Hey all! I’ve been judging and coaching many different styles of debate for years and years. I have 2 paradigms below, one for LD and one for NPDA. They're pretty similar, but there's some specifics that may only apply to one or the other...and I didn't want to integrate them, so I just put both.

LD PARADIGM

General
My goal is to be as open to what you want to run, but also try and be helpful here with how I tend to view and weigh things.
I approach debate primarily as an educational activity with interwoven game elements. Our in-round discourse has critical, real world rhetorical implications and the debate space functions best when critiquing ideas and power structures, whether through policy implementation or critical framework. While I am very receptive to advocacies of violence against the state or other power structures, I am very opposed to violence targeting individuals in the debate space. This doesn’t refer to a counterplan or procedural run against you that you don’t like, but that our praxis, even in competition, should be kindness towards each other, directing violence towards oppression, power structures and discourses of power and domination.

I evaluate arguments in whatever framework I am presented with, as long as it's warranted (don't just tell me something is important, tell me why it's important). I usually do not vote on defense alone, and prefer offensive arguments on positions rather than just defensive. When weighing arguments, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe, but I will weigh them differently if you explain why I should.

Kritiks
I really like specific, well run critical debates. They are my favorite, but I'm also totally good with non-critical arguments. So, if critical arguments are not your thing, don't feel like you have to run them in front of me or I won't vote for you. I vote for plenty of non-critical arguments. Likewise, just because you run a critical argument doesn't mean I'm automatically going to vote for you.
I definitely prefer critical arguments that are “grounded in the specificity” of the resolution, over generic, over-run kritiks (if your criticism is as important as you say, you can certainly link to and specifically engage with any res/arguments the other team runs). I will vote on permutations and theoretical objections. I also give weight to performative contradiction arguments as deficits to solvency (or however else you would like to use them). I tend to get bored with highly generic kritiks. Failure to apply your criticism to the topic can put the kiritik at a rhetorical disadvantage and opens the Affirmative up for methodological criticism by the Neg. I also prefer methodological challenges to non-topical Aff K’s rather than topicality procedurals, as the method debate tends to engage more with the substance of the kritik and doesn’t link into replications of structural oppression as readily.
Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know what you mean by them and how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction a criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism. Also, don’t give blanket blips of “alt solves all” because, no, it doesn’t. I understand that argument as a game piece, but if your advocacy is worth voting for you need to have more substantial analysis than that. Use solvency as a way to justify the need for the criticism through analysis of what it actually does.

Procedurals
I can easily find procedural debates boring, but enjoy them when they’re good. I prefer specific in/out of round impacts over generic ones. I tend to weigh through competing interpretations (make them clear what they are), but am open to consider any strategy you want to pursue with this. I’m probably more inclined to vote elsewhere on the flow, but if they’re run, I’ll look to procedurals first.
I think running disclosure theory is lazy, it annoys me and I will rarely vote on it. I find disclosure theory to be incredibly boring and a waste of time better spent engaging with the arguments in-round or running some more interesting theory. It wouldn’t hurt you to engage in some critical thinking on the spot. Big thumbs down on that one, eh.

Speaker points
25-30. 27-30 is my typical range, 24 and below is typically for abusive individuals. Yep, that’s about it.
Oh! Also, go at whatever speed you want. Personally, I enjoy fast...but actually say words, not just the impressions of words. Also, speed should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I do not enjoy that. Access to the activity only helps us learn and grow.

Counterplans
I tend to view most counterplans as theoretically legitimate and like to leave it up to the debaters to determine what is or is not legitimate in the given round. I will vote for pretty much any kind of counterplan as long as you win any relevant theory. I don’t prefer running multiple advocacies or kicking multiple advocacies. Counterplans and perms can be either textual or functionally competitive, as long as there is a net-benefit or demonstration of non-competition.

I think that’s most of the specific things. I’m always willing to add and modify my paradigm as needed. Always let me know if you have any questions.

NPDA PARADIGM

I approach debate primarily as an educational activity with interwoven game elements. Our in-round discourse has critical, real world rhetorical implications and the debate space functions best when critiquing ideas and power structures, whether through policy implementation or critical framework. While I am very receptive to advocacies of violence against the state or other power structures, I am very opposed to violence targeting individuals in the debate space. This doesn’t refer to a counterplan or procedural run against you that you don’t like, but that our praxis, even in competition, should be kindness towards each other, directing violence towards oppression, power structures and discourses of power and domination.

I really like specific, well run critical debates. They are my favorite, but I'm also totally good with non-critical arguments. So, if critical arguments are not your thing, don't feel like you have to run them in front of me or I won't vote for you. I vote for plenty of non-critical arguments. Likewise, just because you run a critical argument doesn't mean I'm automatically going to vote for you.

I evaluate arguments in whatever framework I am presented with, as long as it's warranted (don't just tell me something is important, tell me why it's important). I usually do not vote on defense alone, and prefer offensive arguments on positions rather than just defensive. When weighing arguments, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe, but I will weigh them differently if you explain why I should.

I have a rather high threshold for spec arguments and need to see clearly articulated in-round abuse, or I will not vote on them. This usually manifests itself as obvious underspecified, groundshift-ready plan situations. Spec arguments generally function best for me as link insurance for other positions. Asking questions are a must when running spec arguments. I tend to think conditionality, and PICs are bad, but a procedural needs to be run and won to get my vote. However, even if an argument is kicked, the rhetoric of the position has already been introduced into the round and I still consider valid link access to that rhetoric.

I tend to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but like POOs called when whoever's giving the rebuttal thinks they're getting away with sneaking new arguments in. I tend to grant the PMR access to new articulations to existing arguments from the MO, and the opposition from arguments suddenly blown up in the PMR.

I definitely prefer critical arguments that are grounded in the specificity of the resolution, over generic, over-run kritiks (if your criticism is as important as you say, you can certainly link to and specifically engage with any res/arguments the other team runs). I will vote on permutations and theoretical objections. I also give weight to performative contradiction arguments as deficits to solvency (or however else you would like to use them). I tend to get bored with highly generic kritiks. I do not prefer non-topical Affirmative kritiks, because they unnecessarily exclude the Negative and if the issue is as important as you claim, it definitely has specific topical application that can allow for equitable engagement by the Negative. Failure to apply your criticism to the topic puts the kiritik at a rhetorical disadvantage and opens the Affirmative up for methodological criticism by the Neg. I also prefer methodological challenges to non-topical Aff Ks rather than topicality procedurals, as the method debate tends to engage more with the substance of the kritik and doesn't link into replications of structural oppression as readily.

Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know what you mean by them and how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it's important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction a criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don't drop or omit solvency of the criticism. Also, don't give blanket blips of alt solves all because, no, it doesn't. I understand that argument as a game piece, but if your advocacy is worth voting for you need to have more substantial analysis than that. Use solvency as a way to justify the need for the criticism through analysis of what it actually does.

Debate is an amazing activity. I enjoy debate when arguments are clear. Numbering your arguments and explaining what your argument means for the round will help you win.

By now I guess I am an "old school NFA LD Judge". Officially: Policy, flow judge, who prefers nicer debaters who will crush their opponents without bullying them.

I could care less about disclosure. The affirmative can change the entire case in round for all I care.

Evidence is preferred, analytical/anecdotal arguments are a necessity as well

I will vote on Topicality. I prefer a traditional structure for T, beginning with one violation for one word in the resolution. Run multiple Topicality positions on several words if you prefer, do not place unnecessary definitions in the T Shell to suck time or confuse your opponent. The negative does NOT have to provide TVA's/examples of Topical cases to demonstrate the topic is not overlimited by the Topicality position. I prefer a clash over definitions and standards. I will vote on Effects T and Extra T as a severence issue.

I will vote on dropped arguments. As I am weighing the round, If I calculate too many dropped arguments, it weighs against the debater dropping the arguments.

Stop power/over/mis- tagging evidence.

I will vote against you for being rude. My definition of what is rude is all that matters. Just be nice and patient.

I do not want to hear profanity from children and young adults. There is a certain demographic of debaters who believe their profanity is well taken and is a demonstration of their passion, some judges as well. I disagree and prefer debaters to not use abusive language in rounds.

Arguments should be structured and consistently delivered. Be a full time extemper to improve your internal argument structure and the logical form of your analysis.

Roadmaps are necessary

Be organized

I prefer On Case and Off Case debates. Do NOT prefer one over the other as I prefer clash on the entire flow, line-by-line always.

Clash is essential. Do not read block after block without interacting with your opponent's argumentation and analysis

In my opinion, Kritiks are just lazy Disadvantages and do not weigh in round unless they have clear links to the affirmative plan and/or the affirmative debater's rhetoric and behavior in round. I guess that may defeat the intent of the K, but who cares. Have a link or I won't vote for you on a K. Do NOT ask me to intervene in the round with my personal economic philosophy and my opinions on capitalism. Please refrain from referring to me as comrade or language that asks me to prefer one debater based on my personal political and economic philosophy. We are not the same. It is up to each competitor to demonstrate why their framework is preferred and support that particular framework/s for policy changes and implications through evidence and outweighing the other debater with positive and negative implications. I will generally vote framework vs K theory. BUT, where I vote is not based on my opinion of the Kritiks of Capitalism etc., rather, how each debater presents their arguments and defeats their opponent's advocacy. I have voted for more Cap K's than I ever imagined in recent years.

Spreading is antithetical to NFA LD. BUT...If I'm judging, I prefer you do what is best for you. I can flow it and understand it all. You should be able to as well if you are spreading. For high school policy, do what's needed and go as fast as you would like. All debaters spreading should focus on clearly delivering taglines, natural pauses, tone variations, and actually understanding the blocks and evidence if you are going to go 400 words a minute. Focus on being clear in the rebuttal speeches. I have seen too many fast debaters totally collapse on the flow and in rebuttal time because of their inability to speak fast and think on their feet while maintaining a high level of organization in the round's arguments and the meta round burdens.

What happened to traditional stock issues? I need affirmative cases to demonstrate Harms, Inherency, and Solvency. I would like to see clear author advocates that advocate for the affirmative plan and Solvency cards that actually mention the affirmative plan as a way to solve.

Use CX to show me your personality and why you are winning!

I will weigh real word implications such as poverty and structural violence in favor of speculative or non unique implications such as nuke war and extinction from climate change

I do not appreciate topical counterplans and critical affirmatives

Give me organized, numbered, voting issues in rebuttals

The negative needs as much offense as possible as a strategy, but only needs to win ONE stock issue to win the round. Do not go all in for any single position as you have no idea what I am thinking in the round.

Some debaters should participate in individual events as a way to express emotions, ideas, and values that are not appropriate for debate.

Mainly, do what you have been taught and remember I may have my opinion, but debaters can win my ballot by being the best debater in the round and defeating their opponent based on what happens in the round irrespective of my old school judging philosophy. And do not forget to have FUN!

Updated 5/8/24 for Post-Season

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Louie Petit and Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8-8.5/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theoy - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, I've been involved with debate for 8 years now. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX). Independently, I coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, Barrington AC, Bellevue WL, Clear Springs EG, and McNeil AS.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Jordan (TX) institutionally, and with Cypress Woods MM, and East Chapel Hill AX.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are deicded by me, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be impressed.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and not about the specific term of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 620 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.23% of the time.

My speaks for the 2023-2024 season have averaged to be around 28.588, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 197 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.69% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

"Well, for starters, they kick ass." - Louie Petit

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just eb able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, and Settler Colonialism.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Abolition, Bataille, Cybernetics, Queer pessimism, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me deploy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's.

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, nad you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. If I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good.heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Why are we obsessed with bad T arguments that do not have an intent to define words in the topic in the context of the topic? Come on y'all, act like we've been here.

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

For speaker points challenges, those that know them can utilize them, this will be edited after TFA.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

Background: I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University. I have been involved in debate since 2001. I was awarded the 2020-2021 Fulbright Award to coach debate in Taiwan.

DISCLOSURE THEORY IS LAZY DEBATE AND I WILL GIVE YOU NO HIGHER THAN 15 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU RUN THIS POSITION (this means at best you will get a low point win). I will also NOT evaluate it OR flow it.

I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know:

1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence.

2. I CANNOT flow speed due to an issue with my dominant hand. I will give you two verbal "speed" if you are going too fast. After that I quit flowing and if I do not flow it I do not evaluate it. Additionally, I do believe that the speed at which you go should be accessible to everyone in the round, this means your competitor, other judges on a panel, AND audience members. I am very open to voting on accessibility and/or clarity kritiks. SPEED SHOULD NOT BE A TOOL OF EXCLUSION!!!!!!

3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not evaluate moral obligations in the round (if you say "Moral Obligation" in college LD Debate I stop flowing, take a selfie, and mock you on social media). This does not mean I will not vote for dehumanization is bad, but I need a warrant outside of just telling me I am morally obligated to do something. Moral obligations are lazy debate, warrant out your arguments. HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS- IGNORE THIS, I will vote for moral obligations if they are explained and well warranted.

4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm told to by the debaters--if you don't give me the tools I default to policy maker/net benefits, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote and why to vote.

5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence, snarkiness, and rudeness.

6. When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like. I'm very easily persuaded by arguments about the post-alt world not being possible if the debater running the K does not explain the post-alt world to me.

7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow. I do not like operating in multiple worlds as I believe that is abusive to the affirmative, especially given the speech times in NFA-LD. I am easily persuaded to vote against a debater that does this if their opposition makes it a voting issue.

8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.

9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" or "And" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.

10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision. I do reserve the right to intervene when any -ist argument is made or advocated for.

11. If you advocate for a double win I automatically vote for the other person, issue you 1 speaker point, and leave the room. This is a debate, not a conversation. We are here to compete, so don't try to do something else.

12. Wilderson has stated that he does not want his writings used in debate by white individuals. He believes that the use of his writings is contradictory to what he overall stands for because he feels like you are using his arguments and black individuals as a tool to win (functionally monetizing black individuals). So for the love of all that is good please stop running these cards and respect the author's wishes. If you are white and you run his evidence I will not evaluate it out of respect for the author.

13. I will give you auto 30 speaker points if you read your 1AC/1NC out of a black book with page turns. (this is still offered for digital debates)

Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :) I also believe this activity should be a learning experience for everyone, so if after a round you have any questions please feel free to approach me and talk to me! I truly mean this because I love talking about debate and the more each debater gains from a round will provide for better rounds in the future for me to judge. If you ever have questions about a comment or RFD please ask. My email is sjcarl3@ilstu.edu

Debate Paradigm

I debated NFA LD for four years at Truman State University.

TLDR: I view debate mainly as a competition. I think you should run the arguments you want to run, don’t drop your opponent’s args, and tell me where to vote. I don’t have strong opinions on any argument because since it’s your round, it can look however you want it to.

_______________

SPEAKS

0-20: Your coach needs to have words with you about how belligerent/ racist/ homophobic/ rude you are to other members of the community. I have no tolerance for these kinds of things and you shouldn't either. Being aggressive and being rude are separate things. Be kind to one another.

25-26: You failed to do anything correct in the round

26-27: you do minimal correctly. You have not come to grasp with how arguments function together (yet!)

27-28: You get a c-b on this debate. some important dropped args or framing questions are not challenged

28-29: You handled this round well. There were minute problems that can be resolved easily that can bump you up.

29-29.5: You are a solid debater and have done exactly what to do to answer different arguments. Typically this range is also associated with you winning against a very good opponent, or very easily.

30: I have no corrections. You have had a perfect round and all of your arguments are on point and delivered properly.

Also, don’t be rude to your opponent in round. I will drop your speaks significantly.

______________

Speed: I love speed. It’s a competitive tool you can and should use to your advantage. However, if your opponent is not comfortable with spreading then you should absolutely not do it no matter what. I flow the round from your speech doc and analytics, so it’s best to slow down on the analytics to be sure I catch them

Topicality: I like a T debate. Potential abuse is fine; there’s no need for proven abuse. A dropped standard is an easy way to win a round in front of me!

K: I prefer standard policy rounds, but I’m comfortable with K debate. I ran Ks and debated against them often. I won’t vote for you on the K though if it’s obvious you don’t actually understand it. If you don’t link the K to the topic somehow, it’ll also be hard to get my ballot.

Disads: I love a good policy round with well-written and interesting disads. Make your link story make sense. It’s best to crystallize that story for me and make me believe it!

CP: prove your counter plan is competitive and answer the perm. I’m fine with PICs.

Condo: I wouldn’t vote for condo bad. Infinite condo is irrelevant if you write your aff well.

In general, I’m tech over truth.

Feel free to ask me any questions!

I'm mainly a policy stock issues judge and to me the team that can follow that the best/ most wins. I do listen to everything but I don't really like K's. If your K has an alt that is something other than reject the aff than I'll weigh it more than the typical reject the aff alt.

I need people to start to carrying across their arguments more now or I won't vote for them. If we're in the 2AR and you're just now talking about points from the 1AC I'm not gonna vote for them.

K affs: Personally as a general rule if your aff calls for direct action I'll like it way more than the the whole "we should reevaluate our relationship with X"

Tl;Dr: I will listen to everything however if your K/ K Aff calls for use to just think about something or re-evaluate our relationship with X I will weigh it a lot less against other things.

P.S I make spelling mistakes a lot so please forgive me, my mind goes way faster then my typing ability.

Background

First, I want to be up front with you about my forensics experience and debate background. I am currently the Director of Forensics at Truman State University (2022-present), primarily responsible for coaching the IE squad. My background is largely in IE; I competed in speech throughout all 4 years of high school (Richwoods High School - Peoria, IL, 2010), on the two-year circuit (Illinois Central College – East Peoria, IL), and transferred to the four-year circuit in 2012 (North Central College – Naperville, IL). I received the National Champion title in Dramatic Interp at NFA in 2013, and was National Champion in Informative Speaking at PKD in 2014. After college, I coached IEs while getting my MA from Northern Illinois University, then left the forensics community between 2016-2021 while working on my Ph.D. in Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. I have been at Truman since fall 2021.

I have limited debate judging experience.

Preferences

When it comes to judging debate rounds, I come in pretty much as a blank slate. My IE experience leads me to prefer hearing more of the argumentation guiding the claims in the debate, rather than rushing through your speeches to get more information in. I love the performative and stylistic elements of this activity, but I have to understand the debate in order to judge it. I want you to spell out the connections of your evidence to your argument and understand the links you are making, then be able to explain those to me intelligibly. I want you to be respectful of your opponent, but I do enjoy a little competitive banter. I like when arguments are logically and validly critiqued and hearing competitors’ responses to their opponent’s questions/concerns.

On top of coherence, I will look towards other public speaking aspects to form my opinion about who is most persuasive in the round. This of course includes the argumentative elements that are said in the debate, but also the ways in which competitors engage their opponents, the judge(s), and other elements that factor into a speaker’s credibility (e.g., confidence, tone, nonverbal cues, etc.).

I enjoy hearing “weird” case arguments that analogize or extend the debate topic to other fields/concepts/issues, but will always prefer these arguments be within the scope or vicinity of the respective NFA-LD resolution for the year. As the opponent, if you think we shouldn’t adjust how we frame the debate, please argue why. I want you to persuade me on how I should judge the round. If you present an argument that needs further explanation or knowledge to understand, please provide it.

That being said, I do not particularly enjoy seeing documents specifically titled “lay case” or anything similar that denotes my potential for understanding you. Please don’t confuse my lack of debate experience with an incapacity to think critically about arguments. Use your regular case, then make arguments in the debate clearer if you think they are too complicated to understand for a particular judge, but you wouldn’t call your constituents dumb to their face if you were running for a public office.

I will not know right away what you are saying if you throw lots of technical jargon into the debate, but may be able to pick up what you mean by context clues. This is a risk you can take if you wish.

I will download case documents in the round and will judge the round based on what happens in the debate itself. I will not necessarily go back and look at evidence later, unless in cases of suspected or alleged rule violations. I try to provide clear reasons for my decision on the ballot, but if you ever have any concerns or questions, please reach out – bdavis@truman.edu.

HIGH SCHOOL

A basic overview:

--Don’t be offensive or rude. Passionate is fine, rude is not. Be respectful in CX!

--Please contextualize cards, don’t just read evidence. Be able to explain it and apply it in round.

--Clash please, don’t be two ships sailing past each other.

--If someone asks to slow down, please do.

--Don’t maliciously/intentionally lie.

--Overview/Underview's are very appreciated!

--Range is 26-30 USUALLY. 27 means you gave speeches. It was average. Basically it is my baseline where I adjust up and down.

--Impacts please!

--I love it when people read my paradigm

--Have fun and learn a lot!

If you want more knowledge, feel free to read the college section.

COLLEGE

I prefer to go by Nora now, though I will not be upset if you use my birth name. It is not traumatic for me personally, more of a comfort thing for me (I use any pronouns, feel free to ask)

Important Stuff (PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE):

--Do not use ableist slurs. It is offensive and personally traumatic for me. This is a potential vote down on the spot issue, if warrented out. (I'd prefer if you didn't use the terms p*ranoid/p*ranoia or d*lusional/d*lusion unless talking about the conditions, just a personal preference).

--DO NOT Misgender someone on purpose, (including being corrected on pronouns, but refusing to use the correct ones) . I have no tolerance for transphobia in debate. Also a heads up I tend to ask pronouns before rounds start to insure I do not mmisgender. In genrtal. Do not be a bigot

--Please do not lie or be unethical in round. (You can make guesses and extrapolate, and even be wrong. Just don't tell me the sky is green without contextualizeing it)

--Please do not Lie about being a particular identity. I do not police identities (I will not force an outing or demand to know your identity), but do not lie about it. Being honest is the best policy with me I promise you.

--Do Impact Calculus please. It makes my job easier and increases the likelihood I vote your way. If no calculus is done, I default to magnitude then timeframe then probability

Overall/Background:

I have competed in Debate for 3 years. 1 year of Parliamentary Debate and 2 years of Lincoln Debate. I have also done Policy Debate at a tournament. Since then, I have been judging and helping out with McKendree Debate for 2 years judging both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary Debate for them. I now judge for any team that hires me. I also have judged Policy Debate for the Saint Louis Urban Debate League for 4 years.
TLDR: I've been involved in debate since about 2015.

On Kritiks/Critical Affs:

I can vibe with the Kritik. But Please explain your kritik (Underview or overview). Don’t say buzzwords and taglines and expect me to understand it. I’m not really up to date with the literature. I will be honest, I have read for fun, since dropping out of my masters, at this point and what interests me (often history). So odds are I have not read the literature on the K (Last critical lit I read/listened to was Capitalist Realism in August/Sept of 2022). So don't expect me to know it and do work for you. I also have comprehension issues when it comes to this. Please Know your Kritik. Also, I am open to kritiks on the language used in the round (Ableism for example). You can be non topical in front of me. But you must be able to defend it.

On T/theory:

For Potential Abuse: I’d like some example of abuse or a reasonable disad/cp that could not have been read (you don't have to read the disad that no links, a simple here's a disad I could have ran works fine). Because they are so potent, I like the team to be winning at every level and the majority of standards. I would also like some form of impact coming off of T, something you can argue why this is bad and such.

Cross-X:

I do hold cross-x as binding. However, I do not flow it, but I will take notes and pay attention. But you can extend argumentation and answers said in cross-x on the flow and I will consider them as arguments/stuff the other team said.

Perms (Mostly For LD):

I like some warrants or explanation on why Perms will work. I need an explanation on stuff such as Perm do the CP on why I should allow that.

Procedurals:

I am willing to hear out procedurals outside of T. My favs include Conditionality. Now I will hear out frivolous procedures, however I will warn you it will be an uphill battle. Like my threshold for this is you absolutely have to be winning everywhere to win a frivolous/joke procedural. So do with this what you will. I however will not hear out racist, ableist, transphobic, or bigoted procedurals.

Misc.:

Speaks for me start at 27, meaning a 27 for me is a normal speech, not exceptional but not bad. I am somewhat fine with speed to an extent (this is more for parliamentary). Don’t use it to purposely discriminate/exclude a person from the activity. If you are going to fast for me. I will say SPEED to signal to slow down (if you are becoming incoherent I will say CLEAR). If you don’t slow down, I will try to flow But I probably won’t get it all so you probably won’t like my RFD (Please be considerate, I have ADHD and autism so if you are going too fast it can cause me to end up losing my focus, I'll let you know if this is happening). I am in favor of disclosing RFD’s and can explain my reasoning, you are welcome to ask questions.

You can reach me at the following with any questions, I will try my best to answer!

justinfauszpersonal@gmail.com

Facebook: Justin Fausz

UPDATED November 4th, 2023

Background: I've been involved in every area of debate for around 8 years now. I did four years of debate in high school (Parkersburg South HS, WV) and three semesters of collegiate debate (Marshall University). I am currently a masters student in chemistry at Marshall University. My HS experience was mostly lay debate (some exceptions to this), but my collegiate experience is in NFA-LD (single-person policy). I coached high school debate for four years during my undergraduate years in Huntington, WV (PF, LD, and Congress). Also broke LD at NSDA (senior, HS), NCFL (Junior, HS), and NFA nationals (Freshman, College).

NFA-LD

I'm fine with speechdrop or an email chain (brndn3379@gmail.com).

High level things for you to know about me: I'm out of the loop on the topic, so don't assume that I know topic specifics (except for the chemistry/physics behind nuclear weapons..). I can keep up with whatever pace you want to go at, but I don't flow off the doc (especially important for T shells and long analytics; if I can't hear it, I'm not flowing it). Default competing interps on T/theory, default util, default layering for me is Theory/T > K > plan/CP. Conditionality is good (you can still run condo bad), multi-condo is probably less good. I find myself to be very tech > truth, but also find myself increasingly skeptical of bad arguments that are executed well (this hasn't changed my decisions as of yet). NFA-LD rules is a bad voter generally, but if you are going to use it, then please justify why I should care about the rules. I am probably going to be more tolerant of less serious arguments than most judges, but I'm not going to be happy if those arguments aren't at least executed well.

Disclosure is good, I ran disclosure theory, I will vote on disclosure theory, but a note from me is that I prefer disclosure shells to include in-round resolvability. Basically, if you include something like "if they agree to start posting starting with this round, I'll drop the shell" is what I like to see because I tend to think that 1 - it is the best way to get people on board with disclosure and 2 - there are small school debaters that genuinely may not have known about the norm or how to do it (I was one of them at the start of my collegiate career). It isn't a must (if you make arguments that the lack of disclosure skewed this particular round, that's sufficient for me to vote on disclosure anyways), but it is my general preference.

On T, I typically err on the side that potential abuse is sufficient to vote on T. Proven abuse is always more compelling, but I view T broadly as a test of what the topic should look like, not what it does look like. TVAs are also not essential, but can help for particular AFFs (ones that very much seem to be in the realm of the topic, but your interp seemingly excludes).

Most of the stuff in the below section for HS LD applies to NFA-LD for me, but feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

LD (HS, Circuit) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR: If you read anything in my paradigm during the age of online debate, let it be the section on speed please. Extend tags and authors, but if you only want one then do tags. Collapse collapse collapse. Probably don't go for skep or permissibility unless you intend on explaining it (same goes for metaethics in general).

Ranking of what I'll be most comfortable evaluating:

Policy (Plan/CP/DA debates) > T > K > Deep Phil > Performance > skep/permissibility

Speed: 2020 Update Debaters really need to go slower on analytics and do a lot more signposting with this online format. Clarity simply isn't the best. Feel free to top speed cards in the doc, but if it isn’t there then please go slower (I’ve had a ton of CXs full of people asking for arguments they missed). Calling speed and clear is not really feasible when you are reading through analytics because I have to tab over and unmute myself, call clear, and then tab back to my flow. Connection issues on any end in the round would be devestating. If I can't hear what you said, then I can't flow it.

Speech docs: I would like to be given the speech docs. I'm fine with speechdrop, email chains, or flashing evidence (2020 update: RIP to flashing evidence). My email is brndn3379@gmail.com

General paradigm: I'm pretty tab; the round is yours and the less work that I have to do the better. There are very few circumstances where I intervene in the flow of the round, and you will see those instances in the rest of my paradigm. I default to offense/defense in most cases if you don't give me an alternative framework. I will judge the round on whatever framework is given to me and is won in the round. If there are competing frameworks, I really need to hear clear reasons to prefer one framework over the other, I don't want to hear you just repeat your cards from your constructive; give me a clear reason why your framework is better for evaluating the round in comparison to your opponent's framework. Also, please link arguments to both frameworks when possible, otherwise it becomes difficult for me to justify evaluating your argument in the event you lose framework (hopefully you already know this, but I've seen too many rounds where the competitors don't). In general, I'm not as familiar with the high school K lit nor the super deep theory debates. I like theory and k's, just don't assume that I already know what you are talking about. Explanation is key. I never debated skep/permissibility, so if you want to run those then just make sure you explain it to me like I'm dumb (which I probably am).

ROTB/FW: Just give me warrants for the FW, reasons to prefer, and link your args to it and I'll be fine.

Theory/Topicality: Yea, I lump them together. They are constructed in the same way and really function in a similar way so I always have considered them pretty much the same thing. I default competing interps unless I'm told otherwise. It is really to your advantage to read a counter-interp, but if you don't have one or the argument is just a time suck then I am totally okay with you just going for "I meet" and reasonability. Overall, I don't prefer T debates, but if that is your strat I won't stop you from going for it (and of course you should go for it against an Abusive AFF/NEG). I'm probably biased towards disclosure being good if you feel you need to know that, but don't expect to just win disclosure theory because you run it. 2020/21/and 22 update: Please disclose. Just do it. C'mon.

RVIs: More than fine for me. Probably read "AFF gets RVIs" in the AC if you expect to be going for it. Not necessary in front of me, but probably more strategic.

K: Valid arguments. I won't be familiar with a lot of the topic lit on Ks, especially the ones run on the high school circuit, so just lean on the side of over-explaining your kritik if you really want me to vote on it. You also will want to clearly explain the ALT to me so that I can evaluate the ALT/plan/perm debate effectively. If you can't explain your K to your opponent in cross-x, then it is going to be really hard for me to justify voting on it. Conditional Ks often feel like perfcons, but I'm not going to say anything if the AFF doesn't.

CP: Pretty much the same thing as the K paradigm here. I need to understand what your advocacy is. The only large difference is that I am more than happy to vote on a conditional CP in comparison to a conditional K.

Tricks: I don't particularly like tricks that are like "RESOLVED means vote aff" or something silly like that. I do, however, enjoy "tricks" where a voter is hidden in an advantage or where there is a double link on an argument that baits the other debater to only respond to one of the links. Just try to make what you are doing somewhat reasonable and I'll still vote on it. Skep and permissibility are okay I guess, but probably not something I'd love to see in most rounds.

Profanity: I don't personally care. The college circuit uses profanity all the time and I think it makes people more comfortable speaking if they are one who generally uses profanity outside of the round. Just make sure that your opponent is okay with it before the round.

Arguments that I don't want to hear: Racism good, sexism good. In general, oppression isn't good and the risk of emotional harm to other debaters outweighs any 'educational value' of allowing those kinds of arguments. I'm generally fine with extinction good as long as you don't violate the above sentiments and the warrants are sensible.

Speaks;

Speaks are based on where I think you will land at the specific tournament. This isn't perfect, but speaks never are.

30: You are taking the gold without a doubt. Literal perfection with no critiques for me to give you.

29.5-29.9: Late elims (definition of this depends on the tournament)

29-29.5: Much more likely to break than to not

28.5-29: On cusp. Maybe break, maybe not.

27.5-28.5: Middle of the pack for the tournament.

26.5-27.5: I can clearly point out numerous errors in your performance.

<26.5: You messed up somehow. Usually cheating, being disrespectful.

LD (HS, Traditional) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you scrolled to this section, you pretty much know what should be in a traditional LD round. Give me a solid value/criterion setup and good contentions. I'm fine with speed of course, but if your opponent isn't then do not go for it, especially in a traditional LD round. I'd prefer to not see you run progressive arguments against a traditional debater if that is the pairing in the round, I've always felt it is easier for a circuit debater to go traditional than vice versa. Any other questions you have for this area, just ask me in the round please (it shouldn't be too complex given the nature of traditional LD).

PF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All speeches must respond to the previous speech (except for the 2nd constructive, duh). Defense is not sticky, so respond to it. I'm fine with smaller responses and then blowing them up if your opponents go for that defense in summary/FF. Most specifically, FF should only extend from summary. If it wasn't in summary, it is not going to be on my FF flow. With all this being said, it should be obvious that it is best to collapse early in front of me (you realistically should be doing this in front of any judge, but whatever).

Speed: I can keep up with any speed the debaters are comfortable with. I will not be the limiting factor; your opponents determine how fast you can speak in a given round. Don't spread against opponents that cannot keep up with it. That being said, don't spread over paraphrased evidence. You can't expect me to get both the citation and the implication when they are read in four seconds.

Weighing: I need extremely clear weighing at the end of the round. Weighing arguments introduced in final focus are new arguments. I prefer weighing to be introduced as early as possible, but summary at the latest. Weighing must have warranting. Just saying "prefer on scope" doesn't tell me why scope is the weighing mech I should use. Weighing is also important on T/theory, so if you choose to run those, I need a clear idea of why I should care about predictability/limits/ground/etc.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is OK in PF (but not preferred at all, I am willing to vote on paraphrasing bad). Slow down on the citations though so I can get them down as well as what you are paraphrasing (since I have less time to type than I would in a circuit LD format). All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round unless you tell me to, but there are some exceptions that I won't go into detail on here.

Post-Round: If the tournament allows it, I will disclose so that you know what to be doing in your next rounds. I do this in hopes that it makes your round more educational and my adjudication of it more beneficial for you. Do not post-round me (by this, I mean being hostile about your questioning of my RFD. I am totally fine having a discussion about the round because that can be incredibly valuable, but I don't want an aggressive environment). I understand that losing a round is frustrating (I've been there too, ya'll), but I made my decision as best I could and cannot change it after I disclose. If you think I missed an argument that should have won you the round, then you should take that as an indication that maybe there is a way you can improve how you delivered that argument. Nobody likes post-round debates, just don't do it.

Progressive Arguments: Any of these arguments are fine in front of me when done well (you can read my circuit LD paradigm to see my thoughts on them in general). The caveat here is that you should tailor the arguments to allow your opponents to engage with them. Reading progressive arguments because you know your opponents aren't experienced with them is abusive. You can run them, but explain the tech clearly so that they have an opportunity to engage with them please. I liken this to how you probably shouldn't be super techy in front of novices for the sole purpose of an easy win.

Anything else: Just ask me before the round and I'll let ya know.

I competed in UIL Policy for four years in high school and 3 years of NSDA Policy. After graduating, I went to Texas A&M and competed in NFA-LD for 3 years. Last year, I began coaching for a 2A High school in Texas. This year I am a Grad Assistant at WKU. 

You do you. Debate in your style. Run the arguments you want to run. As long as the arguments are warranted and you can give me clear voters on why the argument matters, I am willing to vote for nearly anything. Don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

T- I was a very heavy T debater and am willing to hear just about any T argument that is imaginable. I just ask that you make it reasonable. FX and Xtra T are arguments that I like and enjoy hearing on both sides of the round. If you are going to debate T, explain the voters more than just saying "Fairness and education." Explain why those things matter in debate. 

DA- Please explain why the disad outweighs the aff and impact it out. Affs, respond to more than one part of the disad. Don't lose because you only put defense on the flow that the neg was prepared for. 

K- I am open to almost any and all k's. I am not super well read in a lot of k lit so if you are able to inform me of the lit, I am okay with you running it. I have ran as a competitor and am willing to vote on arguments like death good.

CP- I will listen to and vote on CP's if they are run well, but they are my least favorite argument overall. I feel that CP's don't have a lot of ground that is given and most rounds with CP's boil down to a perm. This doesn't mean that you cannot run them. On some topics, CPs are necessary and I understand that. My feelings towards CP will not interfere with any round decisions. 

TL;DR: I am open to just about anything as long as it is done well and warranted. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. Run what you feel is best for the round. Please don't be rude or problematic in your speeches or arguments. I will vote you down if you say something that is blatantly problematic or offensive. Just because it is an argument does not excuse any racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.

Debate Background: I am currently the Director of Forensics at Florida State University. My educational training is in rhetoric and my debate background is heavily influenced by policy debate. The past six years I have coached and judged BP, civic, IPDA, Lincoln-Douglass, NEDA (traditional and crossfire), NPDA, and policy debate. Prior to that, I competed, coached, and judged in policy debate. Participating in all of these formats has shaped my general views on debate.

My general view of debate:

I think that affirmatives should defend the resolution and that the negative should engage and refute the affirmatives. I am interested in arguments not argument types. I am thrilled to listen to good arguments, bring out your best research be it competing policy options, critiquing the form of debate, challenging the team's discourse, ideology, or methods, topicality, or theory. If you have me as your judge bring your best argument rather than try to adapt to what you think I might like.

Flowing info:

I flow debates with paper and pen. I only look at the speech doc during the round to clarify information for my flow or if something is being referenced in cross-ex. Additionally, I will not use the speech doc to fill in arguments that I could not clearly hear.

Things to know when debating in front of me (I'll update this as I figure out more):

Permutations need a full explanation. "Perm: Do Both" is not an argument. You do not get to say three words in one speech and then elaborate on it in a later speech. If you are trying to make a permutation then you need to develop your full argument and explain how the arguments are being done together and how they are not mutually exclusive in the speech.

I am open to form arguments on debate. For example, a negative team has 2 counterplans, 2 disads, and 2 kritiks that all contradict each other, the affirmative reads evidence about how speech acts must be viewed as a totality, conditionality does not exist, and argues that this means that judges cannot separate arguments. Then the negative can't simply say the arguments are conditional and kick out of the arguments that they want. To win the neg would have to win that speech acts are separable, conditionality does exist, and therefore they are kicking out of arguments.

Justin Kirk - Director of Debate at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

General philosophy – Debate is primarily a communications based activity, and if you are not communicating well, your arguments are probably incoherent, and you are probably not going to win many debates in front of me. It is your responsibility to make quality arguments. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Evidence supports argumentation, it does not supplant it. However, analytic arguments and comparative claims about argument quality are essential to contextualizing your evidence and applying it to the issues developed throughout the debate. Quality arguments beat bad evidence every time.

I flow every debate and expect teams to answer arguments made by the other team. You should also flow every debate. That does not mean start flowing after the speech documents run out. Cross-examinations that consist mostly of "what cards did you read" or "what cards did you skip" are not cross examinations and do you little to no good in terms of winning the debate. If you have questions about whether or not the other team made an argument or answered a particular argument, consult your flow, not the other team. The biggest drawback to paperless debate is that people debate off speech docs and not their flows, this leads to shoddy debating and an overall decline in the quality of argumentation and refutation.

Each team has a burden of refutation, and arguing the entire debate from macro-level arguments without specifically refuting the other side's arguments will put you at a severe disadvantage in the debate. Burden of proof falls upon the team making an argument. Unwarranted, unsupported assertions are a non-starter for me. It is your responsibility is to make whole arguments and refute the arguments made by the other side. Evaluating the debate that occurred is mine. The role of my ballot is to report to the tab room who I believe won the debate.

Online Debate - everyone is adjusting to the new world of online debate and has plenty of burdens. I will be lenient when judging if you are having technical difficulties and provide ample time. You should record all of your speeches on a backup device in case of permanent technical failures. Speech drop is the norm for sharing files. If there are bandwidth problems, I will ask everyone to mute their mics and videos unless they are talking.

Paperless Debate – You should make every attempt to provide a copy of the speech documents to me and the other team before the speech. The easiest way to resolve this is through speech drop. I suspect that paperless debate has also led to a substantial decrease in clarity and corresponding increases in cross-reading and clipping. I have zero tolerance for cheating in debate, and will have no qualms about voting against you, assigning zero speaker points, and speaking to your coaches about it. Clarity is a must. You will provide me speech documents to read during the debate so I may better understand the debate that is occurring in front of me. I will ask you to be clearer if you are not and if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing your arguments.

Topicality – Is good for debate, it helps to generate clash, prevents abusive affirmatives, and generally wins against affirmatives that have little to no instrumental relation to the topic. Topicality definitions should be precise, and the reasons to prefer your topicality violation should be clear and have direct relation to your interpretation. Topicality debates are about the scope of and competition generated by the resolution. I usually default to competing interpretations, as long as both sides have clear, contextual, and well warranted interpretations. If your interpretation is missing one of these three elements, go for another argument. Reasonability is a winnable argument in front of me as long as you offer specific and warranted reasons why your interpretation is reasonable vis-à-vis the negative. I vote on potential abuse and proven abuse.

Kritiks – Should be based in the resolution and be well researched with specific links to the affirmative. Reading generic links to the topic is insufficient to establish a link to the affirmative. Alternatives should be well explained and evidenced with specific warrants as to the question of link solvency. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by negative teams where they have failed to explain the link debate or alternative adequately. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by affirmative teams when I am judging are ones where the affirmative failed to sufficiently argue for a permutation argument or compare the impacts of the affirmative to the impacts of the criticism sufficiently. I firmly believe that the affirmative gets to weigh the advantages of the plan against the impacts of the criticism unless the link to the criticism directly stems from the framing of the Affirmative impacts. I also believe that the affirmative can usually win solvency deficits to the alternative based upon deficits in implementation and/or instrumentalization of the alternative. Arguments that these solvency deficits do not apply because of framework, or that the affirmative has no right to solving the affirmative, are non-starters for me.

Counterplans – Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans. NR counterplans are an effective means of answering new 1AR arguments and add-ons and are fair to the affirmative team if they are responses to new 1AR developments. I believe that counterplans are the most effective means of testing the affirmative's plan via competitive policy options and are an effective means of solving for large portions of the affirmative. Counterplans are usually a fair check against new affirmatives, non-intrinsic advantages, and affirmatives with bad or no solvency evidence. If you have a theoretical objection to the counterplan, make it compelling, have an interpretation, and win offense. Theoretical objections to the counterplan are fine, but I have a high threshold for these arguments unless there is a specific violation and interpretation that makes sense in the context of competitive demands in debate.

Disads – Yes and yes. A likely winning strategy in front of me usually involves going for a disadvantage to the affirmative and burying the case with quality arguments and evidence. Disadvantages should have specific links to the case and a coherent internal link story. It is your job to explain the causal chain of events that leads to the disadvantage. A disadvantage with no internal links is no disad.

Case Debate - Is a lost art. Most affirmatives are a hodgepodge of thrown together internal links and old impact evidence. Affirmatives are particularly bad at extending their affirmative and answering negative arguments. Especially new affirmatives. Negative teams should spend a substantial portion of the debate arguing why the affirmative case is problematic. Fewer and fewer teams invest any time in arguing the case, at the cost of a criticism or disadvantage that usually isn't worth reading in the first place. Time trade-offs are not nearly as valuable as quality indictments of the 1AC. Spend those three minutes answering the advantages and solvency and don't read that third criticism or fourth disadvantage, it usually doesn't help you anyway. Inidict the 1AC evidence, make comparative claims about their evidence and your evidence, challenge the specificity or quality of the internal links.

Evidence - Qualifications, context, and data matter. You should answer the evidence read in the debate because I will read evidence at the end. One of the largest problems with paperless debate is the persistence of reading cards to answer cards when a simple argument about the context or quality of the evidence will do. It takes less time to answer a piece of terrible evidence with an analytic argument than it does to read a card against it. It is useless to throw good cards after bad.

Speaker Points - Are a reflection of the quality of speaking, arguments, and strategic choice made by debaters in the debate – no more, no less.

Disclosure (12/2/23 update) - I lifted this from Parker Hopkins at his blessing who borrowed from Chris Roberds.

TLDR - disclosure is an essential element to small-school competitiveness, the educational functions of the activity, and should be practiced by all teams.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Justin's final thought on disclosure) - JV and Novice divisions need disclosure the most. There is a reason that CARD and ADA Novice divisions use a packet. There is a reason that the Nothern Tier used a packet when it was still a thing. Disclosure on the wiki serves a similar if not a congruent function for the community. Give those coaches some time to prepare their young debaters to engage their opponents and have a productive debate!

(They/Them)

Yes, put me in the email chain. But also speechdrop >>> email chains.
keegandbosch@gmail.com

Experience: My personal competitive experience is mainly in IEs, though I have competed nationally in debate events and coached LD, Policy, and IE students. My debate background is primarily policy and NFA-LD.

Paradigm:
In all forms of debate, my primary concern as a judge is to remove as much subjectivity as possible. In the interest of this goal, I vote almost exclusively off of the flow. This is not to say, however, that I will blindly flow your arguments without thought. Ex: if your opponent drops an interpretation in their T flow, that does not mean you can define the word to mean whatever you want.

In the interest of being flow-centric, I try not to make assumptions and do the work for you. I will judge based on what actually happens in the round, not what I assume you meant should have happened. If you want credit for running an argument, I need you to actually run that argument.

I really appreciate debaters who give clear overviews in the final speeches. I want to be explicitly walked through the round so far, and told step-by-step what arguments I should prioritize and why. If you make it easy for me to vote for you, you will be happy with the vote.

I believe Kritikal argumentation is a vital cornerstone of inclusive debate practice, and I generally consider the K to be a priori. However, as with everything, if you can provide me with a solid argument why the K is bad and you debate on that flow better than your opponent, I will still vote against the K. It's not about what I believe, it's about who is the better debater in that round.

As long as you are supporting your arguments with strong evidence and you are debating well, I will not vote against you simply because I disagree with your claims. If your opponent doesn't disprove it analytically, I will not vote against it simply because of preference.

(NOTE: there are obviously exceptions to these rules. I will not vote in favor of something like "slavery good" or "women's suffrage bad." Any argument that is inherently problematic or harmful to others will not get my vote, even if you argue it better than your opponent. You don't get to hurt other people for a ballot.)


SPEAKER POINTS:
This is not my own words; it was shared with me by a teammate and I believe in the system as a method of removing subjectivity in scoring. (Updated as of 11:22 AM on 12/12/2015.)

27.3 or less-Something offensive occurred or something went terribly wrong
27.3-27.7- You didn't fill speech times, didn't flow, didn't look up from your laptop, mumbled, were unclear, or generally debated poorly
27.7-28.2- You are an average debater in your division who based on this rounds performance probably shouldn't clear but didn't do anything wrong per se...
28.2-28.5- Based on this rounds performance you might clear at the bottom.
28.5-28.9- You probably should clear in the middle/bottom based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
28.9-29.3- You probably should clear in the middle/top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
29.3-29.7- You probably should clear at the top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from below.
(You can also be moved in to this bracket from an above or below point bracket by debating someone in this bracket and performing well or debating someone in the lower point bracket and performing poorly. Or you can move up in brackets by doing stuff that was compelling in the round, such as reading arguments I liked, made me think, were technically proficient, or generally did something interesting.)

Version for tournaments that force whole-number speaks:

25 - Something went awry
26 - Probably won't clear, but nothing was wrong
27 - Should clear at the bottom
28 - Should clear in the middle
29 - Should probably clear at the top
30 - Exceptional

If both speakers fall into the same category, the winner will bump up 1 point. A few random notes (I update these as things come up)

About Specific Issues (I update these as things come up in rounds)

Re: in-round abuse. I am extremely sympathetic to in-round abuse. If you treat your opponent's poorly and they read a theory shell about why that's a reason to reject the team, odds are fairly good that I'll buy into that line of argumentation. You can avoid this by not being a jerk to your opponents.

Re: post-rounding. I do everything in my power to give a clear and thorough explanation of the round and why I voted the way I did. I am happy to answer questions about the round and do what I can to give you a sense of how to improve moving forward. I am happy to spend as much time after the round as you need answering questions and discussing the round. HOWEVER, I guarantee that debating me post-round will not change my ballot. I always submit my ballot before disclosure. Post-round debating just creates a hostile space for judges and debaters alike, and it's not the image of debate that I want to create.

Re: evidence sharing. In ALL FORMATS I want to be included on the email chain or the speechdrop. Particularly in PF, I don't like the community norm of asking for evidence after the speech and taking a bunch of time off the clock to find and share evidence. Your speech docs should be put together before the speech, and you should send your speech to the email chain or send it in the speech drop before you speak.

Re: speed. I am completely fine with spreading, but YOU are responsible for clarity. I will call clear twice in a speech. After that, if I don't get it on the flow, then I don't get it on the flow. Speed is only okay as long as it isn't excluding anybody from the round. If your opponent asks for a slow debate, don't spread them out of the round, be inclusive first and foremost. But I personally love speed, so don't slow down for me, certainly.

TL;DR
I will vote for the team who debates better, regardless of what techniques are used to do so (so long as those arguments are not harmful to others.) WHAT YOU ARE MOST COMFORTABLE AND CLEAN DEBATING WITH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT I LIKE. If you have any questions, coaches and students can contact me at keegandbosch@gmail.com

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU primarily competes in NFA-LD, a shorter policy format. This season (2023) we are adding CEDA/NDT tournaments to our schedule.

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the nuclear weapons topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

I have few preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round, especially in the CEDA/NDT community where I have limited knowledge of the context regarding community trends.

I have little experience evaluating debates with some strategies that would only be acceptable in a 2-person policy debate context - 2ac add-ons, 2nc counterplanning, 2ac intrinsicness tests on DA, etc. I’m not opposed to these strategies, and understand their strategic purpose, but I have limited exposure.

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

***UPDATED AS OF JANUARY 30, 2024***

The Short Version

I’ve been involved with LD on and off since 1991. I am a traditionalist when it comes to LD and hold to the principles behind its founding. I evaluate rounds primarily on stock issues. I believe the annual resolution is the object of the round and that ballot’s sole role is to make a decision on that topic. I don’t like speed. I evaluate based on what I can perceive orally in the round, and while I will download your “Speechdoc” I won’t go hunting to validate your arguments after the debate. I take a good and detailed flow, based on what I hear, but I am a critical listener who won’t check his expertise at the door. Be ethical. Follow the rules. Don’t be mean to each other and don’t treat your judge like they are your opponent after the round.

The More Nuanced Version

The Background Stuff

I was Truman State’s Director of Forensics from 1999-2009 and again, on an interim basis, from 2014-2015. I'm currently the interim LD coach for the 2023-2024 season. During that time I coached IE, LD, and NPDA. Since then I’ve been working in administration. Prior to that I was at the University of Kansas working with a NDT/CEDA program, and before that at Wayne State working with both IE and LD. As an undergrad I did primarily IE and LD. It is important to underscore that I have been out of active coaching for most of the last decade, though I usually come back for a tournament or two each year. This means it is important to be careful about assumptions that you might make with a long-term contemporary judge and their knowledge base about contemporary jargon, newer theories, etc.

Me as a Judge vs. Me as a Coach

I am currently serving as a debate coach for Truman on an interim basis. Out of respect for my students who have worked so hard to be where they are, and out of respect for the person who will eventually be their permanent coach, I am meeting them where they are on the kinds of positions they run and the style of debate they employ. This may differ significantly from my paradigm here and as a judge. This is where my paradigm has changed significantly in the last month. I had adapted my paradigm at the beginning of the year to show greater flexibility to align with my team’s competitive preferences. This is a stance I don’t feel I can take as we head into the late and post-season. They know that, and we respect each other’s views.

My Orientation Toward NFA-LD in General

I have been involved with LD since its inception in 1990-1991. I was on the original committee that made the first permanent rules in 1992. I am not a fan of what NFA-LD has become in recent years. I try as best I can to adhere to the original goals of the event while respecting the rules as they have been amended since. I have a strong negative disposition toward speed. I believe the object of the debate is the NFA resolution, which is a proposition of policy, and I will evaluate the debate using the stock issues and the effective weighing of advantages and disadvantages. I also overlay my participation in the round using the “Critical Listener Perspective” (see Minch, K. and Borchers, T. (1996) “A philosophy for judging Lincoln-Douglas debate.” National Forensic Journal, pp. 19-36). This perspective aims to view NFA-LD as an individual event and to balance the aspirational objective standards of the flow with some of the critical subjectivity found in individual events judging. The essence of this perspective is this statement:

“A critical listener perspective for Lincoln-Douglas debate presumes that the audience members (most importantly the judge) are the locus of the round. They are critical listeners who are capable of evaluating the debate based upon their experience, specialized knowledge, and use of standards for what is educationally valuable and who permit subjective standards to influence how the decision is reached. This view assumes that the judge will consider both objective and subjective standards in evaluating a Lincoln-Douglas round and will not shy away from correcting perceived inadequacies in the presentation through the pedagogically beneficial act of critiquing the speech act and ranking it according to all of its merits.”

Rules

While I have expressed some opinions in public and in writing about the natural evolution of rules in events, I am probably not the person you want to argue with about ignoring the rules outright, or why the rules are evil. I don’t have problems with the rules being changed, but I do believe those changes need to be legislated by the organization and not by my ballot. If you plan to invoke the rules for some purpose, be sure you are following them as well. If you raise an objection based on the rules, be sure you know the rule and the basis for your claim is crystal clear. Norms and rules are not the same thing. There is no rule, for example, requiring pre-round disclosure. You might like it and it might make the world a wonderful place, but it’s not a rule. I'm not going to vote on violations of norms. So don’t make an argument that treats it like a rule. If the alleged rule violation is going to require the involvement of the tournament staff (a violation of the Code of Ethics), please make sure that is clearly stated and in line with the tournament rules and policies so I know what your intentions are.

Framework

As the rules apply to the framework for judging the debate, I will operate within the recommended paradigm of stock issues. You should be filtering your analysis of the round through that lens as much as you can. This means I will vote on inherency or solvency IF you make them an issue and persuade me that your arguments are sufficient to do so. I will vote on topicality, but my distinct preference is that you go for that issue exclusively, or almost exclusively, in the NR if that’s what you want to hang your hat on. I don’t necessarily need to see evidence of in-round abuse to vote on T. As this season has unfolded, I have come to an even firmer position on “Kritik Affirmatives,” which I find incompatible with the stock issues framework. If you run one in front of me, you do so at your own peril. You are here to debate the resolution that the community has selected and that is a shared expectation when the parties enter the round. My job is to adjudicate a debate on that topic and render a decision as to the relative persuasiveness of your positions on the policy in question. To be absolutely clear, this should in no way be interpreted to suggest that I don’t see value in the forms of advocacy presented in critical or performative argumentation - just that I think the object of this activity is the national topic and positions that do not focus on that topic function to exclude participants in the activity who enter the exchange expecting to learn about that topic.

Speed and Space

I think one of the benefits of having LD situated in an organization that also sponsors IE is the potential for cross-application of skills developed in debate and IE. I like a debate that is persuasive, that tells a good story, and that even leaves me a little entertained. At the same time, I like good clash, robust use of evidence, and lots of analysis. I also believe in efficiency and word economy, not speed. Foundationally, I believe in the "orality" of NFA-LD. While the text of cards is often the proof in our argumentation, debate exists in a live space and not in the exchange of documents. If we didn't care about the verbal communication, we wouldn't have tournaments, we'd just have an electronic exchange of dueling briefs and counter-briefs. The debate happens in the speeches, not in a post-round attempt to reconstruct the narrative. I believe the debate happens within the timed speeches. It does not happen after the round with me pulling and re-reading your evidence. If I can’t understand your cards, I’m not going to sort it out for you later unless a rules or ethical violation has been alleged. It’s your job to tell me how I should evaluate the round, so leave yourself time to do it and don’t leave me picking-up the pieces for you. I do download your speech doc in the round for general understanding and in case of appeals, but I expect you to make the evidence clear orally. You need to be thinking about what a universal auditor of your debate can cognitively process and reasonably make meaning from within the time constraints of the debate.

If your speed exceeds my level for what feels appropriate, I will give you a verbal warning – “speed” – and will follow the NFA rules and drop you if you do not slow down. If your opponent asks you for a slower round, I expect you to comply.

If you make eye contact with me from time to time during the debate, you will know when I’m frustrated.

Do You Like X? Will You Vote on Y?

I will accept any positions that function within a policy framework and/or utilize the stock issues. I have no inherent biases one way or another as to topicality, counterplans, spec positions, etc. I am open to kritikal arguments on the negative, so long as they can be filtered through a policy frame of reference (i.e.: a kritik that stems directly from the rhetoric of, or rhetorical implications of, a particular policy action on perspective) and qualitatively weighed. In short, the kritik functions for me like a disadvantage wherein I am weighing the implications of the kritik as a factor in the broader cost-benefit analysis.

Don’t Worry

I flow on my laptop and am sometimes moving documents between your speech docs and the flow. I also write comments on the ballot during the round in an attempt to be thorough about feedback on particular speeches. Do not worry that either of these things means that I’m not flowing or a judgment is already in progress.

“Post Rounding”

I will give an oral critique, within the constraints set by NFA for completing rounds on time. I will disclose the decision unless NFA says not to in a particular round. I will answer reasonable and polite questions asked about my decision or the evaluation of different issues. I do not, however, wish to have a debate about the debate with you. If you don’t like my decision, that’s your prerogative. Feel free to go vent to your teammates or your judge. If I feel I am being harassed, I will stop the critique.

Background: I competed in policy debate for four years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I coached policy debate for seven years, public forum for one year, and LD debate for five years.

Despite my policy background I am committed to the spirit of LD. This means that while you can speak quickly, you should be comprehensible and both debaters should be ok with going fast. I have seen too many debates where a varsity debater unnecessarily spreads out a novice debater.

Topicality is a voting issue. I am unlikely to vote on a reverse voting issue on topicality even if it is dropped. Arguments about why topicality is problematic may be reasons to include your affirmative, but are rarely reasons for you to win the debate. It is probably best in front of me to frame these as expanding the interpretation of what the topic can be, rather than rejecting a topic all together.

The citation rules are so widely disregarded that I would feel uncomfortable enforcing them, especially if there is no conversation between the debaters about reading them prior to the first speech.

Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate. This is not code for I do not vote on theory. I will vote on theory.

Negatives should narrow the debate in their second speech. Pick the arguments you are winning and go in-depth. I will give affirmative’s wide latitude in debate where the negative goes for everything in a messy way. Going for T and substance is usually a mistake, unless one or both are such a clear win that you have extra time (this happens rarely).

Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterplan presumption is up for debate). A negative can sometimes make a persuasive case that the affirmative has to prove solvency, which is a separate issue from presumption.

Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments. I wish I saw more of these types of arguments.

I don’t subscribe to an offense defense paradigm; good defense is in many cases enough, especially with theory debates.

I am increasingly willing to intervene in theory debates. Two speeches does not allow for proper theory development and gives both sides the ability to simply block out every speech. Counterplans like consultation and 50 state fiat require a very low threshold to defeat on theory. I am not a fan of conditional counterproposals in LD. Negative arguments like the affirmative doesn’t get permutations are generally nonstarters.

I will vote on kritiks but prefer them specific to the topic and with a hardy dose of explanation about why it relates to the specific claims of the 1AC. I am not a good judge for generic backfile checks with one card that is semi relevant to the topic area. Some additional clarification. Changes to how the round should be evaluated (moving from the question of the desirability of the policy) need to be made explicitly and early and should include substantive justification about why the change excludes or makes undesirable the aff.

Final speeches need to make choices and clearly identify their path to the ballot. One part of this is the order you present ideas in your speech.

Things that will get you lower speaker points/make it hard for you to win.

1. Be rude to the other team.
2. Not answer or be evasive when answering cross ex questions.
3. Be unclear in CX about the status of counter plans
4. Being unable or unwilling to explain your arguments in CX
5. Read unwarranted/unqualified evidence.

One way to get (perhaps unfairly) good speaker points from me is to be entertaining. Many debaters, who were not the best at debate, but nevertheless were pleasant to watch debate, (being funny, speaking passionately, being nice to their opponents) have received speaker points that would typically fall outside of their skill range.

Email: shirzadian@marshall.edu

I’m a professor of English at Marshall University, where I also coach the MU debate team. My academic background is in rhetorical and critical theory--with a special emphasis on Disability Studies. I was a parli debater in college (2006-2010) at Cedarville University. Have coached IPDA since beginning at MU last year. I have a moderate amount of college LD experience.

I strive to be a tabula rasa absolutist. I’m a pretty meticulous flow judge. I like smart, meaningful policy debate clash, but I also vote on smart kritics so long as the links stand. I’m open to critical AFFs, though I feel like the bar is a bit higher than NEG K’s. I’m a politics nerd, and so love a smart, specific politics DA (get specific about the congresspeople and bills that will be put in play post-fiat).

I’m okay with a bit of speed, though I’ll also expect you to moderate if I sense your speed has rendered the round inaccessible to your opponent. I'm not keen on supporting the gasping-for-air level of speed. I'd advise you avoid it in our round together.

Link turns most frequently win my ballot. Nothing wrong with impact turns (just don’t double turn!).

Love impact calc args. I'm finding I often weigh probability more heavily that magnitude. The more specific / unique the impact, the better.

On T, Standards and Violation debates determine my ballot.

27.5 feels like the middle for speaks. If you’re a jerk, I’ll weigh that pretty heavily against your speaks.

Updated November 2022

Dan Stanfield

2 Years at Los Rios Community College

1 Year at CSU Fullerton

1 Year at UNLV

2 Years Coaching at UWG

2 years @ Baylor

Iowa 2019 - 2020

IC 2022

Coached for CKM on TI topic

Coached for Juan Diego on Surveillance

Coach for SLC West Education

Coached for CKM Immigration - CJR

Coached for Nevada Union Immigration - CJR

Add me to your email chain stanfield.dan@gmail.com

Michigan 2023 Update:

Pronouns: they/them

Please don't over adjust your content to me, I am a lover of debate in all its forms. Make the arguments you want to make and I'll evaluate the debate.

I have had very few rounds on this topic so if there is any topic specific jargon err toward a higher degree of explanation.

October 2022 Update:

Taylor Swift lyrics cleverly incorporated will result in a speaker point boost. Jokes in poor taste will result in a speaker point drop. Buyer beware.

"I am a firm believer that debate is for debaters. I had my time to make others listen to whatever (and I do mean absolutely whatever) I wanted to say, and its 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" -- Lindsay VanLuvanee

I will attempt to limit the amount my predispositions will influence how I evaluate a debate round. Don't feel as if you need to change your strategy to debate in front of me, do what you do best, because the alternative is usually subpar debate. The final two rebuttals should write my ballot for me, teams that accurately break the round down and are reasonable about what they are and are not winning will usually be rewarded with increased speaker points.I enjoy a high level of specificity and nuance broad sweeping claims will get you nowhere. I place importance on how pieces of evidence get debated, as opposed to simply constructing debates based on the pieces of evidence that have been introduced. While I also place a premium on quality evidence (which, I would like to be able to hear during your speech), I believe that a smart analytic argument has the potential to gain equal traction to a solid piece of evidence. Quality always trumps quantity.

I find cross ex to be the most important part of debate its one of the few times I feel I get to connect with the individual debaters, while I don't flow it I pay very close attention to it, and what happens here will inform how I see large portions of the round.

Theory:
Theory needs to be well executed. Debates in which theory blocks do the arguing almost always favor the neg.

I don’t like cheap shots.(This does not mean I won't vote on them, I'll just be cranky about it) I like arguments to be well developed. Most cheap shots are not reasons to reject the team and significant time would need to be spent in order to convince me otherwise. However, it is your burden to point out how irrelevant many theory arguments that are advanced in debates are, as a concession may force my hand.

Nearly all theory questions I end up siding in favor of the negative, I think conditionality is fine, any potentially abusive CP is checked by quality of evidence. 50 States Fiat is one arg where an affirmative could convince me this is a reason to reject the team it is likely to still be an uphill battle.

Judge Kick: I think this deserves its own section, when the 2nr goes for a CP I believe the debate is solely a question of plan versus the CP. While a 2nr can instruct me to to kick the cp for them if the 2r wins offense against the counterplan an affirmative can respond that I shouldn't kick the counterplan for the negative and I am likely to side with the affirmative. If the 2nr contains a counterplan I have a very strong predisposition that if the affirmative wins substantive solvency deficits to the counterplan or other offense against it that outweighs the net benefit than I should be voting aff. And that I then shouldn't decide to then evaluate the status quo (i..e the net-benefit) vs. the plan.


T:
Separate from the framework section, I really enjoy evidentiary T debates that aren't clash of civ debates. I find these are some of the most nuanced debates about what the resolution means which is always compelling to me. I evaluate topicality like a DA offense v defense. For affirmatives here do not place all your eggs in the basket of reasonability, I think only reasonability is only a question of the interpretation and not the aff or plan itself. Any other interpretation of reasonability I don't think constitutes an actual argument.

FW

First contrary to popular belief I do not hack for framework, however this year I have noticed myself voting for framework more often than I don't vote for framework. For me there are a few ways the framework debates break down in terms of impact, primarily between procedural and education based impacts. By procedural I mean those impact arguments that result from things such as limits, or grounds internal links to impacts like clash, fairness, debatability. The second form of framework are those arguments about decision making skills, topic education, deliberative democracy.

If you are negative reading framework I cannot stress how much I would rather see the version of framework that couches its arguments in terms of the procedural side, ie. limits , ground, etc. I believe this is the most strategic form of the argument. I believe debate is a game and impacts that make the game unable to be played by one side or the other constitute a reason to vote negative. Explanations of the impact that have been compelling to me is that I strongly believe there should be a negative path to victory, a negative that couches their impacts like this will have greatly increased my likelihood to vote for framework. For affirmatives debating this style of framework if you win a counter interpretation that provides a limit on the topic and can explain why that limit on the topic mitigates some portion of the negative offense regards to limits or debateability, then that is the best route for getting me to vote affirmative. I will also say YOU NEED OFFENSE, playing the middle ground will not get my ballot I need impact turns big disads to their interpretation of the topic with well explained impacts. If affirmative I do not need 5-10 barely explained disads to FWI need 1-4 well explained and warranted DA's to the negative interpretation.

Conversely it is much harder to win my ballot exclusively going for arguments about topic education, decision making skills, or deliberative democracy. I believe any affirmative that is even close to knowing what they are doing will be able to easily impact turn these arguments. This isn't to say you shouldn't read these arguments at all they can be excellent external impacts to your interpretation, but instead you should use these arguments as a supplement to the more game-playing/ procedural versions of the argument.

For negatives who have framework as their go to strat THE CASE STILL MATTERS , the reason for this is the case determines the weight I give to affirmative impact turns / disadvantages to framework. If the affirmative solves 100% of their aff then I gave 100% of the weight of their impact turns to framework, conversely if the aff solves maybe 1% of their aff then the strength of the disadvantages or impact turns will be drastically reduced.

Topical version of the aff: You don't have to have one to win but it can help. They also don't have to solve the entire aff instead they are a test to show that the content of the aff is not precluded by the resolutional prompt. For affirmatives the topical version of the aff doesn't solve our aff not very persuasive to me. However, an argument that the topical version of the aff is not in fact topical under the negative's interpretation of the topic is persuasive. Similarly an argument that the topical version of the aff in fact does not allow for the content of the aff to exist. Form based arguments from affirmatives are also compelling to me in response to topical versions of the aff, how the content may exist but the form of it would not be, can be an extremely persuasive argument against both the topical version, as well as also acting as offense against the negatives interpretation.

Beyond counter interpretations it can be incredibly helpful for an affirmative to have a counter model of what debate looks like, which can act as a filter for a variety of the negatives arguments as well as acting as a type of uniqueness for your own impact turns to a negatives interpretation of the topic.

Something I've told to a few debaters this year may help further contextualize what I've said here -- "If both affirmative and neg execute absolutely perfectly I probably lean slightly negative" -- however it should be noted that I have never seen this perfect execution take place.

The K:
I will do my best to limit my predispositions from giving explanation or advancing arguments for the other team. Specificity and spin are important for both sides of the debate. I don’t like generic explanations of meta theory with no tie to the affirmative. Similarly, I don’t like generic responses to critical theory outside of the context of the aff. Generic evidence does not force generic explanation.

Disability k's -- Due to how I spent my last two years in debate , this is obviously a body of literature that I am extremely familiar with however if you are not familiar with it trying to pick it up just because I am in the back of the room is a terrible decision, and one you will almost certainly regret. Secondarily I thought I should include my thoughts on the various ableist language arguments. Essentially most of the time I believe these arguments in and of themselves don't constitute a great argument unless its an especially violent piece of language this doesn't mean what you say doesn't matter what it does mean is that the negative needs to explain to me why the language warrants a negative ballot and not just punitive measures like maybe lower speaker points or not evaluating certain pieces of evidence. I'm happy to explain this further if there are questions.

Recent years I have found I have a tendency to enjoy arguments described as "high-theory" IF THEY ARE EXECUTED WELL. I have coached teams to read all variety or arguments from the cap k to baudrillard, so if the death K is your jam then you should go for it. A lot of my current academic work revolves around disability and psychoanalysis so take that as you will.

If you ask anyone at Baylor they will tell you (and are correct) in that I really enjoy hearing arguments about psychoanalysis I find this to be an incredibly interesting area of argumentation and always enjoy when the affirmative or negative has to do with these questions of psychoanalysis.

CPs/Das:
I love a good, well-researched, specific strategy. The more generic your strategy becomes, the greater the chance of me assigning an extremely low risk to these arguments. Sometimes there is simply no link. Absolute defense does exist.

The last thing I will say is that debates that I have fun in will be rewarded by higher speaker points. I have fun when I see well thought out and deployed strategy.. Make me laugh and you will be rewarded. Be nice.

Also, I adore good puns (well maybe bad ones even more) make some clever puns in your speeches and you will be rewarded with speaker points.

Change in 2014

excessive / intentional use of racial slurs, jokes in bad tase, misgendering, ableist slurs will result in much lower speaker points. Note: an ableist slur is the R word , or derogatorily referring to someone as a cripple. It is not saying the word stand in your plan text/advocacy statement.

Matt Stannard

stannard67@gmail.com

Me: he/him, I participated in policy debate for West Jordan High School and Weber State University, I have coached multiple formats at Eastern Utah, Long Beach, Wyoming and Lewis & Clark, and have directed and/or taught at a vast multitude of institutes.

Delivery: I will, shockingly enough, miss your unclear analytics. Speak clearly no matter your rate of delivery. Over-enunciate. Don't leave comprehension to chance; control what I write down.

The (very important) game: all styles and formats of debate are good, policy/critical/procedural all valuable, I am not the state, topics and topic research are good, I vote for all kinds of arguments even when I intellectually disagree with them, debate should be both very accessible and very challenging.

Important needs and assumptions: besides clarity, I have these predispositions: (1) conditionality is fine until the 2NR; you need to explicitly tell me what advocacy you are kicking. (2) I seem to have a greater need than other judges for good solvency cards for affs, counterplans, and K alternatives. Many K alts I hear feel vague to me at the outset. Love voting for movements and don't think fiat is confined to the state, but the threshold is specific advocacy with solvency cards. (3) political and social implications of T and other procedural/framework interps can be reasons to prefer/reject them, weighable against other reasons. They aren't "genocide" per se, but they aren't ideologically neutral; debate it out. (4) aff should provide a clear statement of advocacy, neg should provide a clear reason to reject the aff.

Tech: I judge online a lot, please use the best mic tech you have and don't project your vocals directly into an internal laptop mic. Prep time ends when you say so and then IMMEDIATELY hit send, and in all debate tech scenarios if anything goes wrong don't panic, we'll be fine and figure out what to do.

Ethics: be chill to each other outside of your speeches (in your speeches you should feel free to be ruthless if that's your thing), don't cheat, let's all commit to dismantling classism, racism, sexism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, ageism and ableism, and to listen to those affected by exclusion--not just as debaters making arguments but as responsible and accountable human beings making our world. It's okay that debate is weird and different. Please make it a safe place for everyone.

**I have judged this NFA topic once (1). Please go slow and explain. If youre fast on tags, or fast on theory, it is entirely your fault if you drop because there was an argument I didn’t hear or understand.

They/Them

Competitive Debate Participation: Millard North 2014-2017 (PF), University Nebraska-Lincoln 2017-2021 (NFA-LD, 1 v. 1 policy)

Coaching: Assistant Debate Coach, Lincoln High School 2017-2018. Assistant Debate Coach, Marian High School 2018-2021; 2023-Present

Email: addissonLstugart@gmail.com

TBH you can probably avoid the rest if you're familiar with Nadia Steck's or Justin Kirks paradigms.

TL/DR:

Content warnings: If you are running something sensitive, you need to have a trigger warning. This means things such as suicide, human trafficking, domestic violence, etc. NEED to have a disclaimer before you say them. Furthermore, you NEED to have a back-up plan if reading it puts the safety of someone in the room in jeopardy. And, for both of our sakes, please don't use something sensitive solely as a means to win a round. Commodification of trauma isn't something that I will listen to.

I will vote on content warning procedurals.

Tech > Truth (what does that mean?)

I will always disclose first and will always give a detailed rfd. Not doing so is bad for education

Speed is a wonderful thing in all events unless it's used as an exclusionary tactic. If either opponent doesn't want speed, neither do I.

You can probably tell if I’m buying an argument based on my facial expressions.

Judge intervention will only ever happen if the safety (physical/mental) of a student in the round is at jeopardy.

Presume/default neg in all circumstances UNLESS the alt/cp does more than the aff. Then presumption flips aff.

Flex prep is a-okay in all events.

Evidence

I will call for evidence after round in 3 circumstances:

1. I have read the evidence beforehand in some context and believe that how you are construing it is wrong and unethical

2. The opposing team has asked me to

3. The round is decided on this evidence

Speaks:

Should be primarily based off of skill of debate, not eloquence of speaking.

While I believe speaks are arbitrary, I will generally determine speaks through this loose model:

28-29: You debated incredibly well. Strategic choices were made, and I have very little feedback for improvements.

27.5-28: Most frequently awarded speaks from me, baseline for my evaluation.

27: Arguments were poorly explained and require much more development throughout the round.

If you owe someone an apology at the end of the round, I may drop your speaks down to <26.

For public forum debate:

Observations: I will listen to anything. I LOVE strategic observations. I LOVE observations that narrow the topic based on grammar/interpretations of the resolution.

On the flow: Don't drop turns. Extend terminal offense. Ghost extensions of terminal defense from rebuttal--> final focus are the only extensions I allow to not be in summary. Other than that, if you want it weighed in final focus, have it in summary.

Rebuttal: It is preferred, but not required, for the second rebuttal to cover both sides. I used to card dump in my rebuttals, so I understand how it can get you ahead on the flow, though. I'm not strategically against it, but pedagogically I am.

Summaries: This is the MOST important speech in the round. This should set up the framing for the final focus, and should have all of the offense you want to go for in it. All previous opposing offense needs to be addressed in this speech (for example, if team a drops team b's turns in summary, strategic strat is for team b to sit on them in final focus. It's too late for team a to come back on that part of the flow.)

Final focus: The same framing should be given as was given in summary. But overviews or underviews are the best. I flow summaries and final focuses in columns next to each other. The final focus' main job is impact analysis. Explain to me why your impacts o/w because, as an owner of four dogs, if left to my own fruition, I could vote for 10 dog lives over nuclear war.

For Lincoln Douglas/CX Debate:

Inherency: I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY VALID ARGUMENT TO GO FOR. Ya got me, I am a stock issues judge

"status quo acts as a delay counterplan" = *chefs kiss*

Value/criterion: I will typically default util~ especially in muddied v/c debates.

PLEASE, for the love of all that is good and holy, COLLAPSE V/C DEBATES IF IT DOESN'T MATTER (if I have to see another util vs consequentialism debate ???? I might SCREAM)

Also, please explain how the substance of the ac or nc actually relates to your v/c, or better yet, how it could *also* relate to your opponents.

Theory: After being in the activity for a while I have come to the conclusion that proven abuse is a silly metric to win theory debate. I do not believe that in order to win theory you should have to skew yourself out of your own time.

I am unlikely to vote for RVI's on theory in regards to things like "the theory is just a time suck".

I find “Drop the argument, not the team” to be fairly persuasive for general theory arguments (excluding t).

I probably won't vote for condo bad when there's one conditional advocacy.

Topicality: (I will never vote on "they have to prove abuse") I default competing interpretations on t but will listen to reasonability arguments. I believe effects t/extra t can be independent voters with independent standards. I think a dropped violation will *almost* always win a t debate. But because t is try or die, consider the following:

1. If you win the "we meet", reasonability explanations are easier.

2. T is something the neg has to win, not that the aff has to prove opposite. What does that mean? I am not doing the work for the neg to find the aff untopical. Extend and EXPLAIN your standards. (utilize clash, don't just rely on blocks) Tell me why the neg's definition is better than the aff's. Tell me why things like competitive reciprocity is key to eduaction, etc. I know all of these things but will judge *only* based on your explanations.

3. T is just like any other debate. The interp is the claim. The violation is the warrant, the standards are the internal link to>>> the voters being the impacts. So, just like any other debate, I expect you to win on all parts of the flow *especially because topicality is try or die for the aff*.

5. HOWEVER, I will always prioritize being tech over truth. That means that *even if* I don't agree with one's sides strats, or find that they are bad at performing the t strat (or responding) if the opposite side drops something of importance (a violation, concedes a voter, or even a standard that is sat on as the key internal link) I am probably voting there. Concessions are the easiest way for me to pick a winner on T debates.

Tricks: Take like 15 seconds to crystallize it after you do it to make sure I got it, and if you don't do this, don't be mad at me if I don't catch on.

Kritiks: I am open to all kritiks, but I am not familiar with all of the literature. Don't expect me to know the argument off the top of my head, but expect me to flow it and (hopefully) understand it the way that you communicate it to me. Debate is inherently a communication activity, and k debaters can lose sight of this. If it helps you to understand my experience with k's better, when I compete, I always go for framework.

I say K aff's have a higher burden of proof for solvency/explanations than standard policy affs.

Disclosure: Well first off, everyone should disclose. Debate is for education, not just the wins. IDK how I feel about voting on this theory. I have, but I don't like it.

Da's: disads with specific links are probably for the best. I am all about the net bens to counterplans. I am open to any type of argument here.

Counterplans: "Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans." -Dr. Justin Kirk; the man, the myth, the legend.

Background: Masters student at University Nebraska Lincoln studying Communication Rhetoric with an emphasis on critical theory and film. Former 2021 NFA-LD National Champion, 2019 Missouri State Policy Champion, 2018 NCFL LD Quarterfinalist.

While I will likely vote for almost anything if you have the proper framework to justify it. I am a former critical anti-blackness debater. I believe debate is more than a game and my experience in the activity has obviously informed my love for critical debate. Critical education is a cornerstone of this activity that I love to explore. However, you can read just about anything in front of me but you should know my strengths and weakness as a judge. Don't think reading critical stuff is a auto-win, far from it, I'll hold you to a somewhat higher standard because I know what good K debate looks like and I understand it.

I'm not super well versed in the intricacies of policy argumentation despite my 10 years in this activity. I just ask you to meet me where I'm at. I love a good policy debate whenever the story of the AC is CLEAR and EXTENDED throughout the entirety of the debate. Your AR's shouldn't just be extension and tech, I need overviews and clear articulations of what the AFF does, what it solves and why it matters. Run your heg/econ/war policy AFF, just do it well. If you do run policy, do it well. However, I draw the line at any death/extinction good arguments. It's weird and privileged asf. If you think your opp can be construed as accelerationist or fascist, call it out as so and you will likely win. I'm tired of hearing "all humans need to die". I won't auto-down vote but if your opp impacts out your genocidal rhetoric, you're cooked tbh.

Policy NC's: In order, I prefer K's, Case Turns, DA's, CP's, Topicality, and Theory. I expect the AFF to cover all negative positions unless AR theory says otherwise. I will vote for topicality on policy AFF's but it will be an uphill battle reading framework against a non-T critical AFF. If it feels exclusionary, and the aff wins that it is, good luck.

Test your critical sauce in front of me, I will vote for K's/Critical AFF's them or give in depth feedback on how to improve them. I have a moderate/deep knowledge of most identity/class based critical literature and surface level understanding of po-mo crit lit. Run your critical/non-T AFF if you can win the topicality/methods debate, run the K if you know the actual links to the AFF. Rebuttal articulation is EVERYTHING.

If you're reading a non-T critical AFF, I would like your evidence to be rooted in the topic through the lens of your critical theory . I will be more sympathetic to well-crafted (rare) framework against non-T AFF's that are filled with backfile cards that have been read ad-nauseam in nearly all debate communities since 2000-2010 or even worse, cards that aren't even about the topic or identity. I'm not asking for you to role play the state, that's whack asf, i'm just asking you to innovate. I don't wanna hear the same afropess, be gay do crime and cap K cards that have been circulating in the community for decades. I want you to apply contemporary critical theory to the specific resolution at hand, you don't have to affirm the resolution but please, have to 1/3 or 1/2 or 2/3 of your AFF cards use same language used in the topic. There are scholars of all identities writing about Nuclear War, find them and amplify their voice. Framework is always an uphill battle in front of me but it's much easier when the AFF is not engaging with critical lit rooted in the topic.

K's: You need to clearly articulate why and how the AFF specifically links, and clearly isolate these links in the rebuttals. Explain why the perm isn't possible. Do not read afropess if you're not black. If you read links of omission, you better hope your opponent does not have a good response to why links of omission aren't real because I find those arguments persuasive. Links should be predicated off AFF action, language, impacts, politics, advantages etc.

Theory: Sure, I guess. I don't know much about condo/dispo/presumption, etc., so just try to explain them a little more than you'd usually have to for judges like me. I am less hesitant to vote for theory if it comes from an affluent or white team running frivolous theory interps against marginalized debaters/small schools. I encourage smaller teams to run disclosure theory against their opponents. If you're in policy, I may not be familiar with certain theory arguments.

Speed: I'm comfortable with speed if you go slow on tags and share docs. I flow on my laptop for most debates. Since I flow on my laptop, flash all docs and if you can, analytics too. Extra speaks for flashing analytics.

How to Get My Ballot: Win thesis-level claims and tell me where to vote and why. Exploit concessions (with warrants).

Feel free to email me at andre.j.swai@gmail.com for additional thoughts after the round and questions about college debate.

I have judged debate events off and on for 35+ years.

For my first 15 years, I primarily judged high school Policy Debate and only occasionally high school Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

More recently, I have judged rounds of COLLEGE IPDA Debate (most), Lincoln-Douglas Debate, and NPDA Debate (least) andHIGH SCHOOL Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, and SPAR/Extemp Debate.

Although my initial experience was in high school Policy Debate, I do not like high speed. If I am leaning forward to catch everything you are saying or you are gasping for air between utterances, you are talking too fast. If that is the case or you're overwhelming my ability to process information, I will say SPEED. By the same token, if you're speaking is not clear, I will say CLEAR. Please adjust accordingly if I say SPEED or CLEAR.

Ultimately, I judge holistically - the better debater or debate team wins the round. This almost always is the debater or debate team that carried the debate on my flow. In that very rare case when it is not, it is because I consider effective communication in deciding which debater or debate team won (and in assigning speaker points).

In a policy debate, I look to stock issues; in value debate, I look to which side best upholds the value(s) presented; in a fact debate, I ordinarily look to which side persuaded me by a preponderance of the evidence or similar standard offered by the debaters.

I do try to come in with an open mind. As a result, I will listen to and potentially "vote" any issue you raise. But I prefer for debaters on both sides to address the topic and clash thoughtfully with the other side's arguments.

If you run a kritik or counterplan, I expect you to explain it clearly (especially the kritik) and establish a clear link to the topic/case you're debating. I'm not an expert on every critical lens that challenges status quo thinking.

I dislike spreading. Identify major weaknesses in your opponents' arguments and flesh them out for me. Presenting a lot of one-sentence arguments in the hope your opponent can't respond to all of them will not help you win my ballot.

I judge on what I hear. I expect debaters to both make arguments and use evidence (even in IPDA/extemp debate - even though I understand there will be less evidence there). I also expect debaters to summarize why they won; don't spend so much time refuting arguments that you leave no time to tell me clearly why you won.

Please do not read arguments that can be interpreted as glorifying suicide. This is a specific vein of death good that I do not want to hear. If you have questions, please ask before round.

I EXPECT YOU TO USE SOME WAY TO FILE SHARE FOR ALL DEBATES!!! THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE CARDS YOU READ IS SILLY AND MAKES FOR BAD DEBATES. FAILURE TO SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE WITH YOUR OPPONENT AND MYSELF WILL RESULT IN A MAX OF 25 SPEAKER POINTS AND A LOSS IN ELIMS.

Disclosure updates in things i vote on section

I prefer for us to use speechdrop.net for file sharing but if we have to use one, add me to the email chain: dieseldebate@gmail.com

"debate is bigger than any one person. I believe in debate. I believe in the debate community. I believe that debate is one of the most valuable educational programs in the country and I am proud that it is my home."- Scott Harris

Are you a high schooler interested in debating in college??? If so, you should contact me and ask about it. We have scholarships for dedicated debaters who want to invest in our program and would love to welcome you to our team!

_______________________

Experience:

Competing

2012-2016: Policy Debate at Lee's Summit West High School, 2x national qualifier [Transportation infrastructure, Cuba Mexico Venezuela, Oceans, Surveillance]

2016-2020: NFA-LD at University of Nebraska-Lincoln [SOUTHCOMM, Policing, Cybersecurity, Energy]

2020 NFA-LD debater of distinction

Coaching

2018-2019: Justice Debate league Volunteer

2020: Lincoln Douglas Lab leader for the Nebraska Debate Institute

2020-2022: Assistant NFA-LD Coach for Illinois State University

2019-2023: Head LD coach for Lincoln Southwest High School

2022: Lab leader for the Collegiate Midwest Lincoln Douglas Cooperative

2022: Varsity LD and progressive argumentation lab leader for the Nebraska Debate Conference

2022-present: Assistant Director of Debate for the University of Nebraska- Lincoln (NFA-LD, some NDT-CEDA)

individuals who shaped my perspectives on debate: Justin Kirk, Adam Blood, Nadya Steck, Dustin Greenwalt

_______________

SPEAKS

0-20: Your coach needs to have words with you about how belligerent/ racist/ homophobic/ rude you are to other members of the community. I have no tolerance for these kinds of things and you shouldn't either. Debate is dying and we are a community. Being aggressive and being rude are separate things. Be kind to one another.

25-26: You failed to do anything correct in the round

26-27: you do minimal correctly. You have not come to grasp with what debate is and how arguments function together.

27-28: You get a c-b on this debate. some important dropped args or framing questions are not challenged

28-29: You handled this round well. There were minute problems that can be resolved easily that can bump you up.

29-29.5: You are a solid debater and have done exactly what I would do (or slightly better) to answer different arguments. Typically this range is also associated with you winning against a very good opponent, or very easily.

30: I have no corrections. You have had a perfect round and all of your arguments are on point and delivered properly. You have made some kind of strategic decision that I did not think about that I find genius.

______________

WILL VOTE ON

Disclosure theory - if you read disclosure on either side and do not have open sources available for both sides on your wiki, I will massively doc your speaks. This argument exists to create better standards for debate. Failure to do so will result in dreadful speaks and a very easy out for your opponent to just say that you did not meet the burdens expressed in your argument.

theory out of 1AC

Speed theory (if justified, see speed section)

Framework v. K affs

Framework turns v. other positions (Ks, DAs, Case args)

CPs in HS LD

CP theory

Ks in HS LD (See K section in policy for specifics)

Speaking for others arguments (There are ways to not make this problematic. However, identity is very individualized and commodification of someone else's identity for your own gain is a problem for me. For instance, do not be a white male debater reading the narrative of a black woman.)

______________

NFA-LD/ Policy

SPEED: I can do speed. I do have some conditions though. READ T SHELLS SLOWLY!!!! I need to hear the definitions, standards and voters. Bottom line is if it isn't on my flow I can't vote for it. Speed SHOULD NOT be used as a weapon especially if there is a specific debater in the round that has a disability that hinders them from spreading or flowing quick speech. Be respectful of individuals and their experiences.

TOPICALITY/THEORY: needing proven abuse is wrong. Affs that say dont vote on potential abuse are wrong and should read counterinterps that apply to their affs. If the neg interp is bad then warrant that out in the standards debate. I do say if you want to win T you need to go all in in the NR and win the full shell. When it comes to theory I love it. I tend to flow it on a different sheet so tell me when I need to pull one out. That being said I don't see theory as a means of winning the ballot. It is just a means of getting me to not evaluate an argument. This can be changed though. I have done a lot of weighing condo bad v. T. Theory v. theory is always a fun time. Warrant out why some shells are weighed first in the round and explain to me how different shells interact with each other. T is never a reverse voter though and neither is theory. Predictability is not determined by whether or not something is on the wiki or if you have seen it before. Predictability is based on whether or not an interpretation is predictable given the resolution. The same goes for reasonability. Negs who read T should be able to provide a TVA or establish that the education we get from judging the 1AC is bad for the topic.

DISADS: Run them. This is one of my favorite arguments to see and evaluate. I think it is the best way to establish comparative offense. However, if you run generic links that's no bueno for me. generic links from the Neg means generic responses from the Aff are acceptable. I don't want a generic debate y'all. give me some links that pertain to the case at hand.

CPs: They exist. I never really ran them but I do know how they work and I will evaluate them. Also prove it competitive. (Hint: I like Disads. that can help.) I will vote for the perm on presumption if you don’t prove them to be competitive as long as there’s a perm on the CP.

KRITIKS: I like the k debate and will vote for them but explain the literature. I have read some of the authors including Deleuze and Guattari, Puar, D’andrea, Ahmed, Wilderson, Tuck and Yang, and most of the authors that relate to neoliberal subjectivity as it applies to consumption. I have also seen antiblackness and afropessimism rounds that I have enjoyed a lot. But that does not mean I am entirely up to date on the newest literature or how your lit plays into the round. Just explain it to me. NEVER RUN MULTIPLE IN ONE ROUND!!!! The Alt debate turns ugly and I don't want to deal with that. Affs should either have a plan text or an advocacy statement as to what they do. I don't like performance debate as much as just reading the cards, however I have voted for poetry performance in rounds. I will listen to identity args. Race, disabilty, and queer lit are all acceptable in front of me and I can/ will evaluate them. Neg should be able to defend alt solvency. I am not going to automatically grant that. I will not kick the alt for you. saying "if you do not buy the alt kick it for me" is not an argument. If you do not explicitly say "kick the alt" or something of that nature I will evaluate the alternative. If it does not solve then I will be persuaded by risk of aff offense. I also want to point out that P.I.L. was correct, Anger is an Energy. If structures upset you, feel free to rage against them. This can include the debate, economic, racial, gendered, and other spaces. If you are oppressed and you are angry about it, I will not limit your ability to angrily refute the system.

K's that I am v familiar with: SetCol, Cap, Afropess, fem, ableism, militarism, Biopower/ Necropower, Islamophobia

k's that I know a bit less: queer theory, Baudrillard

CASE: I am always here for the growth, heg, and democracy bad debates as well as the prolif good ones. My strategy typically was to go T, K, O so I enjoy hearing why heg is bad and how the alt avoids it and how the aff isnt topical.

PRESUMPTION: I will not vote for terminal defense on the flow. I need an offensive reason to vote for you. Whether that be a disad, K, or advantage I need something to evaluate to give me a reason to reject the other team. Find it, win it, and extend it. Also, do the calculus for me of what impacts matter and why they matter. When I do the calculus I look to magnitude, timeframe, and probability. Explain why you fit into those please.

CONDO: I find it disingenuous to read more than one condo advocacy in one round in NFA. You can do it if you win the theory debate but I will be more lenient to theory in a world of multiple conditional advocacies. If you are running multiple advocacies please make it only be CPs. I don't want to see a CP and K in a round because almost always the CP will link to the K and I think that's cheating. That is different for policy and I consider it much more debatable then.

PLANLESS AFFS: I believe the aff should do something. How that happens is up to the aff. I do not reject planless affs on face but they should at least have an advocacy. otherwise, I am persuaded by vote neg on presumption because the aff functionally does nothing. arguments about the importance of rhetorical challenges is a way to do this.

_________

HS-LD

For any arguments that relate to it see above. In terms of how I evaluate LD rounds I rely heavily on the framework debate to determine how I will evaluate the round. Pay it it's due and try to win it. However, if you are able to show how your arguments fall into your opponents’ framework then I will be willing to vote for you if they win the framework shell. Also please clash with each other. I have seen too many rounds where each speech is just explaining 1ACs and 1NCs and I don't have a specific reason to vote against one or the other. At that point my personal morals let me decide how I feel about the topic. You don't want that. I don't want that.

I think a lot of LD debaters fail to recognize the importance of uniqueness to their arguments. If the squo is in the direction of the arg you are talking about, you need to prove uniqueness for whatever point you are making.

I tend to default to the idea that Fiat does not exist in HSLD until I am told otherwise. This is an easy arg to make especially with a res that uses the word "ought".

I am more progressive when it comes to LD due to my policy background. This means PICs, Ks, CPs and DAs are all acceptable. weigh them and explain the args as they apply to the aff case.

Phil cases and I do not get along very well. It confuses me and I find that debaters are not the best at explaining philosophy in the limited amount of time we have in debate rounds.

I prefer single standard debate as well. Death is bad and morality is good (but subjective) I dont need a specific mechanism for how we prevent or entrench one or the other. if you read it thats fine but I probably won't look at it that much unless you thoroughly explain it to me.

how to pref me

policy style args (CP, K, DA)-1

Theory-1

phil-3

tricks-these are typically not arguments and hold minimal weight for me

______________________________

PF

If you have me in the back of the room for NSDA most likely it will be for public forum. That being said, I am not extremely experienced when it comes to public forum debate. I have coached and debated it in an extremely limited capacity but have substantial experience in other formats. The debate is yours but I have a few things that ought to be known before you walk into the room and start doing your thing.

1. Debate is a game of comparative warrants and impacts. Too many people in PF try to rely on just making claims without substantiating those claims with proper warrants. Just giving me a number is insufficient to prove the causality of an argument. I need to understand what the reasoning is behind WHY a number exists.
2. Uniqueness MATTERS! I have seen too many debaters (in all activities) fail to explain the uniqueness of their claims and arguments. The resolution provides an overarching truth claim that provides some direction as to how the world reorients itself post implementation. What does each world look like and how is it a shift to the status quo?
3. Evidence is incredibly important to me. If you choose to paraphrase, it will negatively impact your speaker points. I emphasize the use of actual properly cut cards in PF. I understand this is not a common practice so if I ask for evidence that you have read, you need to be able to provide the source and the lines where your arguments came from. Failure to do this will result in me not evaluating an argument, filing an ethics complaint, and tanking your speaks. Don't plagiarize or lie to me in a debate.
4. Speaker position does not influence me too much. I keep a rigorous flow that consists of all of the arguments made by both teams. You should pref the side you want before picking the order in front of me.
5. PLEASE provide an actual impact in debates. most PF rounds I have judged do not express an actual impact story and get stuck at internal links. you need a reason that your contentions are a problem
6. Finally, for any of it that applies above, please consult my LD and policy sections of my paradigm to see if any arguments should or should not be read at this tournament. Also, ask any questions that you may have before the round. I enjoy talking to people and hope to enjoy the debate you present me with.

__________________

At the end of the day it is my job to sit in the back of the room and listen to discourse on the issues presented. It is your job to determine how that discourse happens. Just because I say I do or do not like something should not change your strategy based on the round. I have voted for things I never thought I would and have changed my opinions about things a lot. I give higher speaks to anyone who can read my paradigm and change my opinion or do something that is incredibly intelligent in round. Do what you are comfortable with and I will adjudicate it based on what is in front of me.

Other than this PLEASE feel free to ask me. I only bite on tuesdays. Pref me a 1 and I'll be able to give you an experienced and fairly well rounded and open round.

Background: Debated NFA-LD for 4 years at Central Michigan University. Currently a graduate student at Clemson University.

Contact Info: TylerNicholas008@gmail.com // Please feel free to email me with any questions or additional thoughts/comments/clarifications following your round, or regarding any conversations you'd like to have about my paradigm or debate, in general.

TLDR: Do your thing, and have fun with it.Just as much as judge adaptation is a skill for competitors, I think judges should also adapt to the debaters. Run what you want to the best of your ability, and I'll do my best to evaluate the debate that you, as the debaters, choose to have. I will vote on anything if the justification for doing so is well-warranted/articulated and sufficiently argued (though, my threshold for some things is higher/lower than others). I should be fine with your speed if you want to go fast, but please go slow on tags and analytics if you want to make sure I get everything. I like cohesive neg. strategies that gel well together (i.e. that are not contradictory/conflicting). Make choices in the rebuttals, and collapse cleanly. Going for everything is usually not the wave. Tell me where/how I should vote and why. Be kind to your opponent.

Overview:

I came into debate as a true novice, which I feel has a few implications for how I view debate: (1) It means that, probably compared to other people in the community, I have very few deeply ingrained notions about what debate "should" look like, based on its past/evolution, and (2) it means that, in many ways, I'm still learning debate and may not be as up on some debate-specific things as other judges (particularly lingo/norms that are transplanted from other forms of debate, like HS policy).

LD Rules:

Because debate, in my experience, is such a heavily norms-based activity, I'll probably feel uncomfortable voting against something *just* because it's a rules violation, particularly in cases where the community norm/consensus is significantly skewed from the rules (such as "full cites"). However, that doesn't mean I won't vote on these kinds of arguments or that I don't think "rules" can operate as their own voter (such as with T). But, in most cases, if you want me to vote on anything rules-based, you'll probably need to tell me it's a rule AND why that matters (i.e. what are the implications of the rule for debate and why is debate better if we follow this rule). It should also go without saying that I won't vote on a rule if you, yourself, also break that rule. On the flip side, I'm open to "rules bad" arguments too, but they need to be similarly well-warranted.

On speed, I'm fine with it as long as your opponents is also, but I think debate should be accessible. Speed should never be used as a tool of exclusion, and you should always prioritize clarity over speed. If your opponent says "speed" or "clears" you and you fail to adjust, it will probably reflect poorly in your speaker points. I saw someone once say something along the lines of "a debate in which two debaters are reading well-warranted arguments and citing well-qualified sources -- and spreading -- is the most educational activity in the world", and I agree with that sentiment. However, I do tend to think that speed is probably doing more harm than good for the growth of the activity as a whole, particularly in terms of recruitment and retention of novices. I also think debate, as a communication-oriented activity, benefits greatly from competitors speaking "conversationally" (though, this is obviously a somewhat arbitrary term) and persuasively. Take that as whatever you'd like; that's just my two-cents.

Stock Issues:

If you're reading a policy/resolutional advocacy, you should probably have them, and my threshold is probably lower to win these sorts of arguments than other rules-based arguments -- especially if the aff can't clearly articulate how they meet the stock issues paradigm.

On T/Top-level Theory:

In the interest of full transparency, adjudicating T debates is not my favorite. This should, by no means, prohibit you from running and or going for T if you think it's a viable strategy, but it will be much more compelling to me if you genuinely think and have a good argument for why your opponent isn't T. If you are going for T, a clean flow and choice-making will go a long way towards the ballot. Impact out standards/arguments and tell me why they mean you win the sheet. I'm probably one of the few judges you'll get that default reasonability, proven abuse, and truth>tech, but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate in a "competing interps" framework if you win that I should, or that there needs to be proven abuse for you to win the sheet.

Regarding other types of top-level theory, such as vagueness, if you think you have a legitimate argument, go for it. I think a lot of what I said for T goes for these arguments too. I'm not a huge fan of random, weird top-level theory that's clearly just about throwing off your opponent, but I will vote for it.

CPs/CP theory:

Personally, I think PICs are dope. As a debater, I ran a lot of PICs and think more debaters should, particularly when they're specific and contextual to the aff. With that being said, however, I will definitely vote for PICs bad if it is argued well. On CPs, I'm cool with condo, but the threshold for your opponent winning "condo bad" is significantly lower if you read multiple conditional counter-advocacies, *especially* if they conflict (which they probably do). I have a very low threshold for beating conflicting/contradictory arguments.

In answering CPs, I'm also not a big fan of blippy, one-line perms and am likely to treat 2AR extrapolations of them as new.

Rebuttal theory:

I honestly don't think I've seen this a lot in LD, but just to touch on it, if you have a valid reason to run it, go for it; however, if you want to win it, you probably have to go all in on it, given the LD speech order and time constraints. I probably have a high-threshold for voting on it, to be honest, unless the violation is obvious/egregious.

As a last note on all theory, I need a clearly articulated reason why I should reject the team and not just the argument.

Kritikal debate:

I love critical debates, especially those oriented around the resolution and debates about debate. I'm down with Ks and K affs, including language/rhetoric Ks. With Ks, give me clear, specific links and clearly explained alternatives, preferably with an in-round function, and tell my role as a judge -- how, why, and where to vote. With K affs, I'd prefer you have a defensible advocacy text, and if you're not defending the topic, I'd prefer your advocacy still have a clear connection to the topic or very clear reasons as to why we should reject the topic altogether.

The last thing I'll stress about Ks is that I think clarity about and understanding your position are extremely important -- both to critical theory, in general, and in-round accessibility and debate. I need to understand your position to vote on it.

Final thoughts/General Stuff:

I love debate. My favorite rounds to watch are ones where debaters are having fun, competing at a high level, and being kind to one another. Attack arguments, not your opponent. There is a threshold for rudeness, over which you risk losing the round and or get very low speaker points. Any overt racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of explicit discrimination/violence toward your opponent automatically loses you the round and gets reported to the tournament organizers and your coach. Additionally, if your arguments reference sensitive materials or topics, a trigger warning before you read them is highly encouraged.

[This paradigm is a living document and is still a work in progress. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to voice them before or after the round -- or through email.]

I've rewritten my paradigm now that I've graduated and I've shifted to primarily judging NFA LD. I am also a little bit of a hoarder so if you want to see my old paradigm, it's at the bottom of this one. I still believe most/all of those things about debate, I am just endeavoring to make it more concise and NFA specific going forward.

A Little about me:

I debated at University of Nebraska-Lincoln for 4 years (2019-2023). I won the NFA-LD grand prix and nationals my last year (imo largely because of judge/opponent adaptation) but that does not necessarily qualify me as a good/bad judge. I competed at 3 policy tournaments with UNL.

I also coached high school LD for three years at Lincoln North Star High School in Nebraska (2020-2023).

Before that I was a policy debater at Shawnee Mission West in Kansas (2016-2019).

My topic knowledge is probably a 4/10. I am now in law school which means I don't cut cards right now because I don't have time, but I am planning to judge NFA pretty regularly for UNL.

My senior year I primarily read affs that were either squarely topical with large impacts or affirmatives with non-USFG advocacy statements instead of plan texts. On the negative I went for T (60%) or the K (30%) in 90% of my rounds. This doesn't mean you have to debate that way, that's just where I am coming from.

I like speechdrop, but I don't care enough to make you use it. If we do an email chain use wallenburg.debate@gmail.com.

TLDR:

I flow, which comes before almost all my other preferences. I like fast (but accessible) debate. I think the time limits in NFA are broken which changes how I would like to evaluate certain arguments. I will vote for nearly anything that has warrants. If you read a plan text, it should be topical, if you don't read a plan text, I think your aff should be at least tangentially related to the topic. I like when negative debaters lay their cards on the table in the NC to prioritize explanation over shock value in the NR.

General Things:

Speed: Sure. Go probably 90% of full speed and slow down on analytics. I flow on paper because I don't type very fast. Clear and slow is better than fast and non-understandable. If your opponent asks you to slow down for accessibility reasons you should. If you ask for someone to slow down for accessibility reasons and then in another debate go really fast, I will not be very forgiving. Those who do this create a poor perception of all requests for slowing down which harms people who actually need to have conversational debates.

Style: Frame my ballot. Tell me which arguments matter the most, why they matter, and why you are winning them. Fewer arguments that are well explained are almost always better than trying to make as many bad arguments as possible. Don't be afraid to "kick" me if you're in front of a more traditional panel. I will still flow and vote off that flow, so if you can win both the technical and ethos debate it will be better for you.

NFA Specific Opinions: 2ARs need to do pick their two or three best arguments and then do line by line on the negative's answers to those arguments from the 1AR. NCs should be less afraid of reading only 1 or 2 off. NRs (generally) shouldn't read cards except to answer cards that the aff read in the 1AR. I think generally more than 1 Conditional advocacy breaks the game, but you should probably get to read that one advocacy conditionally. When the Negative goes for multiple off case arguments that aren't part of the same route to the ballot (i.e. DA + K or T instead of CP + DA), I think the aff gets a ton of leeway in answering them all. The 6-3 time tradeoff just necessitates it and neg debaters will find their time is better spent in the NR really explaining 1 route to the ballot instead of shadow extending it all. I am frustrated with NFA judges that have really ideological oppositions to certain arguments and styles, I think it is just as much my (our) job to adapt to you as it is your job to adapt to me (us) and as such I will endeavor to listen to all of your (non-bigoted) arguments with an open mind.

Disclosure Theory: I am at a crossroads with how I evaluate disclosure right now. We can talk about this more, and I'm open to opinions or suggestions. Generally, I think everybody should be disclosing arguments they have read before on the Wiki. I also tend to evaluate theory arguments very technically. In the spirit of transparency, however, here are a couple thoughts I'm still working through in these debates (and I think they deviate pretty substantially from what people assume about me, hence the relative length):

(1) I am more likely to vote for disclosure theory against someone who knows better. In practice, this means I give more credence to potential abuse arguments against debaters who have been doing this for awhile and/or respond to disclosure with a really big "disclosure bad" shell. On the flip side, I have found myself defaulting to proven abuse/functional application when disclosure is run against new debaters or those that are losing the "tech" simply because they have never had a deep theory debate before.

(2) Often, people think "Nick will vote on disclosure theory" and so they jettison what would otherwise be a clean cut win on a different position. This makes me sad. 100% I would rather vote on the DA/Aff/K/etc. and tell your opponent after the debate "also you should really disclose or answer theory better." It allows me to give better feedback and will likely help you in speaker points, which I think are both good things for you.

(3) I find it hard to establish a discernible difference between "full text on the wiki" "Tags on the wiki" and telling someone what the aff is 15 minutes before the round (a) when asked and (b) with the willingness to send them a copy if they want it. If you don't ask for disclosure so that you can read disclosure, I think you should evaluate whether you actually wanted a fair debate in the first place.

(4) The more you are reading blocks for disclosure theory in the NR/1AR, the less likely I will be to vote for you. I don't want to weigh a novice's reading of their Top 10 teammate's blocks if I can say with substantive certainty that they would not be able to explain the arguments absent those blocks. I know this is the practice with all arguments, but it just makes me feel especially weird with disclosure theory and Idk why (probably an offshoot of my opinion in point (1)).

Arguments:

Affs: Should have an advocacy and an impact. I think if you're going to claim to be Topical you should be topical. If you aren't trying to be topical I prefer you just impact turn T instead of going for defense (I never much cared for "the people are the USFG" arguments). Don't read cards you don't need in the 1AR, you don't have time.

Disadvantages: Sure, I think you should read your best link card in the NC. I (generally) don't think you get add on scenarios in the NR. Specific links are always better than non-specific links.

Counterplans: Yes. Explain how they solve the aff, how they avoid the net benefits, and why they are theoretically legitimate. Do what you can justify, but I tend to fall pretty in line with (policy) established convention as to whether a certain type of CP is cheating or not. I will say I do like PICs and I think that judges that auto reject PICs are actively inhibiting creative negative debaters and rewarding affirmatives for lazy plan writing.

Kritiks: I lived here for the longest in College. Stylistically I think the NC should read less cards and spend more time articulating the links on the case. Why wait until the NR to make link arguments when you can have two shots at explaining it to me to understand it? Framework arguments should be in the NC/1AR. I don't think the NR needs to go for the alt, but it does need to explain why it doesn't need the alt. I think affirmative debaters get too generic answering kritiks, and should make more specific analytical arguments instead of just asserting "perm double bind." 2ARs should collapse more on these - if you're winning the no link debate, go for the perm. If you're winning the impact turn debate, who cares about the perm?

Topicality: (Against the aff with a USFG plan text) I love a good T debate. I think that topicality informs how we write plans in the future which means competing interpretations and potential abuse are (generally) truer arguments. Define words in the resolution, put any TVAs/ExtraT/FXT/impact framing issues in the NC shell. The NR should go between overviewing/explaining disadvantages to the affirmatives interpretation and line by lining the 1AR responses. Here, again, the aff should pick their battle in the 2AR.

(Against the aff with a non-USFG advocacy) I think this is a viable strategy. You should do more establishment of impacts in the NC then you might against a topical aff. Think of this as more a disad to their method than a prior question, which means you should be making arguments on the case about why topicality harms the aff's ability to solve itself in the NC. You will be hard pressed to win this debate if you do not put some amount of argumentation on the aff. You can win fairness alone but I think it's better explained as an impact to clash/education. Affirmatives should read 2-3 good 1AR impact turns based in AC evidence and explain them in the 1AR instead of 10 blippy, generic arguments. The 2AR should pick the best one and explain it against every macro impact the NR extends.

**********OLD PARADIGM***********

Last Edited in April of 2023.

TLDR:

Do whatever you want. I typically default to offense/defense paradigm and I think judge adaptation should be a two-way street: yes you should probably do what your judges prefer because its strategic, but judges should also make every effort to understand and evaluate your arguments fairly. I am very frustrated by judges that give RFDs like "I don't evaluate this kind of argument" or "You were going too fast so I didn't even try to flow you." I prefer affs are at least based in literature about the resolution. I started with more exposure to Policy style arguments but have since become somewhat of a "K hack." I love impact turns, T debates, tricky DA's, and well thought out Critical debates, not necessarily in that order.

Style Preferences:

Speed - Yes I can handle speed, but please don't go full out. I can flow pretty well, but going too fast will likely hurt you more than it will help you. I would say the 1AC/1NC should be like 90% of top speed, and warrants/rebuttals should be 75%, I'm not a very fast typist so I will likely flow on paper.

Frame my Ballot - Please. The 2NR/2AR should almost always start out with an overview of "You vote Aff/Neg Because..." if you fall into the nasty habit of just going straight into line by line without telling me where to look first in the debate, but your opponent gives a clear, concise overview of how I should evaluate the round and which arguments matter the most, you may not like my decision.

Round Vision - Keep an eye out for technical mistakes and cross flow applications. My partner and I came back from a lot of debates that we were very clearly losing by correctly analyzing bad 2NR kick outs or 1AR mistakes. Making strategic concessions and cross applications will be rewarded.

Adapt - If you're debating in front of a panel don't be afraid to kick me and cater to the other judges interests. I get it, no hard feelings. I will still make my decision based on a technical analysis of the flow unless explicitly instructed otherwise.

Argumentative Things:

Affs - I would prefer that Affirmatives are in the direction of the resolution, and have a stable advocacy, otherwise I will likely find a parametrics argument pretty persuasive. I have read planless affirmatives and I think they have lots of merit, but where teams go wrong is shadow extending aff cards but not explaining their method or solvency mechanism. What does the advocacy do? How do you resolve violence? Do you need to resolve violence? I think these are questions that need to be answered early in the debate. That being said, I think impact turns to FW should use the aff. I am not a big fan of copy and pasting your generic K aff blocks to every aff you read when your evidence justifies much more nuanced answers to framework. As for Affs with Plan Texts, I'm down for whatever. My senior year Alex and I mostly read soft left affs with a framing page, but we also occasionally went for a big stick economy aff with a lot of preempts to Cap and Dedev, so read what you want and I should be able to handle it.

Impact Turns - Yes. Please. Dedev and prolif good were my favorite. Focus your attention on the Sustainability debate, impact analysis, and Impact defense. Read any impact turn you want. Although hearing something like death good or wipeout will probably make me sad.

Topicality - I love a good T debate, but the key word there is good. I default to competing interpretations and I don't think you need to win in round abuse to win T. I typically view T as a Disadvantage to the Affirmative through an offense/defense paradigm and I think fairness is just an internal link to education. 2NC/1NR should have a case list and hopefully have a TVA. The biggest problems teams have when going for Topicality in front of me is warranting out their DAs. Why does the aff explode limits? What do they justify? Why is the ground they take core neg ground and why is that bad? Answering the why question will make topicality debates more persuasive for me. When answering T make sure you have offense or a very clear we meet. ***Pet Peeve: Reasonability is an interpretation level argument, not a violation level argument. "We are reasonably topical" makes absolutely no sense. You are either topical or you aren't, and whoever wins the interpretations debate decides that.

Disadvantages - Yes. There was always a Politics DA in my 1NC's in high school and I love them. The best 2NC's/1NR on DA's will have an overview of some form on top. Brink DAs are much more persuasive than linear DAs. Be sure to make turns case arguments and really flesh out your links in the block. Conversely, dropped turns case arguments in the 1AR typically make a neg presumption ballot significantly easier. Read whatever DA's you like and I can jive.

Counterplans - Also yes. The Bread to the Disad's butter. I think that judge kick is implied in condo and if you want to make a more in depth argument about why I shouldn't judge kick the cp for the neg then that debate should start in the 2AC. Conversely, if the aff wins no judge kick I am sympathetic to arguments about presumption flowing aff if a counterplan is in the 2NR. When reading counterplans sufficiency framing is your friend. Make your net benefits clear and your solvency warrants clearer. Carded counterplans are always better than non-carded counterplans, but pointing out that the aff evidence advocates for your generic CP is also pretty cool. I am always telling teams to do more framing in these rounds. What does the counterplan solve and why does it matter? I will draw the lines, but I will be hesitant.

I would say my opinions about counterplan legitimacy are pretty mainstream. If it's typically thought of as a "cheating" counterplan, I probably think its cheating too. That doesn't mean don't read it, just spend enough time to actually win the theory debate. Nuanced interpretations and fewer, better arguments are preferable to your 9 point "yes delay CPs" blocks.

Kritiks (When You are Neg) - Yes. I will listen to K's but I am probably not very familiar with your literature. I am probably a little bit more sympathetic to framework arguments about ontology/epistemology/pedagogy/etc. than some other judges, and I think the most effective way to win the framework debate is to get impacts external to fairness alongside all of your typical clash impact turns. I don't think you need to go for the alt if you can win framework and impact calc. If you do go for the alt, I think the most persuasive debaters describe it more as a process and less as a singular event. The link debate is the most important part, and an analytical extrapolation of generic links and how they interact with the case in the 2NC is more persuasive than reading 10 new cards that don't say much about the aff. My senior year when I went for the K, I mostly went for a Zizek Cap K with a really buff 2NC Framework (I look back and feel silly saying that). I also read Agamben and Security. In college I have focused my research on Ecological Pessimism (A Climate oriented spin off of OOO), Managerialism, Necropolitics as it is theorized by Achille Mbembe, Militarism, China Threat Construction (Pan), and critical pedagogy. The teams I coach read a lot of Warren/Wilderson, Puar, Munoz, and Edelman so I'm being exposed to that lit too. Everything outside of those I probably have a working knowledge of, but you will probably have to do more explaining to me than you might have to with another judge. If I don't understand the core thesis by the end of the round, it will be very hard to win my ballot.

Case Debate - Is a lost art. The more you can attack the internal links of the aff, the more likely you can pick up my ballot. I will vote on presumption if a significant amount of case answers are mishandled or good DA turns the Aff arguments are won. If you are debating against a plan-less aff do what you do - I could listen to a methods debate or a FW debate - I think often teams that read plan-less affs are really only ready for the latter, so you might consider using that to your advantage.

Theory - SLOW DOWN ON YOUR THEORY BLOCKS. The key to a good theory debate is a nuanced interpretation. The more tailored you can make your interpretation to the debate that is happening to subsume the other team's offense, the better off you will be. Theory is almost always a reason to reject the Argument and not the team, but I think the best aff theory is used to justify abusive permutations like Perm do the counterplan. Condo is a different beast, and a reason to reject the team if won. I would prefer the 2AR not devolve to condo, but I also understand that sometimes you get spread out or there are egregious performative contradictions that warrant a complete throw to theory. In these situations outline the in-round abuse and make your impacts clear - ensure that you can explain why your interp is not regressive.

**********************************************HIGH SCHOOL LD****************************************

Because I live in Nebraska I guess I have to include this stuff too...

Top Level: SHARE CASES. I don't understand this permissibility with not seeing your opponents evidence, not for flowing purposes but for checking reliability of the evidence, but it seems more prevalent in HS LD than other places. Pet peeve is debaters who don't share the AC/NC until after they give it or ask which evidence to send instead of just sending the whole doc :)

I have now been coaching/judging LD for the better part of 3 years and more often than not I find myself evaluating these rounds very similarly to how I would evaluate a policy round. With that being said, see above for my policy preferences if you want to have a progressive round, with a few caveats below. If you find yourself more of a traditional or phil debater, that's cool too, read on...

TRAD: This is the LD type I did when I went to high school in Kansas City. If you want me to just evaluate value v value with degrees of solvency, tell me why that's the best method for debate. I prefer arguments steeped in argument quality and structural fairness as opposed to arguments that appeal to "the spirit of LD" or "Morality is useful for everyday life." I find the first to be arbitrary and the second to be just silly. If you are debating against a Traditional case with a progressive case, focus on similar aspects of the framing debate. Tell me why it is pedagogically/competitively valuable to abandon pure value v value debate. I think there is a litany of reasons on both sides of this question and it is up to you to parse out.

PHIL: These are the concepts that are most foreign to me. I enjoy philosophy in my everyday life, but I don't often read a whole lot of books/papers through the philosophical lens of Kant or Locke or what have you. With that being said, I can often understand phil arguments, they just need more explaining in front of me. Explain how your philosophy better explains the world and moral action, and why it specifically takes out the competing method. Don't just say "act omission distinction," tell me what that is and why it's good/bad. Phil cases that I've coached and have begun to understand, but am by no means well versed in are Kant, MacIntyre, and Locke.

PROGRESSIVE: If you're actually reading paradigms this is likely why you're here. I try to be tabula rasa (don't we all?) but I do have preconceived biases that are not hard to overcome with well-developed argumentation. I tend to think that the round should be some flavor of hypo testing where the aff defends the whole rez and the neg defends the status quo or a counter advocacy that is not related to the resolution to resolve aff offense. If the aff reads a plan text, that's fine, justify it and parse it out. I think that gives the negative more leeway for Counterplan or PIC offense, as well as Topicality or Theory. On condo, I think that anything more than 1 or 2 condo in LD is abusive but can be persuaded to think less or more is permissible. I consider myself to be a connoisseur of theory debates, but I hate having 3 or 4 theory arguments flying around from the get-go. I would much rather you focus on one theory argument and really developed and debate it, instead of relying on your opponent dropping standard 3 subsection C.

A CAVEAT ON T WHOLE REZ: If you think this is your best option for the NR go for it, but I want to be very clear on how I often find myself adjudicating these arguments: 1. Grammar over pragmatics is silly to me, I likely won't be as persuaded by a grammar argument about what kind of plural the word "states" is but I would be much more persuaded by a Limits DA. 2. I don't think an interp card is necessary for this argument. I think it's just as viable as a theory argument like solvency advocate theory or Condo - affirmative teams that rely on "You don't have a card for that" will receive much less sympathy from me than teams that make their own counter interp and have the standards debate.

For the most part, everything above about policy debate applies, if you have any specific questions please ask me before the round and I will be happy to answer them. GLHF!

E-mail: benrichwill@gmail.com

Hi y'all! My Tabroom name is Benjamin (he/him) but I also go by Ben. I am Graduate Assistant at Western Kentucky University in the second year of an MAE program. I debated for KCKCC in 2016 and 2017 where I competed in a variety of debate formats, including NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, and NPDA.

Top level, I view debates through the lens of comparative advantages; put simply, you win if the world you are advocating for is better than the other team's. Tell me what your best arguments are and why they mean you should get the ballot.

Argumentative innovation will be rewarded. I tend to like teams who stretch the boundary of the resolutional question without abandoning topic education.

I would like the downtime time of debates (document sending, setting up stands, etc) to be minimized as possible.

Framework/Affirmative Kritiks: I never read affirmative kritiks while competing so if teams would give a good 2AC explainer that would be nice. I like framework debates because they display analytical skills of speakers; debaters who go beyond my expectations will get high speaks. While I primarily think that debate is a game and fairness is a voting issue, I am not fixed to that notion. For the nukes topic, almost all of my research has been policy arguments.

Disadvantages: Affirmatives should read offense against disadvantages. Negatives should apply the disadvantage to the case debate. Impact turn debates are fun for me.

Counterplans: The best 1NC's have case specific counterplans. I err negative on most theory arguments but I still can be convinced to vote aff on overly abusive counterplans, for example CP’s that have purely artificial competition. The best 2AC responses involve add-ons/new offense. Unless there is a reason otherwise, I view counterplans through the lens of sufficiency.

Negative Kritiks: I like negative teams that can adequately explain how their alternative resolves all of the links to the criticism. I like affirmative teams that effectively weigh the impacts of the 1AC against the K

Case debate: Negatives should engage with the scholarship of the 1AC. While generic impact defense is important, it does not suffice as a strategy. Affirmative teams should utilize their 1AC in the 2AC/1AR to hedge against offensive negative arguments.

Conditionality: I generally think that hard debate is good debate and that affirmatives teams should be able to defend the 1AC from all angles. However, I have become increasingly sympathetic to affirmative teams that have to defend against multiple counterplans with multiple conditional planks.