards in the end of the debate and reasons I should vote for a team on topicality.

Framework - I am a 2n in college and think that framework is a very viable option. There should be clear impacts in the rebuttals and treat the impacts just as you treat them on a DA.

DA - I like a good DA debate. At the end of the debate, there should be good link analysis and good impact calculus so that I don't have to insert myself into the debate. I think that all DA debates should have a focus on the IL to impacts of the affirmative – this means make arguments like we access, or we turn their impact.

CP - Love a good CP debate - the more specific the better - good CP's should have a good net-benefit. I tend to lean more towards the negative side when it comes to theory (conditionality). With that said if the neg reads 4 conditional advocacies I will lean towards the affirmative side as long as the standards are flushed out and explained.

K - I am well versed in most forms of K literature. I debated the K as a freshman and sophomore (psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, Settler Colonialism) and am a 2A so I know most K's. I also love a classic Cap K or security K as long as the links are contextualized to the aff. Debate like you know how!

I debated in high school and then for Binghamton for a year and then Cornell for 2 years in college (graduated in 2015). I judged some high school tournaments in college. Keep in mind that I haven't listened to anyone speed in a number of years and I'm old school and usually flow on paper, so I prefer having well-thought-out arguments over a ton of cards.

I don't prefer particular arguments and tend to evaluate a round based on the impact presented. For example, I'm unlikely to vote on an argument just because the other team dropped it if the impact calculus is lacking. That being said, stylistically, I do like line-by-line debate as I find it to be more organized. If that's not your style, just make sure I know where you are. Basically, guide me into why I should vote one way or the other.

PARADIGM SHORT

1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.

2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.

3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.

4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.

MORE STUFF

I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.

My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.

I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.

I don't believe in speaker points. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)

If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.

Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). I have severe ADHD.

Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

Richard A. Garner | Director of Speech & Debate | University of Houston | ragarner@uh.edu

Framework: Neg: topical version is very helpful; aff: probably okay if you defend the government doing a topical thing. One should be able to defend their model of debate. I put this issue first because it’s probably what you really care about. Everything else is alphabetical.

Case debate: Turning the case is my favorite thing to judge. Uniqueness is good here, but not always necessary with comparative evidence.

CPs/Competition/Theory: Comparisons win theory debates, along with impacts. I’m not sure that states or international CPs compete, but no one has ever put this to the test in front of me so it’s hard to say. No strong feelings about consultation or conditioning either way. K affs probably shift competition questions that rely on FIAT. Won't kick the CP unless you tell me to. Non-arbitrary interpretations are ideal.

Critiques: I understand these and am fine with them (understatement). From both the aff and neg, I enjoy narrative coherence, specific application, and alternative debates. New things under the sun are wonderful to see, but so too the old, artisanal ways upon occasion.

Disadvantages: I tend to think risk probability is never 100% absent drops, and that each internal link reduces certainty. Can have zero risk (though if the CP solves 100% of the case … probably need offense). Don’t tend to think that impacts automatically/100% turn case, or vice versa; instead, comparisons are evaluating risk probability bubbles/multiple competing worlds.

Judge Space: Judges are human beings, not argument processing machines; enjoyable debates matter. Evidence comparison is the highest art. Debaters’ flowing/line-by-line is generally terrible; embedded clash is nice, but at its root it depends on an organized approach to the flow. Drops: before the burden of rejoinder attains, there must be a full argument (claim/warrant/implication). I am displeased by a) subpoints with no b) subpoints, and by "Is anyone not ready?" because it is a linguistic abomination (see: bit.ly/yea-nay). I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting: needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting (ok: United States; not: neoliberalism). If I cannot understand the highlighting, I will not read the rest of the card for context.

Logistics: Add me to the email chain. I don’t read speech docs during the debate.

*Principles: Without getting too philosophical, I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein.

Speaker Points: I approximate community norms, and adjust each year appropriately.

Topicality: I evaluate it first. I enjoy T debates, and lean more towards ‘better interpretation for debate’ than ‘we have the most evidence’.

Brief Debate CV:

South Garland (competitor): 1995-1999

NYU (competitor): 1999-2003

Emory: 2003-2004

NYU/Columbia: 2004-2005

Harvard: 2006-2015

Houston: 2013-present

*

Random Poem (updated 3/30/23):

Strange now to think of you, gone without corsets & eyes, while I walk on the sunny pavement of Greenwich Village.

downtown Manhattan, clear winter noon, and I’ve been up all night, talking, talking, reading the Kaddish aloud, listening to Ray Charles blues shout blind on the phonograph

the rhythm the rhythm—and your memory in my head three years after—And read Adonais’ last triumphant stanzas aloud—wept, realizing how we suffer—

And how Death is that remedy all singers dream of, sing, remember, prophesy as in the Hebrew Anthem, or the Buddhist Book of Answers—and my own imagination of a withered leaf—at dawn—

Dreaming back thru life, Your time—and mine accelerating toward Apocalypse,

the final moment—the flower burning in the Day—and what comes after,

looking back on the mind itself that saw an American city

a flash away, and the great dream of Me or China, or you and a phantom Russia, or a crumpled bed that never existed—

like a poem in the dark—escaped back to Oblivion—

No more to say, and nothing to weep for but the Beings in the Dream, trapped in its disappearance,

sighing, screaming with it, buying and selling pieces of phantom, worshipping each other,

worshipping the God included in it all—longing or inevitability?—while it lasts, a Vision—anything more?

*

Previously

Dunya Mikhail, "The End of the World," The Iraqi Nights (3/30/23)

Sakutaro Hagiwara, "A Useless Book" (8/1/19)

Catullus, 101 (1/4/18)

e.e. cummings, "O sweet spontaneous" (1/4/18)

&c

Affiliation: University of Houston

I’ve been judging since 2011. As of January 2nd, 2022 I am the third most prolific college policy judge in the era of Tabroom. Ahead of me are Jackie Poapst and Armands Revelins, behind me are Kurt Fifelski and Becca Steiner. Take this how you will.

Yes, I want to be on the E-mail chain. Send docs to: robglassdebate [at] the google mail service . I don’t read the docs during the round except in unusual circumstances or when I think someone is clipping cards.

The short version of my philosophy, or “My Coach preffed this Rando, what do I need to know five minutes before the round starts?”:

1. Debate should be a welcoming and open space to all who would try to participate. If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible.

2. Have a fundamental respect for the other team and the activity. Insulting either or both, or making a debater feel uncomfortable, is not acceptable.

3. Debate is for the debaters. My job, in total, is to watch what you do and act according to how y’all want me. So do you and I’ll follow along.

4. Respond to the other team. If you ignore the other team or try to set the bounds so that their thoughts and ideas can have no access to debate I will be very leery of endorsing you. Find an argument, be a better debater.

5. Offense over Defense. I tend to prefer substantive impacts. That said I will explicitly state here that I am more and more comfortable voting on terminal defense, especially complete solvency takeouts. If I am reasonably convinced your aff does nothing I'm not voting for it.

6. With full credit to Justin Green: When the debate is over I'm going to applaud. I love debate and I love debaters and I plan on enjoying the round.

Nukes thoughts:

The amount of time, reading, discussion, and even writing I have dedicated to American and International nuclear strategy is hard to overstate. Please treat this topic with respect.

The standard argumentative thoughts list:

Debate is for the debaters - Everything below is up for debate, and I will adapt to what the debaters want me to do in the round.

Aff relationship to the topic - I think affirmatives should have a positive relationship to the topic. The topic remains a center point of debate, and I am disinclined to think it should be completely disregarded.

"USFG" framework: Is an argument I will vote on, but I am not inclined to think it is a model that best suits all debates, and I think overly rigid visions of debate are both ahistorical and unstrategic. I tend to think these arguments are better deployed as methodological case turns. TVAs are very helpful.

Counter-plan theory: Condo is like alcohol, alright if used in moderation but excess necessitates appropriate timing. Consultation is usually suspect in my book, alternative international actors more so, alternative USFG actors much less so. Beyond that, flesh out your vision of debate. My only particularly strong feeling about this is judge kick, which is explained at the bottom of this paradigm.

Disads: I have historically been loathe to ascribe 0% risk of a link, and tended to fall very hard into the cult of offense. I am self-consciously trying to check back more against this inclination. Impact comparison is a must.

PTX DAs: For years I beat my chest about my disdain for them, but I have softened since. I still don't like them, and think intrinsicness theory and basic questions of inherency loom large over their legitimacy as argumentation, but I also recognize the role they play in debate rounds and will shelve my personal beliefs on them when making my decision. That said, I do not think "we lose politics DAs" is a compelling ground argument on framework or T.

Critiques: I find myself yearning for more methodological explanation of alternatives these days. In a related thought, I also think Neg teams have been too shy about kicking alts and going for the "link" and "impact" (if that DA based terminology ought be applied one-to-one to the K) as independent reasons to reject the Affirmative advocacy. One of the most common ways that other judges and I dissent in round is that I tend to give more credit to perm solvency in a messy perm debate.

Case debate: Please. They are some of my favorite debates to watch, and I particularly enjoy when two teams go really deep on a nerdish question of either policy analysis or critical theory. If you're going down a particularly deep esoteric rabbit hole it is useful to slow down and explain the nuance to me, especially when using chains of acronyms that I may or may not have been exposed to.

Policy T: I spend a fair chunk of my free time thinking about T and the limits of the topic. I used to be very concerned with notions of lost ground, my views now are almost the opposite. Statistical analysis of round results leads me to believe that good negative teams will usually find someway to win on substance, and I think overly dramatic concerns about lost ground somewhat fly in the face of the cut-throat ethos of Policy Debate re: research, namely that innovative teams should be competitively rewarded. While framework debates are very much about visions of the debate world if both teams accept that debate rounds should be mediated through a relationship to policy action the more important questions for me is how well does debate actually embody and then educate students (and judges) about the real world questions of policy. Put differently, my impulse is that Framework debates should be inward facing whereas T debates should be outward facing. All of that should be taken with the gigantic caveat that is "you do you," whatever my beliefs I will still evaluate warranted ground arguments and Affirmative teams cannot simply point at this paradigm to get out of answering them.

Judge Kick: Judge kick is an abomination and forces 2ARs to debate multiple worlds based on their interpretation of how the judge will understand the 2NR and then intervene in the debate. It produces a dearth of depth, and makes all of the '70s-'80s hand-wringing about Condo come true. My compromise with judge kick is this: If the 2NR advocates for judge kick the 2A at the start of 2AR prep is allowed to call for a flip. I will then flip a coin. If it comes up heads the advocacy is kicked, if it comes up tails it isn't. I will announce the result of the flip and then 2AR prep will commence. If the 2A does this I will not vote on any theoretical issues regarding judge kick. If the 2A does not call for a flip I will listen and evaluate theory arguments about judge kick as is appropriate.

Online Debate Thoughts:

1. Please slow down a little. I will have high quality headsets, but microphone compression, online compression, and then decompression on my end will almost certainly effect just how much I hear of your speeches. I do not open speech docs and will not flow off of them which means I need to be able to understand what you’re saying, so please slow down. Not much, ~80% of top speed will probably be enough. If a team tries to outspread a team that has slowed down per this paradigm I will penalize the team that tried for said advantage.

1A. If you're going too fast and/or I cannot understand you due to microphone quality I will shout 'clear'. If after multiple calls of clear you do nothing I will simply stop flowing. If you try to adapt I will do the best I can to work with you to make sure I get every argument you're trying to make.

2. I come from the era of debate when we debated paper but flowed on computers, which means when I’m judging I will have the majority of my screen dominated by an excel sheet. If you need me to see a performance please flag it for me and I’ll rearrange my screen to account for your performance.

3. This is an echo of point 1, but it's touchy and I think bears repeating. The series of audio compressions (and decompressions) that online debate imposes on us has the consequence of distorting the high and low ends of human speech. This means that clarity will be lost for people with particularly high and low pitches when they spread. There is, realistically speaking, no way around this until we're all back in rooms with each other. I will work as hard as I can to infer and fill in the gaps to make it so that loss is minimized as much as possible, but there is a limit to what I can do. If you think this could affect you please make sure you are slowing down like I asked in point 1 or try to adapt in another way.

4. E-mail chains, please. Not only does this mean we don't have to delay by futzing around with other forms of technology but it also gives us a way to contact participants if (when) connections splutter out.

5. The Fluffy Tax. If during prep or time between speeches a non-human animal should make an appearance on your webcam and I see it, time will stop, they will be introduced to the debaters and myself, and we shall marvel at their existence and cuteness together. In the world of online debate we must find and make the joy that we can. Number of times the fluffy tax has been imposed: 3.

6. Be kind. This year is unbelievably tiring, and it is so easy to both get frustrated with opponents and lose an empathetic connection towards our peers when our only point of contact is a Brady Bunch screen of faces. All I ask is that you make a conscious effort to be kind to others in the activity. We are part of an odd, cloistered, community and in it all we have is our shared love of the activity. Love is an active process, we must choose to make it happen. Try to make it happen a little when you are in front of me.

brixztheflip@gmail.com

I don't have a pair of dime, but i got four nickels

T is not a voter

Fairness is not an impact

although i believe in my heart of hearts that disclosure is good, I don't care about your disclosure theory...

I vote against my personal beliefs all the time it often makes me sad

Make Art Not War

Good Luck out there, show me something I ain't seen before.

I'm not one of of these smug intellectuals, I use a lot of fancy words sometimes but I thrifted them.... so the better you can tell it like it is and give historical examples the easier it is for me to make a decision.

Judge instruction is nice... dont just say it to me, tell me what to do with it.

email: jennagoodrich765@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

I debated policy at the University of Houston. I have a full time non-debate job and have not kept up with this year's college topic so please make sure you are explaining your arguments

I do not have strong preferences for any type of argument as long as you give me a good reason why you should get my ballot. I am far more likely to be persuaded when you clash over warrants rather than card names. Extensions should explain the claim + warrant + impact!

Case debate:

- I like case debate.

- I think plan-specific internal links are very often shoddy. Nevertheless, debaters often ignore this and focus their attention on the impacts / internal links to the impacts. For instance, affs should be able to defend how their plan gets them to the same econ decline impacts read year over year, and negs should look to exploit the ambiguities in the aff's explanation.

Topicality/FW:

- You should probably be going for T. I think topicality has fallen out of favor, such that most policy affs aren't even topical anymore. I think T is often a very smart argument if you can execute on it.

- T/FW is about competing visions of debate. It's not enough to be right about whether the other team violates your interp, you have to tell me why your interp makes debate better. I know this is basic, but I feel like a lot of the time T debates can get lost in the weeds. The big picture is important.

Disads:

- Just like affs, I think the internal links in most disads are pretty bad. This should be a point of contestation.

- Disad debates can devolve into contextless card dumps. I am more persuaded by more direct clash.

Counterplans:

- I won't judge kick for you if there's offense on the CP. Maybe you can persuade me to, but I think that it should be a strategic choice whether or not the take the CP into the 2nr.

- I think aff teams don't read theory enough against the counterplan. However, I struggle to find a situation where I would drop the team as opposed to the argument. I won't vote on condo bad.

- The best counterplans come from the aff's own solvency advocate. This is usually an easy way to win the round on top of being a big flex.

Kritiks:

- I'm not as familiar with K debate but I'm not opposed to them. If you want me to vote on the alt, you have to explain to me what exactly that means for the round/world.

- Links are very important. Even independent of the alt, they can often be sufficient to win the round as a case turn. However, it is crucial that they are contextualized to what the aff actually does. Bad links are often shielded by the perm, while good links prove its inefficacy.

Theory:

-I won't vote on theory unless I think it's important for the round.

-Condo bad isn’t a real argument unless completely dropped.

Harris, Scott (University of Kansas)

judgeharris59@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain.

I am a critic of arguments and an educator not a policy maker. I view my role as deciding who did the better job of debating and won the arguments based on what was said in the debate. I have voted for and against just about every kind of argument imaginable. I will read evidence (including non highlighted portions).

I expect debaters to be comprehensible and I have no qualms about telling you if I can’t
understand you. I try my best to resolve a debate based on what the debaters have said in
their speeches. I try not to impose my own perspective on a debate although there is no such thing as a tabula rosa judge and some level of judge intervention is often inevitable to resolve arguments in a debate. Any argument, assumption, or theory is potentially in play. The purpose of my ballot is to say who I think won the debate not to express my personal opinion on an issue. You make arguments and I decide to the best of my ability who won the arguments based on what you said in the debate. I prefer to follow along with your speech docs to double check clarity, to make sure you are reading all of your ev, and to enhance my ability to understand your arguments.

My speaker points tend to reward smart creative arguments and strategies, smart choices in the debate, high quality evidence, the use of humor, the use of pathos, and making the debate an enjoyable experience. My points rarely go below 28 but you need to really impress me to get me into the 29-30 range. I am rarely impressed.

Absent arguments in the debate that convince me otherwise I have some default assumptions you should be aware of:

The aff should be topical and topicality is a voting issue. What it means to be topical is open for debate and for anyone who wants to build their strategy on framework you should know that I often vote aff in framework debates.

The affirmative must win a comparative advantage or an offensive reason to vote affirmative.

Presumption is negative absent a warranted reason for it to shift.

The affirmative does not need a net benefit to a permutation. The negative must win that a counterplan or critique alternative alone is better than the plan or a combination of the plan and counterplan/alternative.

Permutations are a test of competition and not an advocacy.

Teams are culpable for the ethical implications of their advocacy. This means that framework arguments on K's that say "only consequences matter" have an uphill climb with me. Means and ends are both relevant in my default assessment on critical arguments.

Currently a coach and PhD student at The University of Kansas.

Add me to the chain plz and thank you DerekHilligoss@gmail.com

for college add rockchalkdebate@gmail.com as well

TL;DR do what you do and do it well. Don't let my preferences sway you away from doing what you want.

The biggest thing for me is that I value good impact framing/calc. If you aren't explaining why your impacts matter more then your opponents you are leaving it up for me or the other team to decide.

Framework: Go for whatever version of framework you like but I tend to think it should interact with the aff at some level. If you give the 2NC/2NR and make no reference to the aff you will find it harder to win my ballot.

Planless affs: The one note I wanna make outside of FW notes is that you have to be able to answer the "what do you do" question no matter how silly it may seem. If I don't know what the aff does after the 1AC/CX that's gonna put you in a rough spot. I don't think this means you have to do anything but you should have a good justification for why you don't have to.

Theory: condo (probably) to a certain extent is good and counterplans should (probably) have solvency advocates. I have no strong opinions just tell me how to feel.
*new strong opinion* going for condo is not a remedy for being a bad 2A---

Topicality: limits for the sake of limits probably bad?

Counterplans: cool? Do it

Disads: The only thing I wanna note here is highlight your cards better. I don't wanna have to read 30 crappy cards to get the story of the disad and it makes it easier for the aff to win with a few solid cards.

Kritiks: Specific links go a long way. This doesn't mean it has to be exactly about the plan but your application will do better than a generic "law bad" card. Applying your theory to the aff's advantages in a way that takes out solvency will make your lives so much easier.

For the aff FW I think a well developed FW argument about legal/pragmatic engagement will do more for you than fairness/limits impacts.

Random things:

If you are unclear I'll yell clear twice before I stop flowing. I'll make it apparent I'm not flowing to let you know you need to adjust still.

If you clip you will lose.

"reinsert card here"- nope :) read it- this is a communication activity not a robot activity.

Judge Paradigm for Frank Irizarry, Suffolk University

Name: Frank Irizarry

Email:firizarry@suffolk.edu

College: Suffolk University

Current Profession: Professor/Debate Coach

Judging for: Suffolk University Debate / The Boston Debate League

My experience:

I was a CEDA debater at Marist College (1989-1993) and I coached at the college level for 15 years (Northern Illinois University, Syracuse University, Pace University, University of Florida, Suffolk University). I have been actively involved with the Boston Debate League for the last 14 years and I judge periodically for the BDL. I have judged policy debate for a long time.

After a 14 year "sabbatical" from coaching, I am back coaching college debate for Suffolk University. I am looking forward to this next act in my debate journey.

I am fairly open to whatever debaters want to do stylistically in a debate round. I wasn't always like that but time away gives you some perspective and I realize that this activity belongs to the debaters so I try to create minimal interference in their argument/advocacy strategy.

If you'd like to know about my thoughts on the typical things debaters generally like to ask about, here goes:

Rate of Delivery: You need to slow it down a bit. The hand speed is not what it once was. Additionally, when you are reading blocks of analytics, it is difficult for me to catch everything that you said. Also, the way some debaters underline/highlight their cards doesn't make sense to me as I'm listening to the debate. And I am listening. I actually try to flow and not just construct the round from your speech docs.

Start of the Debate: You do not have to countdown "3..2..1." You're getting ready to read the 1AC, not launch a rocket ship into space."

Quantity of Arguments: I prefer a few well developed arguments but if your strategy involves making lots of arguments early in the debate, so be it.

I am willing to vote on: Topicality, Counterplans, Generic Disadvantages, Conditional Negative Positions, Debate Theory Arguments, Critical Arguments.

I am probably in the minority here but I dislike multiple counterplans in a debate. I think it makes for bad debate. I have voted for teams reading multiple CP's but it never makes me happy.

Ultimately, I like well reasoned arguments, a defense of those arguments and clash on the arguments in the debate.

I dislike rudeness directed toward me or your opponent.

If you have any questions, just ask!

23-24 update: It's your job to persuade me. Keep that in mind. I vote for what wins but what wins is what persuades me to vote. If I am not making a decision based on persuasion - both team messed up.

2022-23 update: you can easily out tech me if you're going a mile a minute speaking. Adjust or you'll lose trying to out tech the other team. The gamesmanship is cool but persuasion and actual communication with the judge you want to vote for you is in fact necessary. Being technically right isn't gonna sway a ballot for me.

2019-2020 update: I want debate to go back to being persuasive... I think that top level speed reading is not persuasive. One of the points of the "game" of debate is to be persuasive... to persuade the judge to vote for you. I am not persuaded by a swarm of gnats sound. I'm not saying you can't talk fast or even speed read - but if there's no inflection in your voice - if you drone on and on and on - if you haven't tried to persuade me but just talked at me - you will not get good speaks from me. You may win the debate because you are strategically ahead and better - but your speaks will suffer. I'm not saying conversational pace - I talk fast in general - I argue fast - I don't sound like a gnat.

I am a Black woman who is also disabled. I debated 4 years for KState mostly running different forms of Black feminism. I enjoy listening to the ways people interpret debates and deploy their arguments strategically. If you're not bored I won't be either.

*******If you are not Black (white and non black poc) do not read anti-blackness/Afrofuturism/pessimism/optimism arguments in front of me (aff/neg) if the other team calls you out at ALL you will lose the debate.... same for other PoC arguments that the authors say are for PoC. If it is not your position you don't get to use other peoples bodies to get a ballot. ***note to PoC your existence is not negated because you have a white partner - I won't vote on "the white person spoke/is here"

DA/CP: I will vote for them. I have a high threshold for internal links. You have to be able to explain how the aff gets to the DA impact. I'm unwilling to give you the benefit of doubt, prove it.

Kritiks: I’ll vote for it. In order for you to get the ballot, the K, like any other argument has to be well explained for me to vote for it. I also believe that in any good K debate their needs to be an obvious link to the case and the alternative of the K must be well explained. The biggest thing I was complimented on from judges was the "big picture" debate. Tell me the story of your K you will not get away with big holes in explanation.

Theory: I’ll vote for it. HOWEVER, I don’t like theory debates that are just blocks or are just spew downs. I like the line by line debate on theory and for the debaters to slow down. I WILL vote on dropped theory arguments- so you better answer them (even if the perm is a test you still need to answer severance). The biggest critique I got from judges was I miss the little details. I am an auditory learner I will be listening but if you speed through theory there is a good chance I won't catch it. Be Clear!

Topicality: I believe that topicality is about competing interpretations. However, I can be persuaded that topicality is not a voting issue and that normative reasons to vote do outweigh. But in order to win these issues there has to be considerable time spent on these arguments not just blips. I do not necessarily believe all affirmatives have to have a plan text, however, I do believe that you should be able to defend the lack thereof. Again, it is not what you do or do not say, it is what you justify. Affirmatives, if you don’t have a plan or don’t defend the consequences you should have reasons why you shouldn’t have to defend those issues.

1) Slow down. My ears are not calibrated to the rapid delivery of policy debaters.

2) Read less cards. I will not read cards at the end of the round unless "what it says" is questioned (as in your calling them a liar). I prefer to watch and evaluate based off of what you have clearly articulated in the debate. Debate is about more than empty words, gestures, and actions. It is not only what you say/do. It is also what you justify. That matters more to me than a bunch of random cards you read to fill time.

3) Don’t rely on being tricky or attempting to “out-tech” the other team. In doing so, you will likely out-tech me and your tricks will go unnoticed. I take notes, on every speech but I don’t flow in the conventional manner of lining up argument-for-argument in columns. There is obviously a minimum of technical skills one needs to compete in debate. If a team does not address an entire position or an important nuance emphasized by their opponents then it is unlikely that they will win.

If you make a Steven Universe reference I will bump .2 speaks

Yes I want to be on the email chain jjackson558@gmail.com

Judge Philosophy – Will Mosley-Jensen

Edited 9-19-12

***Short***

1.            Win an impact. (If you can’t do that, join the band)

2.            Compare that to the impact you think they win.

3.            Compare evidence in steps 1 & 2.

4.            If you are fast repeat steps 1-3. If not focus your efforts on steps 1-2 with a sprinkling of step 3.

5.            Have Fun! Clarity, Humor, and Civility all help your speaker points.

6.            Specificity > Generality

***Long***

General Comments

When making a decision there are three factors that precede other considerations first, the status of direct counter-arguments, has an argument been dropped; second, the quality of evidence supporting an argument, is the evidence superior, average or inconclusive; and third, the correspondence of an argument to reality (or the relative “truth” of an argument).

It is important to note that none of these factors is fixed prior to any given debate, but rather that the debate itself determines them. I should also hope that it is clear that my ordering of these factors represents merely my fallback position if there is no re-ordering argued for in a debate. Some of the factors, such as evidence quality could, and should, be a part of the ways that debaters compare their arguments and establish the relative priority of their argument. If this is not done in a debate, then I will evaluate the debate utilizing the order that I have established.

Specificity is important in all debates. If you say that your disadvantage “turns the case” because Romney will destroy hegemony, then it is probably important to compare this warrant to the affirmative warrant for why they solve for US credibility abroad. The best debates are a comparison of warrants; the worst debates a battle of claims, with most debates falling somewhere in the middle.

Specifics

Topicality debates-

Against Non-traditional (not topical and proud of it) teams

I find that I have a very strong bias that affirmatives should be topical. Most of the reasons that teams advance for why they do not need to fulfill this most central of affirmative burdens pre-suppose several problematic propositions. First, that there is some value that is external to the debate community that can be gained from not affirming the topic. Second, that participation in debate trades-off with other types of activism, rather than occupying a supplementary role. Third, that the value of debate is not intrinsically tied to the identification of a common topic of discussion. Finally and most heinously, that debate is sustainable without the minimum of fairness that is provided by having a shared topic. These assumptions seem to me to be easily answered by a team that is properly prepared.

Against traditional (ostensibly topical) teams

A well-executed topicality argument is one of the most enjoyable debates to judge or watch in my opinion. If it is thoroughly researched and considered by the negative, topicality can represent a strategic tool in a wide variety of debates.

That said, I think that the negative needs to clearly articulate the method of evaluating topicality, and avoid statements in other parts of the debate that question the assumption of the competing interpretations framework. It is not unusual to hear a negative argue that “hard debate is good debate” on conditionality and then extend a topicality argument that is based on some trivial loss of ground.  Affirmative teams should capitalize on such inconsistencies when arguing that their interpretation does not make debate impossible but improves it by creating strategic bottlenecks for the negative.

 Framework debates-

I find that these debates usually come down to what the role of the critic should be. Namely, should the role of the critic be that of an impartial observer that evaluates the relative advantages and disadvantages of government action versus the status quo or a competitive policy option or should the role of the critic be something else? I can be persuaded that this role includes things not traditionally associated with the assumption that I am an impartial observer, but it helps if you provide some specific articulation of the benefits of deviating from the accepted norm. I enjoy policy debates and am sympathetic to a well-argued defense of the educational and fairness benefits of this approach. I will say that most of the time if the affirmative defends a topical plan that is usually enough to facilitate a productive debate, and in that case it is generally wise to question the solvency of the affirmative. In other words, if the affirmative team has read a topical plan text and the crux of your negative framework argument is “they are not policy enough,” I am likely to vote affirmative.

Criticisms

I am pretty firmly rooted in a Western metaphysics of presence and the value of enlightenment rationality. I am also of the mind that adjudicating debates requires assumptions of rationality and so if you want me to adopt a different framework of evaluation it will require some pretty solid reasons on your part. That is not to say I do not enjoy critical debates, there are some fine criticisms that are firmly grounded in modernity. If you are going for a criticism in front of me, it is likely that I have at least a passing familiarity with the foundational literature of your argument (I got my B.A. in philosophy and my M.A in rhetoric) but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t go out of your way to explain the specific application to the affirmative. Similarly if you are reading a critical affirmative you should be careful to explain the reasons that your affirmative renders parts, or all, of the negative’s strategy irrelevant. For example if you are arguing that epistemological considerations precede policy considerations you should explain the nature of that relationship.

 Counterplans

In most circumstances when negatives read counterplans that are questionably competitive/legitimate (process, consult, conditioning) I find that aff teams are unwilling to engage in a protracted procedural debate and so become competitive/legitimate by default. Usually going for a permutation is a time intensive process, but can be rewarding if you spend the time to work through the competition theory that purportedly supports the negative’s counterplan. Advancing theory on a counterplan should always include controlling not only the specifics of the theory debate, but also the meta-questions. For example, a robust defense of competing interpretations is generally necessary for the affirmative to win that multiple conditional counterplans are a voting issue. Most affirmative teams tend to simply spot the negative that it is not a question of competing interpretations but rather a question of whether the counterplan makes debate impossible for the affirmative (which almost no counterplans, save fiating the object of the resolution, do).

Speaker Points

Although debate is a competitive activity that doesn’t mean that people can’t be civil with each other. Your comportment during a round can easily affect your speaker points as much as the quality of your arguments. Debate is a fun, rewarding activity and the people that I regard with the most respect are not only great debaters but great people as well.

Coach for the University of Houston, Langham Creek High School, and Memorial High School

A couple of thoughts before I address specific arguments

for Wake/UT - I haven't judged very much this year and don't know what the norms/args are yet

If it’s important say it more than once, I don’t necessarily mean that you should just repeat yourself, but make the argument in more than one place with more than one application.

Highlighting should be able to be read - I think that your evidence should be highlighted in a way that makes at least some grammatical sense - this is kind of subjective but if its a true abomination of words slapped together I won't read around your highlighting to understand what you're trying to say.

please time yourselves

I would like to be on the email chain, clarkjohnson821@gmail.com

CX

T debates (and theory debates) are already very blippy, if you want me to evaluate it, slow down. I like it when teams use T strategically in other areas of the debate.

DA's: good spin > sepcific ev > generic ev. I like intuitive turns case arguments and I love when you can implicate the aff’s internal links and solvency using other parts of the disad. I think that

CP's: These are fine, if you want to know my thoughts on judge kick see Rob Glass's paradigm.

K’s: As long as you approach the debate assuming I won’t understand your version of baudrillard we’ll probably be fine. 2nr (and 2nc to some extent) explanation of what the alt world would look like, how the alt solves the links to the aff, and how the alt solves the impacts are important to me, I find myself to be much more persuaded by neg teams that can do this well.

K affs v fw: I think your aff should in some way be related to the topic, that's not to say that you have to be, just that it will make it easier for you to win those debates.

K affs v k's: this is by far the debate that I have the least experience with, something that's really important to me in these debates is clarity of how the alt/aff functions and how it interacts with the links to your opponent's argument, I tend to find myself being persuaded by detailed alt analysis.

if you’ve noticed a common theme here, it’s that I think the alt debate is important

Theory: Default neg and reject the argument, you should give me reasons to do otherwise, don't expect me to vote on it if you don't slow down and explain your argument, most debaters spread blippy blocks that make it difficult to flow and evaluate, if the 2nr or 2ar want to go for theory in some form or fashion you're going to have to do a modicum of work, saying severance perms bad for 10 seconds at the top of your 2nr is not enough to get me to vote on it as long as the 2ar makes any sort of response.

Counterplans bad is probably not a reason to vote aff

LD

I don’t judge this event as often so I may lack a more nuanced understanding of how things function in LD compared to policy, but with that being said I’m open to however you want to do it, be it traditional or progressive. Your phil and theory debates are a little alien to me coming from how we approach similar arguments in policy, so if that’s what you think you’ll be going for in your 2ar or nr be super clear. Most of my thoughts about args in cx will color my analysis of the arguments you make in LD.

PF

I dont consider the time it takes for your opponents to provide you their evidence as prep time, and I don't think you need to take cx time for it either. If you can’t tell, I am primarily a policy judge and as such I probably have a higher standard for evidence quality and access than your average judge.

other than that I don't have strong opinions when it comes to what arguments you want to read as long as you justify them (read: impacts matter!)

im not familiar with pf norms when it comes to whether you should or shouldn’t answer opponents args in summary or 2nd constructive. And sometimes I feel like I’m inconsistent in trying to figure out and apply what they are in my rounds judging it. As such I will treat it as I would a cx round unless you tell me otherwise - new args can be made in first two speeches, summary should not be new args (but can if they are answering a new argument, ie 1st speaking team makes an argument that directly answers a new arg made by 2nd speakers in the last constructive speech) in terms of extensions through to ff I don't think that saying something in grand is enough for me to weigh it at the end of the debate if you dont extend it through your last speech.

I will probably call for evidence. If you paraphrase, expect me to not treat your evidence with the same level of veracity as someone citing specific parts of their cards.

Policy Debate

I would like to be on the email chain if there is one. my email is jessekeleman@gmail.com

Every time I try and cut down my paradigm it gets longer. So here's a brief summary:

I haven't judged much on the nukes topic, so keep that in mind

Enunciate tags

Spread full-speed through your blocks and all their wonderful sub-points at your own risk

Tell me why it matters that you won an argument (even a conceded one)

I don't have strong argument preferences, do whatever you want. I've put my general proclivities for each argument below

An author name (alone) is not an extension

I'm not well-read on most kritikal literature these days, so if your argument has a lot of terms of art I probably don't know them. That being said I'm used to not being well-read and generally can figure it out from context, but the more specific, concrete examples you can give of how your impact manifests itself, the better off you will be.

Don't take my paradigm to heart, use it as a general reference. You can see how long it is and I've probably already forgotten half of it

Basic philosophy

I am not the fastest flow-er in the world. Slow down a bit or enunciate your tags/ argument names so that I know they are special, and it shouldn't be too much of a problem. As long as I have enough of your argument flowed down to jog my memory, you should be fine.

I debated at UT and debated for 4 years at Grapevine in highschool. I'm currently a lawyer (not an expert on personhood). I really like well-researched PICs.

Try to be clear on what arguments you are winning and why you are winning the round because of it. What this means is that when you make an argument, make sure you explain the larger implications it has on the debate. This doesn't mean make everything a voting issue, but rather that your arguments should all fit together in a neat and understandable way. If I have to do a lot of this analysis myself, you might not like how I end up evaluating your arguments.

An author name is not an extension, and I think debaters tend to breeze over conceded arguments without impacting them out in the way I talked about above. If you think an argument is conceded or mishandled, it still needs to be explained in the final speeches.

I'm not too familiar with a lot of the kritikal literature bases besides Virilio and anthropocentrism (and somewhat Buddhism. Daoism because I've been on a mindfullness binge recently), so keep that in mind when explaining your arguments. I still love hearing kritiks, just be sure to make your arguments as clear as possible.
I haven't heard a lot of debates on this topic, so try and keep that in mind if you were planning on throwing around a lot of acronyms at a fast pace. Making your arguments clearer can only be good for your speaker points.

I like hearing specific disads, generic ones are fine too if you can contextualize the link to your argument to the affirmative. Same thing with kritiks.
I'll be glad to answer any more specific questions you have before the round.

Disads

I prefer specific disads, but of course that's not always possible. I find that disad links can be pretty awful, and think that it can be a great place for an aff to gain some ground against the disad. However, I think that disads with strong and well-explained links can be extremely convincing. Politics disads can either be underwhelming if extremely generic, or very solid arguments if your link story is a bit more nuanced then "some people in congress hate the plan, so congress will suddenly decide they hate immigration reform.".

I did mainly kritikal debate in college, but in highschool I was more policy oriented, so don't be afraid to lean more policy infront of me. I actually find 8-off debates to be pretty interesting sometimes; I think that they force interesting strategic decisions and require a certain skill to both answer and execute well.

Counterplans

I am not a fan of conditions counterplans, or any other counterplan that causes a very small change in the process the aff goes through (consult counterplans also fall under this category). I tend to think that they form boring and repetitive debates. I will still vote on them if you are winning the argument, but I find the theoretical objections to them to be pretty convincing. I am a huge fan of specific pics. Any well-researched and well debated pic will likely give your speaker points a boost. I am not a fan of generic pics, or some of the old-fashioned word pics, such as the "the" pic. I think advantage counterplans can be extremely strategic, especially when paired with a strong disad.

Kritik

Kritiks are great, but I am not very familiar with a lot of the more complex kritikal literature. This means you have to make your explanation of the argument clear to me, or I'll have a hard time voting on it. I have no problem with affirmatives that don't defend government action as long as they are relevant to the topic or have a convincing reason not to be, but at the same time I have no problem voting for framework if the negative gives me convincing reasons why debates about government action are more useful than what the affirmative performance is trying to do. I would prefer negatives use well thought-out counter-advocacies over framework as those debates tend to be more interesting, but I do believe that framework has its place in debate.

I generally prefer that your link arguments prove that the aff makes the world a worse place in some way, rather than only prove that they are complicit in certain structures. I think that really talented kritikal debaters are proficient at framing their link arguments in offensive ways that show how an aff replicates problems in the world, rather than just claiming that the aff doesn't acknowledge a problem. The exception to this is if you can win substantial framing arguments that mean I should ignore the aff entirely.

I find anthro to be one of the most persuasive arguments in debate, and mourn its disappearance.

Topicality

I'd generally prefer a DA or K, but I think that topicality debates can be interesting in their own way. I think that high school debaters tend to expand the topic a little bit too far, and get away with affs that might not necessarily be topical. Running topicality against a clearly topical aff will most likely not get you anywhere, and should probably be replaced with more viable arguments.

Framework

I decided to make a separate section for this, since I've been judging it a bit more and have more thoughts about it now. I think that sometimes teams forget that when i vote on framework, I'm voting on an interpretation of how debate should be, rather than voting on whether a team broke some "rule" of debate or not. Your argument could of course be that I should vote them down because they broke a rule, but I find this less convincing than arguments about what debate ought to be. I think that ways of mitigating the other team's offense is vital in these debates. For the neg, those would be SS args, TVA args, or any other argument about how your interpretation doesn't exclude their education. For the aff, this usually takes the form of criticisms of the neg's ideas of education.

A lot of the framework debates I've judged seem to focus on the aff alone, rather than the entire interpretation. I think that this is a mistake, and I would like to see teams tying their arguments back to their interpretations rather than just ignoring the interpretation after extending it and proceeding to talk about how unfair the specific aff is. I find a lot of aff interpretations to be very vague, take advantage of this when you make your predictability and limits arguments.

As a final note on framework, I think that novel and strategic aff interpretations could get you further than just "teams have to talk about the topic".

Theory

I find that there are certain arguments in debate that seem polarizing, as far as if they are beneficial arguments that should be used in debate or not. For these arguments that do seem to spur disagreement, I think that theory can be a fantastic argument against them, and would enjoy seeing an in-depth theory debate about them. On the other hand, theory arguments arguing that you shouldn't speed read, that counterplans are bad for debate, or that kritiks belong in LD, I do not find convincing. You're not likely to win on these arguments unless the other team severely mishandles them, so you might as well actually engage in their arguments instead of trying to just ignore them. A questionable argument that has been well-researched and has specific evidence is much more likely to look legitimate to me than a generic counterplan that just pushes the aff back a year and claims a politics net benefit. I think that clash is one of the most important parts of debate, and that if an argument disagrees with the actual content of the 1AC in a substantial matter, it should be permitted in debate. If an argument tries to avoid clash in unhealthy ways (mostly in ways that don't promote topic-specific research), then I am more likely to decide that these arguments are illegitimate.

Conditionality -

I think that more than two conditional arguments is pushing it, but I do not think there is much merit to saying that the negative cannot get even 1 conditional argument. If there's one conditional argument your time is probably better spent on debating the substance of the debate. I also think that you should make your argument as nuanced as possible, for example instead of saying just conditionality is bad, say that multiple contradictory conditional worlds is bad.


Speaker Points - I haven't judged enough rounds to have a well though-out system of giving speaker points, but in general better arguments will get better speaker points, and more persuasive speakers will get better speaker points. I also enjoy hearing novel arguments, especially in areas of debate where you often hear the same arguments over and over again, such as theory debates.

LD

I rarely judge this event. Assume I know nothing about the topic, but I am probably somewhat familiar with the critical literature base you're drawing from. I have a hard time voting aff in LD debates because of the huge time discrepancy that makes it seem as if there are a lot of dropped arguments. To get around this, I suggest grouping arguments often as the affirmative, and making it clear how your impacts outweigh any risk of what the negative is talking about, bringing up at least a few specific examples in the process.

Rex Kidd

Add me to the email chain - rexwkidd@outlook.com

University of Houston Debate 2025

Online Debate

Speed - I am fine with spreading through the body of cards, but if you want something flowed (taglines, authors, analytics, etc.) you need to slow down, -75%-60% of top speed allowing me pen time to keep up with the debate.

Microphone quality- if I am unable to understand you due to microphone quality, I will give multiple “clear” warnings, but if the issue isnt resolved I simply will stop flowing.

I welcome arguments in all their forms. I mean this quite literally. Denounce modernity or impact turn innovation - within the parameters of debate, I don't care. My only request: whatever form yours may take, please be considerate and take the time to outline for me the claim of the argument, the warrants to support it, and the impacts of its significance. Even better, organize these arguments so the ideas are unambiguously clear; and at the end of the debate tell me in no uncertain terms why you win and why they lose. At the end of the day, I think debate is an enjoyable game with lasting subjective consequences. What these consequences are, and the extent to which they can become desirable or malignant, is open to interpretation. I believe this responsibility to interpret ultimately resides with the debaters, not the judge. I won't superimpose. I'll try my best to simply evaluate. Have fun!

Debate should be a welcoming and open space to all who would try to participate. If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible. Have a fundamental respect for the other team and the activity. Insulting either or both, or making a debater feel uncomfortable, is not acceptable.

email: rakoort99@gmail.com.

former debater at UH, now judge/coach there.

You do you. I have few predispositions about how the round ought be. I have no real preference between policy and K arguments, but I am significantly more experienced with the policy side of things. I won't be as familiar as you with your specific lit base.

Judge instruction is important and I take it seriously. It is better for you as debaters and me as the judge when you explain a clear path to the ballot rather than having me do unguided forensic analysis on the flow.

I love case debate. I think it is underutilized. The 2ac is often allowed to get away with far too much. I am not unwilling to zero solvency when affs are missing key pieces. I take evidence quality seriously when it is made an issue in round.

Almost certainly won't vote on condo or new affs bad, won't default to judge kick but can be swayed.

Be kind, have fun.

Eric Lanning

I've been involved in policy debate for 15+ years as a debater and coach on the national circuit, including at the highest levels at the Tournament of Champions and National Debate Tournament.

I do my best to evaluate arguments based off what's said in the debate, but like anyone else I bring some preconceived notions about the activity and world that create "default" positions. I'll do my best to detail these below. I am very expressive and communicative and often provide "instant" feedback in the form of non-verbal expressions.

In general you should feel free to make whatever arguments you'd like! Debate is for the debaters and I will do my best to adapt to you.

I think the best debates are between two well researched opponents, and that predictable limits on the topic are important for in depth debate. I don't think that means the affirmative must necessarily defend "implementation by the federal government". I often find framework debates stale and difficult to resolve.

I am often quite skeptical of negative strategies that focus on multiple conditional counterplans or process counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive . I wish more affirmatives would object to the proliferation of 2-3 conditional advocacies and strongly believe that "rejecting the team, not the argument" is the appropriate remedy.

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

While I will often ask to see a card document - I tend to default to the explanation/spin of debaters in the round. IE its very important for you to explain and compare evidence!

Debate experience: debated at the University of North Texas 2015-2017

My general philosophy and approach to debate is that education is A-priori. If your arguments are educational I'll buy them. Ask any clarifying questions before the round.

Rating scale - 1 being the lowest possible score with 10 representing the highest

(8 out of 10) Speed - Just be clear on the tags, don't clip cards

(6 out of 10) Topicality - I generally don't vote for T arguments unless it is under covered, dropped, but I will entertain it.

(10 out of 10) Disads and CPs - I will vote for any DA or CP. Multiple conditional counterplans are ok but don't go overboard and read more than 2 or 3.

(10 out of 10) Theory and F/W - I enjoy these arguments and will vote for just about any theory and framework argument.

(9 out of 10) Kritiks - Ill vote for any K, spend enough time covering the alternative.

(10 out of 10) Performance debate - I spent most of my career doing performance and K aff's, these are my favorite debate rounds to judge.

Debated for Winston Churchill High School (TX). Debated at Texas. Camps worked at: VBI, Baylor, UTNIF.

Email: jacoblugo101@gmail.com

Please have the email chain ready as soon as both opponents meet before the round.

A few thoughts:

• I consider my role in the debate is to decide who did the better debating.
• I prefer for there to not be any room in the debate to input my own opinions. Prefer debates to be as clean and explicit as possible to make the most objective decision.
• I'll listen to most any type of argument. Not a fan of vacuous theory arguments or paragraphs of spikes/preempts (most pertinent to LD).
• I tend to/prefer to flow on paper. Take that into consideration. If you see me flowing on my computer, be mindful when you are transitioning between arguments.
• I flow what you say. Not looking at the doc during speeches unless I have absolutely no idea what you are saying (at which point I will stop flowing and stare at you until you notice). I read the docs between speeches/during CX/after the round.
• Please slow down during analytics. For some reason people tend to read through these faster and faster every year.
• I'm very expressive. My face is a good indicator of where the debate is going.
• If I'm absolutely unsure of what is going on/no arguments have been made, I'm most likely going to err neg.
• I'm always listening.
• Speaker points: I like to be entertained. I care about pathos. I enjoy creative and strategic argumentation. I generously doc speaks if I feel that you are being unnecessarily rude.

Speak clearly. Happy to elaborate on my philosophy and answer any questions before the round.

Alex McVey - Director of Debate at Kansas State University

Yes Email chain - j.alexander.mcvey at gmail

Online things - Strong preference for Camera On during speeches and CX. I'm willing to be understanding about this if it's a tech barrier or there are other reasons for not wanting to display. But it does help me a ton to look at faces when people are speaking.

If I'm physically at a tournament and judging a debate with one online and one in-person team, I'm always going to try to be in the same room as the in-person team, if the tournament permits. Within those parameters, Zoom teams should let me know if there's anything I can do to make myself more present for them in that space. I respect what online debate has done to increase access for some teams, but I value in-person connection with debaters too much to go judge from an empty classroom or hotel room.

I flow on paper. I need pen time. Clarity is really important to me. I'll always say "clear" if I think you're not being clear, at least 1-2 times. If you don't respond accordingly, the debate probably won't end well for you.

I tend to be expressive when I judge debates. Nodding = I'm getting it, into your flow, not necessarily that it's a winner. Frowny/frustrated face = maybe not getting it, could be a better way to say it, maybe don't like what you're doing. I would take some stock in this, but not too much: I vote for plenty things that frustrate me while I'm hearing them executed, and vote down plenty of things that excite me when first executed. All about how it unfolds.

The more I judge debates, the less ev I'm reading,  the more I'm relying on 2nr vs 2ar explanation and impact calculus. If there are cards that you want me to pay attention to, you should call the card out by name in the last rebuttal, and explain some of its internal warrants. Debaters who make lots of "even if" statements, who tell me what matters and why, who condense the debate down to the most important issues, and who do in depth impact calculus seem to be winning my ballots more often than not.

Debating off the flow >>> Debating off of speech docs (ESPECIALLY IN REBUTTALS). I'd say a good 25% of my decisions involve the phrase "You should be more flow dependent and less speech doc dependent." Chances are very little that you've scripted before the debate began is useful for the 2nr/2ar.

My experience and expertise is definitely in kritik debate, but I judge across the spectrum and have been cutting cards on both K and Policy sides of the legal personhood topic. Run what you're good at. Despite my K leaning tendencies, I’m comfortable watching a good straight up debate.

Don't assume I've cut cards in your niche research area though. I often find myself lost in debates where people assume I know what some topical buzzword, agency, or acronym is.

Theoretical issues: Blippy, scatter-shot theory means little, well-developed, well-impacted theory means a lot. Again, pen time good.

I have no hard and set rules about whether affs do or don't have to have plans. Against planless/non-topical affs, I tend to think topicality arguments are generally more persuasive than framework arguments. Or rather, I think a framework argument without a topicality argument probably doesn't have a link. I'm not sure what the link is to most "policy/political action good" type framework arguments if you don't win a T argument that says the focus of the resolution has to be USFG policy. I think all of these debates are ultimately just a question of link, impact, and solvency comparison.

I tend to err on truth over tech, with a few exceptions. Dropping round-winners/game-changers like the permutation, entire theoretical issues, the floating PIC, T version of the aff/do it on the neg, etc... will be much harder (but not impossible) to overcome with embedded clash. That being said, if you DO find yourself having dropped one of these, I'm open to explanations for why you should get new arguments, why something else that was said was actually responsive, etc... It just makes your burden for work on these issues much much more difficult.

Be wary of conflating impacts, especially in K debates. For example, If their impact is antiblackness, and your impact is racism, and you debate as if those impacts are the same and you're just trying to win a better internal link, you're gonna have a bad time.

I intuitively don't agree with "No perms in a method debate" and "No Plan = No Perm" arguments. These arguments are usually enthymematic with framework; there is an unstated premise that the aff did something which skews competition to such a degree that it justifies a change in competitive framework. Just win a framework argument. That being said, I vote for things that don't make intuitive sense to me all the time.

I like debate arguments that involve metaphors, fiction, stories, and thought experiments. What I don't understand is teams on either side pretending as if a metaphor or thought experiment is literal and defending or attacking it as such.

A nested concern with that above - I don't really understand a lot of these "we meets" on Framework that obviously non-topical affs make. I/E - "We're a discursive/affective/symbolic vesting of legal rights and duties" - That... doesn't make any sense. You aren't vesting legal rights and duties, and I'm cool with it, just be honest about what the  performance of the 1ac actually does. I think Neg teams give affs too much leeway on this, and K Affs waste too much time on making these nonsensical (and ultimately defensive) arguments. If you don't have a plan, just impact turn T. You can make other defensive args about why you solve topic education and why you discuss core topic controversies while still being honest about the fact that you aren't topical and impact turn the neg's attempt to require you to be such.

RIP impact calculus. I'd love to see it make a comeback.

RIP performance debates that actually perform. My kingdom for a performance aff that makes me feel something.

Affs are a little shy about going for condo bad in front of me. I generally think Condo is OK but negatives have gotten a bit out of control with it.  I'm happy to vote for flagrant condo proliferation if the neg justifies it. I just don't think affs are making negs work hard enough on these debates.

Negs are a little shy about making fun of 1ac construction in front of me. Ex: K affirmatives that are a random smattering of cards that have little to do with one another. Ex: Policy affs where only 2 cards talk about the actual plan and the rest are just genero impact cards. I feel like negative's rarely ever press on this, and allow affirmatives to get away with ludicrous 2AC explanations that are nearly impossible to trace back to the cards and story presented in the 1ac. More 1nc analytical arguments about why the aff just doesn't make sense would be welcome from this judge.

In a similar vein, many affirmative plans have gotten so vague that they barely say anything. Negatives should talk about this more. Affs should write better plans. Your plan language should match the language of your solvency advocate if you want me to grant you solvency for what is contained in said evidence. I'm going to be trigger happy for "your plan doesn't do anything" until teams start writing better plans.

Debaters should talk more about the lack of quality the other team's evidence and the highlighting of that evidence in particular. If you've highlighted down your evidence such that it no longer includes articles (a/an/the/etc...) in front of nouns, or is in other ways grammatically incoherent due to highlighting, and get called out on it, you're likely to not get much credit for that ev with me.

Be kind to one another. We're all in this together.

Pronouns: she/her | Email: alicetlnguyen@gmail.com

Currently a JV Policy debater for the University of Houston.

CX: Run the arguments you like and do it well. Tech > truth but if something is blatantly wrong, then the threshold to take it down is very low. I like voters and impact comparison. Case debate is underrated and people should do more of it.

LD: Framework sets the foundation for the entire round, and I'd like for it to be applied throughout the whole debate. If one debater persuades me that their framework is better, I'll use that to evaluate the round; if neither do, then I'll default to who was argumentatively more persuasive. It's important in this type of debate that you are mindful of the things you say and the implications they may have, both inside and outside the round.

Speech: Always welcome to new perspectives and fun takes on things. Though, it goes without saying that a controversial opinion should never supersede basic respect for others. Really love in-depth research and exploration of different perspectives, but make sure that counterarguments don't detract or distract from the position you take in the speech.

High speaks for all events if you're entertaining.

Mercedes ISD (2013-2019) 2A/2N

UT Austin (2019-2023) 1A/2N

__________________________

Short Version: Tab

I'll vote on anything as long as its impacted and developed well. I think debate should be about the engagement between teams' arguments and what they ultimately mean for my ballot to endorse one side over the other.

Don't be racist, sexist, ableist etc...

Any mention of Sexual Assault, Self Harm with any language requires a TW - I'll dock your speaks if you don't

email chain: benjaminnoriega9@gmail.com

__________________________

"Long" Version:

1^st year out, take that as you will…

People that influence the way I think about debates: Sammy Healey, Zach Watts, Pia Sen, Will Coltzer, Brendon Bankey, Azja Butler, Will Baker, Texas DK, Jose Alaniz, PJ Martinez

My own thoughts:

I think debate can be a lot of things, but at its core it’s a space for teams to have interesting and impactful discussions about differing perspectives. That being said, I believe that it’s important for teams to demonstrate their ability to explain a clear narrative and deploy that narrative to generate offensive arguments against their opponent’s position.

I think there are a few things that teams can do to grab my ballot:

1.) JUDGE INSTRUCTION: I think it’s to your benefit to explain to me what I'm supposed to do with the things you have said. There are questions that I need answers to (What does the aff do? What does alt/cp do/why is preferable? What is the role of ballot and how should I use my ballot? Etc.) I also think attaching offense to your judge instruction can be useful in swaying me a particular way, especially for K teams. Clearly define what action I should take given the comparison of impacts and offense in the round.

2.) FRAMING: I was a big FW debater and think that winning the FW debate coupled with clearly articulated judge instruction is a slam dunk for me most of the time. Framework determines how I evaluate other portions of the debate, so even if I think your winning some compelling arguments, you need that FW push to justify prioritizing those arguments. A 2AR/2NR centered around what voting for your framework and evaluating the debate through that lens means in the broader sense paired with an offensive comparison of the arguments on the line by line proper will help me gravitate towards voting you up.

3.) OFFENSE: Forwarding a few key pieces of offense with a clear explanation of what they mean in terms of you're opponent’s arguments is necessary for me in terms of impact calculus. It’s also important for you to recognize and problematize your opponent’s arguments and not let this portion of the debate become two ships passing in the night.

4.) This is me (ask anyone) but BE PETTY: I am here for the spice, and you will be met with bonus speaks. You’re there to win, and you should let it be known. This is also super helpful because moments like these can open opportunities to exploit your opponent’s reactions and the way they articulate responses to these moments. Read my Wiki, you’ll see how out of pocket I was, there really is no limit to the things I will vote on.

Random things about me that may or may not be useful to you and your ability to adapt to me:

1. I was mainly a K debater, read policy in High school, went for Cap for like 9 years and was a Policy 1A for a little under 2 years in college…don’t really keep up with ‘TIX updates, read a lot more K lit.

2. Mainly went for Cap, Racial Cap, Disability, Frame Subtraction, Petty RVI’/IVI’s, and PIKs.

3. I flow on paper…’cause that matters to some people.

4. Truth over Tech

5. Once again, check my wiki – your judge’s wiki tells you a lot.

Random thoughts about certain positions:

Framework/T USFG – Been in this debate many times, and I think for me, it centers around a question of offense against your opponent’s model of debate. If at the end of the day your model of debate may have some imperfections, if you are able to problematize your opponent’s ability to resolve the offensive questions you have posed, and set up some defensive explanations about how maybe your model of debate could resolve to some extent the questions that may linger, even if only partially, I should default to your model of debate because of the risk you demonstrated is associated by voting the other way. I think big picture explanations are much more conducive to the way I think about these debates, however judge instruction and framing mean I’m pretty open.

K – Most familiar and preferred argument – lots of K tricks that can generate offense. Main questions I need answered are 1. What is the link? 2. How does the alt/permutation function? 3. How should I evaluate your arguments and what does it mean for my ballot to endorse one side over the other? You should articulate a clear link and impact story that allows you to generate a beneficial narrative to push in the final rebuttal. K debates can also be benefited by being observant and reading the room, generating performative links, taking note of people’s reactions to things that are said, or using what people say to demonstrate your link arguments allow you to take the debate to a different level or mitigate your opponent’s offense by demonstrating performative inconsistencies.

DA – Not too many thoughts – DA turns the case when your Neg, Case o/w when your aff. The Link/Uniqueness portion becomes super important and should be coupled with in depth impact calculus. For a CP/DA combo, demonstrating the magnitude of the DA allows you to sell the “any risk of the net benefit” line better.

CP – The permutation is my main area of focus when it comes to these kinds of debate, no functional or textual competition probably persuades me to vote aff…that being said “perm do the cp” is cheating and lame. Net benefit work also needs to be done to the extent that I am willing to dismiss any risk of the aff, otherwise the permutation probably resolves any residual offense.I do need a little more help and explanation in intricate Process CP debates

T – Not my favorite debates, I think they become fairly generic by the final rebuttals. That being said, I have a couple thoughts:

1. Predictability is the internal link to all your terminal impacts, not a terminal impact in and of itself.

2. I am less persuaded by the Limits and Ground DAs as terminal impacts – I think limits controls portions of the internal link to ground and ultimately is a subjective notion…like is there really NO ground or just not the ground you want (Aff’s you can back file check and replace two or three cards).

3. I can be persuaded that risk of the case should come before T.

Random things that people may or may not like:

1. I’m totally cool with using CX as prep, it’s your time.

2. I think Condo is probably a good thing but that’s not a set-in stone notion.

3. CX is binding – these are things you have said to explain and defend your position, they can and should be used against you if you open the door.

I have some other random thoughts so feel free to ask questions.

Background

I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.

Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.

Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.

I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument

A couple of notes

Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.

Evidence

I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.

I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!

Notes on Education

Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.

I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.

Evidence often is not enough

Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:

1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.

2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.

From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.

Counterplans and debate tech

Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.

I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.

I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.

How we treat each other

This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.

Joe Patrice

USMA

Paperless Policy:I'm at joepatrice@gmail.com. Or I can do the situational dropbox thing. Whatever. Regale me with your evidence. I don't read it during the round, I just want it all for post-round evaluation and caselist obligations. I still flow based on what you SAY so don't cut corners on clarity just because I have your speech docs in my inbox.

Flowing: Seriously, I’m not reading your evidence during your speech. Why doesn’t anyone ever trust me on this? Did I do something in a past life that makes debaters pathologically incapable of believing me? Anyway, if you’re not articulating your distinct arguments, you’re taking your chances that I’m not getting what you’re trying to put out there. I consider debate to be a contest between teams to communicate to me what should be on my flow and where, so orient your argumentation accordingly.

Everything Else: I characterize myself as a critic of argument, which is the pretentiousway of saying that I listen to everything, but that, all else equal, certain things are more compelling than others.

NOTE: Do not necessarily interpret any of my preferences as bans on any kind of arguments, or even guides to how to select down. It's a threshold of believability issue.

Policy Debates: Compare your impacts, weigh them, and tell me a story of the world of voting Aff vs. voting Neg. I’ll choose the one that’s comparatively advantageous.

I prefer fewer positions withlonger evidence, clearer scenarios, and more analysis of impact probability ratherthan harping on the massive scale of the impacts. If I hear that a slight increase in spending collapses the world economy triggering a nuclear war, you may as well tell me aliens are invading. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll vote on it, but I’ll die a little inside and there’s frighteningly little of my soul left to kill – I’m a lawyer.

I’m not particularly excited about the world of flinging 4 CPs at the Aff and just playing the coverage game. It’s just not the makings of a compelling debate, you know? Pick a lane! And it doesn’t seem especially cool on a topic featuring legal scholars proposing almost infinite specific counter-proposals to research. I’ve got no preferences on CP/Perm theory arguments other than it bugs me that people don't feel compelled to explain the abuse story like they would on T. I do not think the blip "the Perm is severance" is enough to get the job done and if I’m going to vote on it, I’d really prefer if, before the round is over, I can comfortably explain why it severs and preferably a reason why that is uniquely disadvantageous. But given that caveat, I'm more than willing to vote on these args because people all too often don't answer them well enough, probably because they don't know how to flow anymore. NOTICE A TREND!

In other words, if you're going the policy route, you’ll make me so happy teeing off with specific arguments tied to the real academic/policy debate over the subject.

And if you’re reading this harsh criticism of policy debate with a smug look on your face, slow your roll there Kdebater...

Kritik Debates: Kritiks challenge the advocacy of the other team in salient ways that could be lost in a pure utilitarian analysis. Issues of exclusion and oppression ingrained in the heart of a policy proposal or the representations of the other team can be called out with kritiks ranging from simple “-ism” args to a postmodern cavalcade.

It is NOT an excuse to say random pomo garbage that sounds cool but doesn’t bear upon what’s happening in the round. Esoteric ramblings from some dead French or German thinker can – and often do – have as little to do with the debate round as the hypothetical global nuclear wars that have killed us a million times over in this activity. Look, I actually KNOW what most of that garbage means, but that's not a reason for you to not make sense. Make the K relevant to the specific policy/issue discussion we’re having and I’ll be very happy.

Again, I vote on this stuff, but see above about killing me inside.

When it comes to K/Performance Affs, I’m pretty open to however you justify the Aff (metaphorically, as activism, as some kind of parable), so long as deep down you’re advocating that all things equal, “giving rights or duties to the things listed in the topic would be good.” Faint in the direction of the topic and you’re in good shape.

With that caveat, if you outright refuse to "affirm" anything in the "topic," that's all well and good, just be a really good T/Framework debater. I'll vote for a compelling justification — I’ve recently been told that according to Tabroom, I’m almost exactly .500 in K v. Framework debates over the last few years. I don’t know if that’s true, but it sounds right. Frankly, I'd rather hear "we can't be Aff because the resolution is broken and we'll win the T/Framework debate" than some squirrely "we're not topical, but kind of topical, but really not" thing.

But who am I to judge! Oh right... I'm the judge. Kinda my job.

An honest pet peeve (that I can be talked out of, round-by-round) is that I don't think “performance” means acting out the argument in-round. For example, Dadaism is an argument, not a reason to answer every question with “Fishbulbs!" You job is to sell me that people answering questions with “Fishbulbs” would be good – if you’re doing it in-round you’ve skipped the foundational part.

Topicality: I feel like I've told enough people in enough rounds about this that I'm comfortable putting it here: if you're running this Scalia evidence as a definition of "vest" despite the fact that it is EXPLICITLY not about rights and duties and solely about Article II power or if you're running the "rights are 15 things" from a definition about how the Indian legal system makes distinctions between constitutional rights and statutory legal rights, you're engaged in an act of such intellectual dishonesty that I think I'm willing to vote on that alone if the other team mentions it.

Every time you steal prep time will also kill me a little more inside. But you’re going to do it anyway.

Joe Patten - I make it a point to judge the round based on the evidence provided by both teams, and do not make arguments for teams - in other words, I will vote for teams even if I don't personally agree with their arguments.  I can judge speed, but tend to give higher speaks for debaters who speak clearly.

Add me to the email chain: alonso.pena91@gmail.com

***The big picture***

1. I have 17 years of involvement with debate. I debated in high school and in college at Garden City (2006-2010) and Kansas State (2011, 2014-2017), respectively. In high school I did "traditional" policy debate, and in college I did critical and performance style debate. I read poetry and talked about queer and trans people of color, Chicanx people, decolonial feminist studies, performance studies, etc. I coached high school debate in Kansas for the last 7 years, and this is my first year coaching at UTSA.

2. Debate is a persuasive activity, so your primary objective should be to persuade me to vote for you.

3. I try to be as open-minded as possible, and I will base my decision on the things that happen in the round. That being said, I embody a lived experience, and I will not pretend that I can separate myself from that. I am a queer chicanx man, and I acknowledge that my positionality influences how I move in the world.

4. Do "you" - Be yourself to the best degree possible, and I will be happy. I believe the beauty of debate is that students get power and control over how they express themselves through argumentation.

5. Please don't annoy me about these two things. Prep-stealing and evidence sharing. When you say you are done with prep, I expect you to be ready to give your roadmap and share evidence.

***The Details***

Disads

Disadvantages are very important and underutilized in debate. I love a good disad debate. To win a disad in front of me you will need (at least) a unique link and an impact. You should explain why the disadvantage turns and outweighs the case, and you should compare impacts. If you're reading politics, then you should know that I am NOT a news watcher, so you should be explaining your politics disad. Also, I generally dislike politics disads because their stories feel like pieced together lies. I'm not saying I won't vote for them, but it'll be an uphill battle for you.

Counterplans

Counterplans are cool. I am more likely to be persuaded by counterplans that do the following: (1) have text that is clear and understandable and/or well explained, (2) solves the affirmative, or at least enough of the affirmative to outweigh the aff impacts, (3) have a net benefit or external impact that only the counterplan can solve.

Process counterplans (such as executive orders CPs, courts CPs, etc.) are typically less persuasive to me, but I will vote for them if they solve the aff and have a net benefit.

PICS (Plan inclusive counterplans) are cool, but they should have some basic theoretical defense as to why PICing out of part of the aff is legitimate and good.

Critiques

I enjoy them. To win a K in front of me you will need to win a framing question, a link to the affirmative, and an impact or implication. You should read an alternative, but I am willing to consider voting for a K without an alternative if you tell me why I should. I have a pretty good foundation on critical literature, but you should not assume I have read your literature base. Dense theoretical concepts should be unpacked. Explain how the alt solves the links/impacts.

On the affirmative, if you don't answer the K's framework I will be less persuaded by the affirmative.

Topicality

I think topicality debates can be really good and fun to watch when they are done well. I am persuaded by the following: (1) A reasonable definition and interpretation (2) A well-defined violation, or an explanation of how the affirmative is outside of the resolution, (3) Standards, or defense of why your interpretation is the best way to determine what is topical/untopical. and (4) voters, or reasons why I should vote on topicality in this particular debate.

If the negative doesn't win standards and voters I am way less likely to be persuaded to vote negative on topicality.

Speed

I don't have the quickest ear any more. I need pen time and I need moments where you are speaking to me and not at me. Spreading on zoom doesn't work for me. I cannot keep up and I'm going to be fully honest about it.

Do what you do best. I will listen to any arguments and vote on any argument as long as I understand them and why they matter. Don't be problematic (i.e. racist, sexist, ableist, etc.) My background is in policy but have experience in LD, PF, congress, and extemp (some more than others). Did mostly K/performance debate in college. My email is hannahphel@gmail.com if you have any questions. Don't spread in front of me, if I can't understand an argument it doesn't matter, and I can't understand spreading. Please don't call me judge, Hannah works great.

I've decided to crowdfund my paradigm, if you have other questions to be answered let me know and I will add them here.

Tripp Rebrovick

Director of Debate, Harvard University.

BA, Harvard; PhD, Johns Hopkins

Please put harvard.debate(at)gmail.com on the email chain, but see note 1 below.

Updated January 2021:

The first thing to know about me as a judge is that I take overviews in the final rebuttals very seriously. The team that correctly identifies the critical arguments for each side will generally win, even if they have problems elsewhere on the flow or if I have other reservations about the argument. In other words, most of the time, the team that gets my ballot has done a better job of (a) identifying the most important arguments in the debate and (b) persuading me that in evaluating those particular arguments I should believe them. Similarly, I've found that in most of my decisions I end up telling the losing team that they have failed to persuade me of the truth of their most important argument. Occasionally this failure of understanding is due to a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker(s), but more often it is due to a lack of detailed explanation proving a particularly significant argument to be correct.

As a judge, I am usually skeptical of anything you say until you convince me it is correct, but if you do persuade me, I will do the work of thinking through and applying your argument as you direct me. It is usually easy to tell if I am persuaded by what you are saying. If I’m writing and/or nodding, you’ve probably succeeded. If I’m not writing, if I’m giving you a skeptical look, or if I interrupt you to ask a question or pose an argument I think you should answer, it means I’m not yet convinced.

In close debates, in which there are no egregious errors, I tend to vote for the team that articulates a better strategic understanding of the arguments and the round than for the team that gets lucky because of a small technical issue. My propensity to resolve arguments in your favor increases as you communicate to me that you understand the importance of some arguments relative to others. I am usually hesitant to vote against a team for something they said unless it is willful or malicious.

A few other tidbits:

1. I will not read the speech doc during your speech. The burden is on you to be comprehensible. Part of me is still horrified by this norm of judges following along.

2. If what you have highlighted in a card doesn’t amount to a complete sentence, I will most likely disregard it. Put differently, a word has to be part of a sentence in order to count.

3. CX, just like a speech, ends when the timer goes off. You can’t use prep time to keep asking questions or to keep talking. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to alt use time.

4. Please number your arguments. Seriously. Do it. Especially in the 1NC on case and in the 2AC off case.

5. Pet Peeve Alert. You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact. For example, saying a war with china causes poverty does not mean the DA turns a poverty advantage. It simply means the DA also has a poverty impact. In order to the turn the case, the DA must implicate the solvency mechanism of the affirmative, not simply get to the same terminal impact.

6. [Since this situation is becoming more common...] If the affirmative wins that conditionality is bad, my default will be to reject conditionality and make any/all counterplans unconditional. Pretending that the counterplan(s) were never introduced is illogical (they stay conditional) and solves nothing (the affirmative can't extend turns to the net benefit).

my email for email chains is arevelins@gmail.com

Quick update 2018 - some years ago I drafted the rubric for speaker points that you see below. Since then I have monitored developments in the debate community on typical speaker point distribution across all judges/tournaments, as discussed online by people who keep track of such things. I don't really dwell on this data much, but I do try to be mindful of community tendencies. Also, I notice how my own debaters read judge philosophies in crunch-time right before a round, and realize debaters reading this want a tl:dr.

Therefore, note that I probably now give speaker points that inch higher than what I initially suggested. This means in most cases I'm giving 28 and above, for debaters who seem to be doing elim-level debate it's usually 28.5 and above, and for especially impressive debate it's 29 and above. I do still dip into the mid-to-high 27's in occasional instances where I want to make it clear that I think the particular speeches really could use some work. At the time of writing (Jan 2018) my average speaker points are about a 28.5.

*******Paradigm Edited 11/10/13, prior to Wake Forest 2013 *******

** Scroll past speaker point scale to get a shorter philosophy explanation **

Speaker point scale:

0 = the debater committed some sort of ethics violation during the round (e.g. clipping cards)

26 to 26.9 = one or both of the following things happened: a) the debater made some kind of major tactical mistake in the debate, such as a completely dropped off-case position, without any attempt to address how they might still win the debate even if that argument is charitably given the full weight that the opposing team prefers. (more leeway on this is given to novice debates) b) the debater was hostile or rude towards competitors in the debate such that opportunities for respectful discourse concerning different ideas devolved into a breakdown of communication. Debaters have different personalities and approaches and I encourage you to explore ways of comporting yourself that express these personalities and approaches (be proud, indignant, cunning, provocative, etc), but please at all times also communicate with each other as students from different schools who respect each other for taking the time to have a lengthy debate round, in whatever part of the U.S. where you may presently have journeyed for such an encounter.

27 to 27.4 = the debater's overall strategy made sense, but various parts of the debate could have used more depth when instead those parts were fairly 'paint by numbers' (e.g. addressing certain arguments with generic/block answers instead of dealing with them more specifically). Evidence comparisons were fairly sparse, but the basic story on a given sheet of flow paper was clear enough.

27.5 to 27.9 = the debater did a solid job of debating. A coherent strategy was executed well. For certain key issues, initial clash advanced into higher forms of assessment, including a charitable understanding of why your opponent's arguments might be good yet your argument is ultimately more important/relevant.

28 to 28.4 = the debater did a solid job of debating across all the flows that were alive in the round. The debater focused on what mattered, was able to swiftly discount what did not ('closing doors' along the way), and took initial clash on key points to highly advanced levels. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this advanced to early elimination debates (e.g. double octo's)

28.5 to 28.9 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but was also able to do this with incredible organization: the most important things were in rank order, the crucial arguments were made without repetition/with cogent word economy, and I felt that the debater's communication seemed to guide my flow along with me. If cards/evidence are in question, you're able to speak of the overall ideologies or motivations driving a certain scholarship/movement, thus "getting behind" the card, in some sense. If a point is made without evidence or without a traditional claim/warrant structure, the debater does so in way that requires translation/interpretation on my part, yet the manner in which I should translate/interpret is also elicited from me/taught to me over the course of the debate. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this could advance past early elimination debates.

29.0 to 29.4 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but approached a sort of fluency that amazed me. The debater not only did what they needed to in order to match or outclass their opponents, but I furthermore felt that the debater was connecting with me in such a way where your arguments trigger understanding almost as a gestalt phenomenological experience. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if you did well in any of your other debates, prelim or elim.

29.5 to 30 = If memory serves, I have rarely if ever given speaker points that inch this close to 30. This is because 30 is perfection, without any umms, ahhs, odd turns of phrase, instances where you just lost me or where, given a rebuttal redo, you yourself would probably have done that part of your speech differently. If you are this close to 30 then you have perfect command of your opponent's position, of whatever gap you have to bridge in order for things to 'click' with me, and you are able to talk about your research and core arguments in a way where you yourself are clearly ready to push the scholarship/performance that you draw upon to its next heights, if you are not doing so already.

Objectivity and consistency is an elusive ideal: the reality is that subjectivity and some variability is inevitable. I think a good judge should be attentive in debates and vigiliant with self-assessments, not solipsistically but in light of evolving encounters with others. One of the biggest lessons I got out of my philosophy work was the extent to which all humans are prone to habits of self-deception, on many levels.

***** Debate experience

- Debated policy 4 years in high school (won the TOC)

- Debated policy 4 years at University of Southern California (4-time NDT qualifier, elims in my senior year)

- I was away from debate while in graduate school for philosophy

- I have coached Policy and PF debate at two high schools (Notre Dame and Millburn)

- I have coached Policy debate at two universities (Binghamton and Cornell)

- I am currently Assistant Director of Forensics/head debate coach at Cornell University

***** Some views on certain arguments

Any kind of argument is fine by me: I wait to see how debaters respond to what happens in the round and try not to import any predispositions concerning the default way that I should evaluate things. There are various harms/impacts that can orient a given side’s concern, plus various meta/framing/sequencing arguments that grant, reorient, or block my access to consideration of those harms/impacts, depending on how these issues play out in a debate.

Various kinds of challenges to the resolution and norms of the community are fine by me.

Kritiks: I ran them often in high school/college. I studied philosophy in graduate school.

Counterplans can take various forms: bring it on. See below about having full cp/permutation text for the entire round (to check against ‘morphing advocacies’).

Topicality debates: if an affirmative is trying to present a topical example of the resolution being true, but the negative thinks the aff is not topical then it is the negative’s right to go ‘all in’ on such an argument.

I debated policy advantage/da/impact debates almost as often as kritiks. Any politics link and link turn debates need to be laid out pretty clearly for me - mind your jargon please. The same goes for impact scenarios: who, what, against what country, etc.

For any asserted advocacy or test of competition, the plan text, permutation, etc needs to be clearly articulated in the round and written down so that it can be evaluated. For any card that you want me to read in last rebuttals, you should be telling me what I will find when I read that card and why it matters for the debate. I won't sift through a series of cards if you have just mentioned them/rattled off the citations without making use of them.

***** final notes

I have an aversion towards 'cloud clash', i.e. rattling off 2-3 minutes of overview and then basically hoping that the judge plucks out whatever applies towards some later part of the debate. Line-by-line debate and the elegance of organization that it offers is in decline lately. This has a lot to do with recent norms and computer-debating. This is at the cost of clash and direct refutation, and can come across as being aloof/wanting the judge to do the work for you. So, overviews should be short and then get on with actually responding to individual arguments.

I prefer the email chain over jumping flash drives, when possible. One click of ‘send’ and there is no longer the agonizing wait of flash drive driver installation, throwing jump drives around, etc.

Please communicate with each other, instead of yelling at each other (see my speaker point scale above for the under 27 range).

At the end of any round, I will vote for one team over the other and indicate this with my written ballot. This will be the case for any debate round that I can presently imagine.

That is all I can think of. Feel free to ask me more questions in person.

Kathryn Rubino
USMA
Put me on the chain: kathrynrubino@gmail.com

I dislike intervening in debate rounds. I would much rather apply the criteria the debaters supply and work things out that way. As a result the final rebuttals should provide me with a clean story and a weighing mechanism. If only one side provides this I will default to their standards. If neither side does this, I’ll use my own opinions and evaluations of the round.

Simply put the debate is about impacts- weigh them, their likelihood and magnitude and we’re doing fine.

I think it is the debater’s responsibility to explain the analysis of their cards, particularly on complex positions. However, I recognize the time constraints in a round and will read cards that receive a prominent place in rebuttals. But I do not like to read piles of cards and being forced to apply my analysis to them. As a side note, I rarely flow author names so don’t just extend the author’s name- also be clear to which argument the card applies to.

I’ll listen to whatever people want to say- but you should probably know my dispositions ahead of time. Be warned however, I have voted against my preferences many times and anticipate doing it again in the future.

I like kritik/advocacy debate. That being said, I do not have a knee-jerk reaction when I hear them. Part of what makes kritiks interesting is the variety and depth of responses available. To get my vote here I generally need a clear story on the link and implication levels.

I enjoy framework debates- debating about debate is fun- and as a bonus I don’t think there are any right or wrong answers- just arguments that can be made.

I rejoice the return of topicality! And I have no problem voting on topicality, even if I don’t agree with a particular interpretation, but I do think a T story needs to be clear and technically proficient.

DAs are great, and the more case specific the better. Make sure you have a clear story and try to create distinctions between multiple end of the world scenarios if that's your thing.

I don’t mind listening to PICs or other interesting CPs, and I often feel they’re good way to test the validity of a plan. However, I am open to theoretical debate here and I’m willing to vote on it.

I will vote on the easy way out of a round- I don’t try to divine the ultimate truth of what the debaters are saying. I’m just adjudicating a game- a fun game that can teach stuff and be pretty sweet- but still a game. So enjoy your round, do your job and I will too.

- Please add me to the e-mail chain - sabcsaenger@gmail.com

- I'm open to hear and vote on any argument as long as it's presented clearly and carried throughout the round.

- Please speak clearly, clarity over speed.

- Impact Calc - tell me why you should win.

- Have fun!

Northview IS, MS

Assistant Coach - Northview High School

Assistant Coach - Suffolk University

23.penguino@gmail.com

Top

**If I look confused, I am confused, please make me not confused.

**Yes you can read the K in front of me HOWEVER reading the K in front of me on either side IS NOT a guaranteed ballot. Quite frankly I've grown frustrated with the K especially when it's poorly debated.

**Novices: "I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it.So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows.I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do!By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points" - Ben Schultz

**LD folks scroll to the bottom for specific LD stuff

General

1—Please don't call me judge. Makes me feel hella old. Just call me Juliette.

2—Tech over truth to its logical extent. Debate is not about solely the truth level of your arguments but your ability to substantially defeat the other team’s claims with your technical ability.

3—When debating ask the question of Why? Technical debating is not just realizing WHAT was dropped but WHY what was dropped matters and how important it is in the context of the rest of the debate. “If you start thinking in these terms and can explain each level of this analysis to me, then you will get closer to winning the round. In general, the more often this happens and the earlier this happens it will be easier for me to understand where you are going with certain arguments. This type of analysis definitely warrants higher speaker points from me and it helps you as a debater eliminate my predispositions from the debate."- Matt Cekanor

4—For those curious, I mainly debated the K in high school (on both sides). I'm usually good with most Ks, even so, you still have the burden of explaining it to me well as I vote off the flow and won't do additional work for you even if I read the lit. (Excuse the rant but...) I think most POMO arguments in debate are stupid and for some reason every POMO debate I've judged the team has double turned themselves (lowk probably cuz most (if not all) POMO is ridiculous to read in this activity). Then again, debate it well and yes I will vote on whatever POMO stuff you throw my way.

K-Affs

Yes, I read a K aff. Yes, I will vote on them. No, I don't think a majority of these affs solve any of the impacts they claim to solve. I think a key thing that most of these affs lack is proper solvency. If you're going to convince me that you solve things, I need a good reason to either why your method is good (i.e. give me concrete examples of what your aff looks like) and/or tell me why an aff ballot in this debate solves. That being said, for the negative, I often find a good presumption push to be a solid strat.

Framework

1. No preference on what impact you go for (but come on, clash is not an impact... alas, if you debate it well I will vote on it). Some impacts require more case debating than others. For example, if going for fairness, you need to spend more time winning the ballot portion of your offense and defense against the other team’s theory of how debate operates. If going for clash, you need to spend more time winning how your model over a year’s worth of debates can solve their offense and spend more time with defense to the affirmative.

2. I have spent a large part of my high school career thinking about arguments for the negative and the affirmative in these debates. To put it into perspective, almost 90% of my debates over a given season are framework debates, on the neg and the aff. For a large amount of framework debates, the better-practiced team always wins.

3. Use defense to your advantage. Nebulous claims of inserting the affirmative can be read on the negative with no specific internal link or impact debating will largely not factor in my decision. However, there are fantastic ways to use defense like switch side debate and the TVA.

4. Very specific TVA’s can work against very specific types of framework arguments. If the affirmative has forwarded a critique of debating the topic then TVA’s can mitigate the affirmative’s DAs. However, if the affirmative team has forwarded an impact turn to the imposition of framework in the round, they are less useful.

5. Impact turning topicality - Do it. Do it well and you'll be rewarded.

6. Often times when starting out, 2AR's go for too much in the 2AR. If you are impact turning T, go for one DA's and do sufficient impact comparison. Your 2AR should answer the questions of how T is particularly violent or links to your theory of power and most importantly HOW MY BALLOT CAN RESOLVE THOSE THINGS. Your impact only matters as much as its scope of solvency. You must also do risk comparison. Most neg framework teams are better at this. The way the aff loses these debates is when there's a DA with substantive impact turn and there's a negative impact that is explained less but is paired with substantively more internal link work and solvency comparison.

If going for a CI, focus on one impact turn and focus on how the CI solves it and how the DA links to their interp. Think of it like CP, your CI should include some aspects of their interpretation but avoids the risk of your DAs.

K v Policy AFF

Two types of 2NRs. Ones that go for in round implications and ones that go for out of round implications.

A)In Round—In round route requires a larger push on framework and a higher level of technical debating on the level of the standards but is usually much easier if you’re a practiced K 2NR. 2NC will usually have like 10 arguments on framework, 1AR extends their standards and answers like 2 arguments. 2NR just goes for the DA and all conceded defense, GGs. In addition, the best K 2NRs going for the in round version will have a link to the “plan or the effects of the plan”. What this means in this sense is that they will tie affirmative implementation to a link that proves their ethic mobilizes bad subjects IN DEBATE.

B)Out of Round—Out of round requires like close to 0 time on framework. Most policy 2As now just grant the K links but just say affirmative vs the alternative. Thus, if you are going for the alternative with links to the plan, just spend time winning the link debate, explaining why the affirmative doesn’t happen in the way they think. Most times these Ks will have a substantial impact turn debate so winning that is essential.

K v K Debates

1. Technical Debating is often lost in these debates but this necessarily happens due to the nature of K v K debates as theory of power debating is often the most important part. That being said, vague link debating will mitigate you winning your theory of power.

2. You need to pick something and defend it. The neg team will ask about the affirmative in 1AC CX, that explanation should stay consistent throughout the round. Lack of a consistent explanation will lower my threshold for buying a risk of a link and higher the burden for you to win the permutation.

3. Use links to implicate solvency. Often times its hard to make a K aff stick to in round or out of round solvency. Use links in the 2NC and 2NR to mitigate parts of both so even if the 2AR consolidates to one, you still have defensive arguments.

4. K affs have built in theory of power and solvency that's inherently offensive. I'll be grumpy if you jettison the aff but will not if you provide extrapolated offensive explanations in the 2AR using your affirmative and pieces of offense that they dropped. 2AR's that do this will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality (Policy v Policy)

1. Fine judge for these debates. T can lower your burden of prepping out some affirmatives that are inherently untopical and it's a good strat to have in your back pocket. However, for this topic the caselists and violations are pretty overlimiting.

2. Caselists are always useful for understanding these arguments.

3. Impact debating doesn't matter much in these debates but internal link debating does. Make sure to indict and compare interps and both sides. Predictability is the IL to all impacts.

4. The best 2AR's in these debates are ones that pick through negative evidence and identify no intent to define, arbitrariness, and combine that with reasonability

Counterplans

1. Probably err negative on theory concerns but if there's a technical crush I will certainly vote affirmative.

2. My predisposition toward counterplans is that they must be both textually and functionally competitive but always up to interpretation by the theory debate in round.

3. The best counterplans are PICs and other counterplans that are cut to beat specific affs. That being said, I do find some PICs to be extremely abusive so I will be sympathetic towards the aff on a PICs bad theory debate.

4. Presumption flips aff when you read a CP.

5. Affirmatives always freak out when they hit a CP they don't have blocks to but your advantages are there for a reason, its not hard to write specific deficits during the 1NC.

Theory

I dislike generic theory debates. I do not think anything but condo/extremely abusive PICs is a reason to reject the team but I can be persuaded otherwise if there is extreme in-round abuse or the other team straight-up drops it.

It will take a lot to convice me to vote aff on condo in a one/two conditional off debate. Three conditional off can start getting more legit in novice. Four and plus and sure I'll listen.

DA

1. Risk matters most when evaluating a DA. The affirmative arguments are made to give me skepticism in the internal links and the negatives job is to mitigate that by link work and turns case debating implicating affirmative solvency.

2. DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact arguments are presented. If not present in the block, the 1AR will get new answers. I also need a full scenario in the 2NR for me to vote on.

3. When the DA is the best utilized is the 1NR. Very hard for the 1AR when 1NR gets 5 minutes to read a slew of cards answering all 2AC claims.

Case

1. Yes you can win on a straight-up presumption ballot. This type of ballot is not popular anymore but it should be. Too many teams get away with reading an affirmative with no specific evidence or internal links. This was especially prevalent on the criminal justice reform topic but it is still a problem on the water topic too. Teams will highlight evidence terribly and act like the solve it even though it makes no sense, especially against the K. K teams should take advantage of this. Ex. aff that talks about financing technologies- solvency advocates will mention one type of technology but the advantage area will be about a different kind. Neg teams call this out and go for presumption.

2. Affirmative teams must answer all case arguments not merely by extending their impact again but by answering the warrants in the card. Most policy teams just say "doesn't assume our x" without refuting the warrants in the card.

Argument Preferences

1. Don't really care what you read in front of me. Though I've spent the vast majority of my high school career in the K realm, and probably because of that, I've thought about most policy answers to the K so either side can make sense to me. However, it is your job as debaters to ensure a technical win, and ensure my job is to solely evaluate the flow.

2. If you are going to read the K in front of me, please do it well. Because I've seen the K debated at some of the highest levels, it's annoying to see it butchered.

3. I'm fine for policy v policy throw-downs. These debates are often much easier to resolve as one team almost always clearly wins on the flow and are much easier to understand.

Speaker Points

I find myself giving speaks on the higher end. Ways to improve your speaks include:

Being funny, making smart arguments, having fun, being clear, not saying your opponent conceded/dropped something when they didn't, talking about penguins, make fun of anyone I know.

Cross-ex can be a great way to improve speaks, however, there's a thin line between being competetive and just being rude and I have no shame in docking speaks if you choose to be a jerk.

It irks me when debaters claim their opponents "dropped" something when I have it on my flow. I understand that sometimes mistakes happen and you don't flow an argument or something similar. However (comma) if it becomes a recurring problem in a speech I will dock speaks each time it happens.

Also, I will yell "clear" three times, if you choose not to slow down or be clear I will start docking speaks. If you are speaking faster than I can move my pen or type then don't complain when I didn't catch something on my flow. "I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it." - Blake Deng

LD

I’m not an LD person, so keep things as simple and direct as possible.

I sorta know what a value criterion is.

You gotta do more weighing in phil debates.

Now on a technicality I’m probably best for the K, however, because policy speech times are longer, I tend to look for more warranted comparisons by the end of the debate. Also, I just have high standards for explanations.

I refuse to vote on something I don’t comfortably understand.

Important thing to remember is I was a policy debater NOT and LD debater. Lucky for you, my face says it all, if I look confused, I am confused, please just make me not confused. Also, NO TRICKS.

I would like to be on the email chain: dsavill@snu.edu

Director of Debate for Southern Nazarene University since 2021 and former coach of Crossings Christian School from 2011 to 2023.

Things you need to know for prefs:

Kritiks: Very familiar with kritiks and non-topical affs. I like kritiks and K affs and can vote for them.

Policy: I am familiar with policy debates and can judge those. My squad is designed to be flex so I am good with either.

Speed: I can handle any kind of speed as long as you are clear.

Theory/FW/T: I am not a fan of FW-only debates so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will entertain FW but that shouldn't be your only off-case. Contesting theory of power is a good strat for me.

Performance/non-traditional debate: Despite what some would think coming from a Christian school, I actually like these kinds of debates and have voted up many teams.

I try to be a tab judge but I know I tend to vote on more technical prowess. I believe debate should be a fun and respectful activity and I try to have a good time judging the round. I think debaters are among the smartest students in the nation and I always find it a privilege to judge a round and give feedback.

Hi! I’m an assistant coach at Southern Nazarene University and have been since 2021. Previously, I coached at Crossings Christian from 2020-2023. I started debating in the sixth grade and debated at Crossings from 2013-2020. I competed at the high school national level since the eighth grade, broke at a couple TOCQs, and won two 5A state titles in Oklahoma.

I was a flex debater, which means I debated both policy and the K and am comfortable with either. I ran many different Ks during my seven years of debate, such as Agamben, Cap, Setcol, Afropess (with a black partner), Baudrillard, and Psychoanalysis. I don’t have anything against nontopical or performance affs, and I’m generally tech over truth.

There are a few things I’ll vote a team down for, no matter what’s happening in the rest of the round:

- Being rude, laughing at, or mocking the other team.

- Death good, suicide good, or advocating for killing people, especially if these arguments are contextualized to someone in the room.

Things I like:

- A nice joke in your speech, even if it’s corny. Have fun in the round!

- Being respectful to your opponents and your partner.

- Telling me what I should write for my RFD.

Things I dislike:

- Disclosure theory, perf con good theory, and multiple worlds good theory. I especially dislike multiple worlds good theory being used as a reason why your 2AC block doesn’t contradict itself.

- The phrase “This card/argument is trash” or similar phrases. Tell me why the argument’s bad instead of just insulting it.

- Ks without alts.

- Wipeout

- Eugenics good

Background ---

UH '26

Conflicted against Seven Lakes HS, Barbers Hill HS, and anyone in Break Debate.

Policy debater at the University of Houston 1x NDT qualifier

Coach for Seven Lakes HS and Break Debate

Put me on the email chain --- debatesheff@gmail.com

If I am judging PF also put sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

Overall perspective ---

Please don't call me judge---Bryce is fine

I will vote on anything. I have done extensive policy and K debate so it is naturally my preferred styles. I am open to other styles of debate and will vote on anything just might be less comfortable.

I hate deadtime in debates. It makes me increasingly frustrated when there isn't a timer running and it seems like no one is doing anything. To minimize this please have the email chain with the speech doc sent AT START TIME.

thoughts---essentially the same for policy and LD.

--- K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate

--- Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.

--- I'm more convinced by affs that commit to, and defend, an action coming out of the 1ac.

--- Ks should prove the plan is a bad idea.

--- I'm not convinced by CP theory arguments like condo or PICs bad. Private actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, or object fiat definitely have merit.

--- I default to judge kick unless 1ar and 2ar convince me otherwise.

--- I will not adjudicate anything that didn't happen in the round.

--- New affs bad is a bad argument.

--- Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

EMAIL lindseyshook@gmail.com

Currently - Director at the University of Oklahoma

Previously – Director at James Madison and Univ. of Central Florida

Way previously – graduate student coach at Univ. of Kansas

Long long ago – debated for the Univ. of Central Oklahoma

BIG PICTURE

My default way of viewing a debate is as follows – I am deciding between hypothetical worlds. In general debates are either about the world at outside of our activity (fiated plans, CPs, and critical advocacies that are about what society at large should do or think or change). Or debates are about debate as an activity (topicality, theory, critical advocacies that are about endorsing or rejecting particular kinds scholarship or argument or forms of presentation).

In either case I assume I am being asked what is the preferrable world? The world where the aff plan is enacted into law? The status quo? The world of debate where everyone meets your version of the topic? The world of debate where no one reads conditional advocacies? Etc.

Arguments that directly challenge this are things like reject the team for reasons of fairness or because they did something problematic. I have and am certainly willing to vote on those reasons but they need to be clear and specific to what has gone wrong in the debate you are in. Ideally not a generic set of reasons (at least by the last rebuttals).

I can certainly be persuaded to understand debate in a different way or to evaluate your arguments from a different perspective but just so you know that is where I start.

OTHER IMPORTANT NOTES

- - A drop matters if you make it matter and if it actually implicates the round

- - I am not offense defense oriented. You can win on defense alone particularly against poorly written advantages and disadvantages.

- - It is hard but not impossible to win you link you lose style debates. You are better off with some version of an alt or a more specific framing argument in front of me.

- - I flow on paper. I can generally keep up with speed but the less you sound like a person reading fast and the more you sound like a robot spitting out random words with no rhythm or cadence the harder it is for my brain to process what you are saying. So if you know you are in the wordwordwordwordwordword spreading habit either slow down a bit or work on getting some normal speech patterns into the reading.

- - I’m old so I try to line arguments up on my flow. This makes me annoyed with overviews and people who don’t do the line by line. I will still flow it but I will try to line things up until I can’t keep up with you and line things up. Then I will flow straight down but it makes my decision take longer at the end so be warned.

SPECIFICS

Case – more case debate is good. Always. In every kind of debate. The more specific and in depth the better. I think that is coldest take in debate at this point.

T – I mostly judge clash debates and I don’t hate judging them or T. If the aff can be used as offense against your topicality argument you would do well to have specific arguments to neutralize that (not all TVAs or do it on the neg etc. are good and having a bad one is a waste of time). You can win fairness comes first. Again it helps to have some specificity about why this round or affs like this one are so bad. I am not convinced affs have to have a counter interpretation to win. Impact turning the neg. interpretation can be enough.

Kritiks – framework against the K from the side of a traditional policy aff is generally meh. You get to weigh your impacts if you win that those mechanisms are good. Util? policy making? Extinction? If those are good things to value when I make a decision win that. Fairness is useless as a standard. They get a K. Stop it. See above for alts are preferable. Floating PICs are generally useless. Most K tricks are tricks for a reason they don’t work in the face of answers. I still have no idea what no perms in a method debate is supposed to mean.

CPs – I love theory and think it is absolutely crucial for most 2As (including critical affs) to help fend off counter advocacies and counter plans. CPs are probably the easiest way to neutralize the aff – I probably care more about how they solve than most judges so more time on solvency deficits in both directions is a good idea.

Disads – great arguments with often terrible evidence and spin. If your ev is bad debate well enough that I don’t have to read it. You are better being honest about your evidence and making up for it with spin and common sense than pretending your cards are amazing only for me to figure out that’s not true.

2023 Nukes Rewrite

He/Him

Jsmith55@binghamton.edu

Please add me to the chain, I do not usually read along during speeches but I like to able to check things during cx/prep and it makes post-round evidence collection easier. I prefer when teams send analytics (especially for online debates) because I think normalizing the practice makes debate more accessible for people who might struggle to process policy debate speed without forcing people to ask for that accommodation.

Debated at Binghamton for 2.5 years (college novice), coached at Baylor for two, and am now in my 5th year as a coach/gta for the University of Kansas.

Random logistical note:My verbatim does not do well with images, by default I can not see most images when I open a word document. If you're argument has a visual component to it that it is important for me to see remind me so I make sure to open the document in a way that lets me see the image. (I try to do this by default but I do forget sometimes so the reminder is helpful)

I love debate and promise to put my full effort into the rounds I judge.

This philosophy is very long because I would rather over explain and give more insight into how I think of my judging then less. Ultimately, you should do what you do best, everything below is a preference but I do try my hardest to adapt to the debate in front of me.

Broad Debate Thoughts

I think I'm generally in line with most of the community in the sense that I think specific debate is better than generic debate, clarity is really important but undervalued, and most rebuttal speeches could use more comparative impact calculus.

In terms of areas where I might differ a little/require stylistic adaptation, the most important is that I tend to really value/give significant weight to spin and the explanation of arguments. Part of my goal as a judge is to base a decision as much as I can on the words of the debaters in the 2NR/2AR. That means that I'm looking to the story or narrative you are creating and reading your arguments through that lens as opposed to looking at what your cards say. A lot of my decisions in close debates come down to the question of who was more explicit in constructing a story that not only framed why they won arguments substantively but also how they won the debate at a meta level. Story telling in debate is everything for me and I try to reward teams who do that work as opposed to teams hoping that I will construct a ballot or narrative for them.

Functionally, my focus on explanation and spin means that I am not a great judge for 2nr 2ar's that attempt to identify everything each team conceded and ask me to construct a ballot from those concessions. I am better for teams who explicitly identify the ballot they want me to write and then frame the remainder of the speech by explaining how various arguments support that particular ballot. As a side note, generally, I'm of the opinion that the word conceded (or their equivalents) should be used minimally in 2nr/2ars because it ends up serving as a placeholder for comparison and the narrative construction I am discussing. The over use also makes it harder to emphasize the actual important drops that teams may have made as they get lost within the 20 things you claim they never answered.

I tend give a lot of leeway in terms of how teams apply and expand on evidence which means that I think I'm certainly a better judge for the team that reads a couple of good cards and focuses on spin and narrative with those cards that I am for the team that reads a lot of cards but never really tells me what I should do with them. I am also better for teams that are explicit in applying their arguments to different parts of the flow, than I am for teams that hope I will pick the embedded clash out of an overview. If one team is doing the work to explain a piece of evidence and its implication while the other team is implicitly answering the argument in an overview I tend to side with the team doing the more explicit analysis.

None of this is to say that I do not care about evidence quality, especially if you make arguments as to why evidence quality matters in your particular debate but that I think I am more willing then a lot of judges to give credence to analytics and explanation because in my mind that leads to less intervention

This preference means that clarity is really important, I can keep up with fast debate, but the more explanation I get/words I understand the better it will be for you, so try to find a balance. I'm also not the most technical flow, even though I tend to be very tech over truth in how I evaluate rounds, so be aware of giving me time and being clear with transitions and packaging especially.

I have a substantial neg bias in my voting record, I think that this true for several reasons, some of which come down to chance/variance and some meta things about how clash debates play out. However, I do think I tend to be better for the negative because in a lot of debates, I usually find myself feeling like the neg block overwhelms the 1ar and that I am reluctant to give the 2ar much room to spin out of those concessions. I am much better for affirmative teams that are willing to go for less arguments (1/2) and explain how the rest of the debate is implicated by those arguments. However, I often feel like 2ars think they need to match every 2nr argument which makes it difficult to produce a narrative or story for my ballot.

Framework v K affs

My record in these debates has increasingly shifted towards the neg. That is less of an ideological question and more a question of how the meta of these debates has changed. I often think negative teams do a better job (it is also easier for them) of controlling a lot of framing and uniqueness issues that I find important. Affs often struggle against arguments like "debate is a game so that means fairness is the most important impact" or the "affs offense is non-unique because it is a criticism of the content of the resolution but the ci can't solve it" or "debate does not shape subjectivity at all".

At a truth level, I believe that K-affs are good for debate and lead to some of the most important/relevant discussions in our community but I do find myself feeling like K teams might be a bit behind in terms of dealing with those framing arguments.

affs

You need an argument about the purpose of debate and the question of "what we are doing here". Ideally that argument needs to be based in your 1ac and you need to leverage it against the neg claims that debate is just a game or that subject formation does not happen in these spaces. I'm very persuaded by the argument that if the activity is unethical then who cares if it is fair, but I think affs often struggle to have an explanation that actually implicates the activity/form of debate.

I wish aff teams would be more willing to challenge neg teams on questions of debates relation to subject formations. I often think, neg teams get away with an almost nihilistic depiction of debate as absolutely valueless. Aff teams should argue that even if individual rounds do not shape subjectivity, the type of activity we create and norms of research do have an impact on how we think and move throughout the world. I also frequently find myself thinking that the argument current "debate does not shape subjectivity"should be an aff argument not an neg argument because it seems like that is something k affs would say is the problem. Maybe we should attempt to construct a model of debate that does try to shape how we think and educate rather than focusing on being a pure competitive game with no regard for the types of people we produce.

I also wish affs would more push back against the internal link that just because debate is a game it means we should fully maximize fairness, (or even what it means to maximize fairness) There are a lot of great games that do not require fairness in the way debate discusses it. Games are also often more about education and learning then competitive equity but generally we've defaulted to the idea that debate is a game and the thing that matters for games is that they are fair.

I'm a good judge for arguments that draw on the utility of kvk debate and the conversations that are had there. I think fw teams often pretend those debates don't exist or devalue those arguments in ways that could generate significant offense for the affirmative but affs sometimes fail to take advantage of those arguments.

I think overall I'm better competitively for more impact turn styles of answering framework because those have been increasingly the meta and I'm more used to them. However, I do really enjoy teams that articulate alternative relationships to the resolution that are more nuanced then 'res bad/unethical" and discuss in-depth alternative models of debate .

Neg-

When I vote aff, it is frequently because the aff won the case page, which made structural claims as to how debate, contestation language, etc operate and those claims shape how I view the framework page. Thus, for me, you must engage the case, either by isolating fw from it, or with various case defense arguments.

Good fw debating is good case debating, if you are not talking about the aff, on both pages, (ie how fw relates to the affs impacts and structural claims) you are losing the debate. I think the question of how specific the fw is to the aff is what differentiates great fw debaters from good fw debaters.

That is also true for explaining impacts like fairness/clash, If you are able to describe to me how their aff/interpretation specifically makes it impossible to be neg/ruins models of debate and provide examples in round it will always go further than general rants about the necessity of limits. I can go either way on the question of fairness being an impact and it most often comes down to which team is controlling spin on what debate is/what is the goal of our activity. The more the narrative of "debate is a game, fairness matters for games, therefore fairness matters here" is clear to me, the more I am likely to think of fairness as an impact.

I understand the strategic utility of more procedural based arguments and impacts. However, I will say I enjoy fw debates where the neg defends the possibility of what plan based debate can do or why it is educationally valuable, far more then the current trend of making neg claims as small as possible. However, in the end do what you have to do.

Policy aff v K

The fw debate is incredibly important for me.

I do not like the trend of kind of deciding that the fw debate is a wash and constructing some weird compromise outside of what the interpretations/views of the debate actually were.

I think fw interps/arguments should be as explicit as possible in terms of instructing judges as to what you think the implication of winning your frame work is. I often think teams are very unclear on this question and leave it to judges to fill in blanks. I think that is particularly true for aff fw interps that often stop at "weigh the plan" with very little explanation of what that means or how the K prevents weighing the aff/the plan. Similarly you have to tell me how the neg moots the 1ac and not just assert that it occurs.

Neg teams need to recognize that winning framework is not game over, but a way of shaping how the rest of the debate plays out. As such your links and even alternative should be contextualized to the framework interpretation you are going for/winning. If your framework is about research practices, then your links better explicitly explain why the aff research practices are bad. If your framework is about competing political imaginaries your criticism of the aff should use that language.

A lot of my neg decisions start with some variation of "I thought the neg was winning a structuring (often theory of power) claim that shaped how I came down on a lot of the close issues in the debate. A lot of my aff decisions start with I thought the aff won that they should get to weigh the plan and that the aff outweighed links that were relatively non-unique.

Kvk debates

Generally, the team that is able to package their arguments into a clearer narrative/story wins the debate. That goes beyond just being right about the content of the arguments but focusing on explaining how that content converts into a ballot

I'm not great for aff teams that just try to permute everything because I tend to think more structural Ks will always find a link. You are better of challenging the neg's view of the world and defending how your aff approaches politics.

I'm pretty willing to listen to arguments about what competition should look like in kvk debates, i.e. how much of the aff should one have to disagree with to earn a ballot is often a relevant question in a lot of these debates since both teams often agree on a lot of premises. That means I'm also better than a lot of judges for arguments about whether the aff should get a perm.

In terms of K familiarity, I'm very familiar with the ableism literature used in debate. I'm also very comfortable with the cap arguments generally read in debate, though I often think teams deploy them pretty poorly, especially against K teams. I have a working knowledge of the more structural ks in debate though I'm not particularly well-read. I do not feel very confident in my knowledge of the more "high theory" arguments deployed in debate. Those require more explanation and examples with an emphasis on explaining the applicable elements of those criticisms.

Policy v Policy

I don't judge too many of these debates, and I still probably judge more than I should. The biggest thing to think about is my discussion of explanation at the top. In policy v policy debates there is a tendency to forgo that storytelling element of debate in the name of efficiency because it is assumed that judges will somewhat fill in those gaps. That ends up being difficult for me because my lack of experience with these debates makes it hard to fill in the gaps and I just generally don't like doing so. That means the team that focuses more on explicitly instructing me as to how I should understand the debate at the meta-level will do better.

That is especially true for counter plan competition debates and topicality debates because I have virtually no experience in either and can struggle to process what is going on as I attempt to keep up with the block spewing. The more work you can do to make me understand, even if you feel like you are overexplaining the better you will do.

Random side notes

I think I'm a decent judge for arguments that challenge the form of debate (think spades, coloring etc) as long as you are being explicit in explaining why you are doing what you are doing, you have an actual argumentative backing for what you are doing and you are trying to win the round.

I don't really know where I fall on most theory issues because I judge them so rarely, I would say that I'm fairly agnostic on conditionality in general, but I do think there is an increasing prevalence of a style of run and gun argumentation that I really dislike. In my mind, the style of reading like 8 bad arguments, going for the least covered one in the block (or just kicking all of them in the 1nr and talking about t for 9 minutes against k teams) creates shallow antieducational debates. I don't think that practice is intrinsically tied to conditional argumentation but that it does seem to go hand in hand and I could probably be convinced condo is bad because it promotes this model. Read this as you are better off constructing 1ncs with arguments you will actually go for/discuss and not trying to just outspread the aff with random nonsense.

I have an absurdly awful poker face while judging debates. You will see me react to things. I will say that if push comes to shove you should always prioritize your view of an argument/the round over what you perceive my reaction to be, because I might be reacting to something totally different then what you think. Furthermore, I vote for arguments that I dislike all the time and vote against arguments I do like as well, so my reaction might not be tied at all to the competitive element of the debate.

If you are some one who finds facial expressions/reactions distracting and unhelpful feel free to let me know and I will do my best to limit them

There are very few arguments that I will refuse to consider on face, but please do remember if you are the type of team that enjoys the wipeout, spark or death good, genres of argumentation, that debate is ultimately a persuasive activity and the burden of work you will have to do to win/be persuasive for those arguments will likely be higher than normal.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

I debated throughout high school and then at Idaho State University for 5 years. I then coached at Idaho State University for 2 years, Weber for 1, USC for 1, and am currently with Houston.

I am a firm believer that debate is for debaters. I've had my time to make others listen to whatever (and I mean absolutely whatever) I wanted to say, and it's my turn to listen to and evaluate your arguments, whatever they may be. While I'm sure I have my limitations, make me adapt to you instead of the other way around.

I try my damnedest to line up all the arguments on my flow. I am, however, open to alternate flowing styles. I really do prefer when debaters make specific reference of which argument(s) they are answering at a given time regardless of flowing style. I also flow the text of cards.

I prefer not to call for evidence (although I would like to be on your email chain... misslindsayv@gmail.com). This means explain, explain, explain! Tell me what the card says; tell me why I should care and how I should apply it. That being said, I do not think that cards are always better than analytics.

Be prepared to defend all aspects of your argument.

Everything is open to (re)interpretation. For example, some questions that may be relevant to my ballot include: What is the purpose of debate? How does this affect the way that impacts are evaluated? These kinds of top-level framing issues are the most important to me.

This means things like framework and T (fun little-known fact: I've always found topicality in general super interesting--I love the nit-picky semantics of language) can be viable options against K affs. However, you are better off if you have a substantive response to the aff included as well.

I'm still kind of deciding how I feel about how competition functions in method debates. I think the most accurate depiction of what I think about it now is this (and it all obviously depends on what's happening in the debate/on the flow, but in general): I'll probably err that the affirmative on-face gets a permutation to determine if the methods are mutually exclusive, and so that means the best strategy for the negative in this world is to generate their links to the aff's method itself to prove that mutual exclusivity.

I'd really appreciate it if you could warn me in advance if there will be graphic descriptions of sexual violence.