Please use speechdrop.net, if using an email chain. Archerdan82@gmail.com, please put me on.

I'm Dan Archer I debate for Washburn University in my fourth year, NFA LD format ( 1 person policy ). I debated for 4 years at Derby high.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please don't adapt to me.

Aggressive CX are annoying and unnecessary. Insults are a round loser for me. It's one thing to debate the args but personal attacks are a round loser.

K debate- I am familiar with core K args but anything that's too far out you need to explain. You are welcome to ask me before the round if I'm familiar with your K/ authors.

T- You still need to do standards debate and everything, but I tend to lean toward competing interps. Saying voters for fairness and Ed is not an argument, impact that out.

Theory- do what you can justify

Speed- Do whatever the norm is.

CP- CP's do what you can justify. I get annoyed by super vague cp texts.

DA- use them anything goes.

Case- if you are going for presumption make it clear and you need to put together a good story here, you're better off having a risk of offense

I don't read evidence unless I am asked. If i am asked to read evidemce, tell me what I am looking for. If you tell me the card is bad and I should read it, you're asking me to intervene. I believe the tag lines of evidence is true until I'm told otherwise.

You dictate the pace and atmosphere of the round. If you are clearly winning the round please don't bully the other team.

Please clearly tell me why you win. That is the best thing you can do in the round.

If I don't have something on the flow then I don't think it happened.

TLDR: I run everything and have experience with most args. I am most comfortable in a round that the debaters are doing what they are comfortable doing. This is your round I will evaluate the args as presented.

Preferences and Background

experience: I did Policy debate for 4 years, Lincoln Douglas debate for 2 years, and I am currently in my 3rd year of NFA LD at Washburn.

Flow: yes, I will flow the round.

Speed: Fast is fine as long as you are articulating your arguments well, if I cannot understand you I will clear you twice, after that, anything that I miss will be counted as dropped on the flow.

extra: please be kind and respectful to everyone in the round, yelling or talking over your opponent will immediately deck your speaker points (the severity of this occurrence will determine the severity to which your points are decked). Absolutely no discrimination of any kind (racism, sexism, etc.) In the occurrence of discrimination, I will immediately drop the team, no I don't care if you should have won the round, I will still vote you down.

Policy

---Aff---

plan: Please have a plan text (advocacy statements work too for K aff's). unless you explicitly tell me how your aff solves for current damage in the space, I find it hard to vote for affs without a plan text.

solvency: you should have a solvency advocate for your plan, in the event of a "my advantages have their own solvency" case I will take it on a case-by-case basis, however, it is still probably best to have an advocate.

Advantages: honestly I don't have anything in regards to preferences on advantages, I have yet to see an advantage so outrageous that I have questioned whether or not to would vote on it. (this is not an invitation to read something that changes this statement).

Framing: I enjoy a good framing debate here and there, however, your aff doesn't have to have a framing argument. I do think however that a lack of framing from the aff leaves them vulnerable to having to adhere to negative framing, but it is not essential for the aff to read a framing to get my vote.

---Neg---

Topicality: Topicality is essential to ensure that debate is fair for both the Aff and the Neg. I will vote on T if there is proven abuse, however, I will also vote Aff on T for the same reason if the T is clearly an abusive time suck I can, and have been compelled to vote Aff on the T.

Theory/Rules: I like a good theory/rules argument. just make sure it is framed properly, and that you have the whole shell.

Kritik's: I do not mind a good K debate, that said I ask is that you understand what you are reading, I find it hard to vote on an alt that the person reading it doesn't understand. Especially advocacy K's, if it is immediately evident that the speaker is not understanding, or the speaker doesn't actually support the advocacy their reading I find it much less compelling.

CP's: Counter plans are a nice test of competition, just ensure that it is textually and functionally competitve. I personally do not have a preference on topical counter plans, I will not immediately vote a team down for having one, however, if a decent theory position is presented I can be persuaded to vote against a team for having one.

DA's: the same thing as Advantages, I really don't have much preference regarding DA's, just make sure it links to the plan.

Lincoln Douglas

Value/Criterion: Please have a value and criterion, along with an understanding of how they apply in the debate. an explanation of why your value and criterion should be framed before or valued greater than your opponents is essential for this activity. In essence, the value and criterion debate is the cornerstone upon which the rest of the debate is based on. It is hard to win my ballot if you are not winning on the value and criterion debate. Even if the speaker is leaps and bounds ahead of their opponent it is hard to vote for them if the opposing team wins their value and criterion in the round, as it changes the framing of the entire round.

extra: the rest is pretty much the exact same as policy, other than speed, LD should be slow and persuasive, not fast. this activity is intended for depth over breadth. Leave speed for Policy or PF.

Cade, he/him

UM CAMP STUDENTS --- cblenden@umich.edu

competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present

Past Affiliations - Topeka High School: '17-'21, North Broward Prep: ‘22-‘24

Don't be mean, this should be a fun event for everyone. People who are mean will be punished via lower speaks. People who are actively awful (discriminatory, violent, or hateful to no end) will be punished via a combination of lower speaks, an L, and a discussion with relevant coaches/adults affiliated with your school.

cade.blenden03@gmail.com

Top-level

Not really 'in the cards' yet on the econ topic, certain things like topic specific acronyms/specific knowledge it should be assumed I am not caught up and thus should be explained more.

Speed is fine, a lack of clarity is not. Debaters should go as fast as they can without over-exerting themselves and losing clarity. Nuanced debates that require lots of analytics, etc. (think counterplan competition or theory) should be slowed down a solid 20% to make sure I can keep up. I will not be afraid to say I did not catch something if it was too fast for me to get down.

Case

I think I am good for most arguments in debate. I am a fan of policy affirmatives with hyper-specific internal link scenarios, and much less a fan of vague 'conflict escalation' or 'econ collapse' scenarios without a semblance for how the internals and impact happens. I am also a fan of affirmatives that defend a plan text and read advantages with critical implications--things like discourse affirmatives or other "soft-left" type arguments.

For critical/performance stuff, I think affirmatives get away with a lot by hand-waving on the case page without effectively explaining impacts and solvency and appreciate it when these affirmatives have obviously thought out what these parts of the debate are supposed to look like beyond being a set up for an impact turn on framework. I strongly prefer affirmatives that are related to the topic if not reading a plan. I am very receptive to negative strategies against these affirmatives that stake more of the game on the case debate itself and demonstrate preparation/background knowledge to engage these affirmatives on more specific footing.

CP

Counterplans should have solvency advocates. Beyond that I am pretty game for them, even the more illegitimate ones premised on international/multi-actor fiat etc. I am not the largest fan of counterplans with lots of planks, primarily because it seems often that each plank is a separate counterplan but not often will each of those planks have 'up to snuff' solvency advocates.

Conditionality is fine, and I feel that if one conditional argument is theoretically permissible, then any number of them should be justified because the premise for the justification stays the same. For affirmatives attempting to win the condo debate, I am more likely to be convinced by arguments about why conditionality, wholesale, should be rejected rather than setting an arbitrary limit about the amount or type of arguments that can be conditional. Judge kick seems to follow if conditionality is considered legit.

Big fan of creative word PICs against all types of affirmatives.

DA

Generally fine but similar to the case page, specificity on internal link and impact characterization is much appreciated. Whoever does these things better seems to have a much easier time getting me to buy into how they wish to 'write my ballot'.

K

I like the K when it is obvious that it is an intentional strategic choice by the negative. I dislike it when it is haphazardly thrown into the 1NC, and think that this often creates more strategic vulnerabilities for the 2AC to exploit than it does valuable options for the block to extend---it definitely makes the argument for condo bad more valid-feeling, it opens the negative up to weird performative-contradiction arguments, and if the 2AC is smart, it can be especially easy to win a time-tradeoff against. More vertically designed 1NCs with the K I feel have a much higher burden for specificity, and in these debates, negative teams should ensure there are at the least specific links to the function of the affirmative (whether by demonstrating examples link evidence talks about, highlighting 1AC cards, or whatever else). 'K tricks' like floating PIKs and framework deviousness is fine, though if one conceals the trick for too long it gets difficult to believe it is not a new argument/spin.

Affirmative teams should have an idea of how their AFF generally answers or postures against the K. Some AFFs are of the 'link turn' variety whereas others are of the 'perm' variety, and knowing which yours is becomes very beneficial to knowing where and how to spend your time in the 2AC and 1AR.

T

Don't really have a lot of thoughts on here. Competing interpretations seems more logical than reasonability, but if a team can explain an idea of reasonability that makes sense I don't think I am opposed to listening.

FWK

I think counter-interpretations are a tough uphill battle most of the time unless you are like 'creatively reinterpreting' more normative USfg actions.

Winning different offensive arguments about the nature of topicality debating being bad seems a decent in round for most affirmatives to win against framework (things like legalism/textualism bad etc.).

Not the most experienced judging K AFF v. FWK throwdowns. Procedural fairness seems to be something I am often sympathetic to, and affirmatives spending time explaining how/why they get around both participating in the procedural norms of debate and fairness while saying it is bad would be helpful.

I debated policy for four years in high school, and I am currently a college LD debater at UNL.

If you win the flow, you win the debate. If an argument is dropped, I will assume its correct. Just tell me why you win the debate and the debater with the most impacts with the best framing #wins. I am fine with any arguments.

K: To win a K aff I just need an explanation of what the K does and how it solves in or out-of-round impacts. On the neg just explain the usual: links, framing, and turns. At the end of the debate tell me why the impacts of the K is key and why the K is key to solve said impacts.

FW/T: Willing to vote on any standards/voters or on potential or actual in-round abuse. If they present a CI w/ counter standards explain why your interp is better for those standards and why your original standards outweigh them. I will vote on reasonability or competing interps: whatever the flow tells me to do.

Theory: Should probs only read theory applicable to the aff, but I am down to vote on theory as long as it wins the flow and is explained to outweigh anything else in the round.

CP: Should probs be mutually exclusive or a pre-req to the aff or a perm will probs solve.

DA: Make sure to weigh the impacts of the DA against the case or turn the case.

This all presumes no arguments in the round are bigoted or violent.

UPDATED FOR 2024

Please add me on the email chain: antoninaclementi@gmail.com

Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.

If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.

I err Tech over Truth

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers

Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu, ndt ceda) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.

• If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Pref Shortcut:

1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks

2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks

5/6 - tricks, phil

Framework (Value/Value Criterion):

With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.

Counterplans:

I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong net benefit. Needs to have all components. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.

Theory Shells:

Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose. With that said I DESPISE round report theory or something like must be open text I think cites and bare minimum disclosure solves.

I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.

I think…

New affs good

Condo good

PICs good

Consult CPs bad

Vague alts bad

TW good

Delay CPs are fine

but hey maybe you can prove me wrong

RVIs:

I strongly dislike RVIs - they are ridiculous

Topicality:

I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. I would say I have a mid threshold for T and I am open to a full collapse but give a through LBL. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.

K's:

Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. TBH I am not super familiar with lots of the academic jargon involved in K lit break it down for me and keep it simple. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan. Stay away from super techy academic jargon. Unless you are hitting a critical aff I really do not like psychoanalysis Ks.

Cap K:

Do not read Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD. With that said I like cap Ks and vote on them frequently

DA/Policy Affs:

Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.

Note on Politics DAs

LOVE THEM

K Affs

I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does! I usually do not vote on T - FW. Super happy to K affs that make SENSE are organized and do not have technical jargon that even the debater running it does not understand. Know you’re lit and read it proudly and your creativity will be rewarded.

Tricks

• Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
• I am super open to trix bads theory
• Just have a substantive debate. Please.

Phil

• Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
• some phil is cool. I like pragmatism and that’s kinda it tbh.
• I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig

Spreading:

I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.

Signpost:

I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.

CX:

I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.

Impacts:

These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.

Speaks:

I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you will. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.

Flex prep:

If you use flex prep your bad at flowing

Post Rounding:

If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.

Policy:

- Same as LD
- Familiar w/ 2023 topic

Public Forum:

Same as above

• Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
• I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
• I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad

Parli:

• Same as LD
• Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
• I like numbering of args and clear signposting

TLDR:

Do whatever, have fun, make sense and make my job is easy and write the ballot for me in the last 30 seconds to minute of the NR and 2AR. Debates not that deep - if you don't agree with my decision that's fine but handle your loss with grace and class - trust me it benefits you in the long run. It is statistically impossible that every judge who votes you down is a "Screw" ????

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/y iconcerns please feel free to email me (antoninaclementi@gmail.com).

Prologue - Nuts and Bolts of My Judging

Have fun and learn something! Don't let a single bad debate round ruin your whole career (or even your weekend).

Hi! I'm Rae (they/them).I'm fine if you call me "Judge," "Rae," or "Mx. Fournier." I don't know why you'd call me anything else.

I'm fine with email chains if that's what you're most comfortable with. If you have problems where you "forget" to hit reply all or emails get magically "lost" in the ether, let's use speechdrop instead. Here is my email if not: reaganfbusiness@gmail.com If you have questions before or after the round you can email me as well.

Experience:

Charles J. Colgan High School (2018-2022) - I debated at Colgan for 4 years in PF, and Policy, LD, and Congress for my senior year. I debated the water topic my senior year in policy, but I honestly did such little research I don't know if it matters that much.

Western Kentucky University (2022-Present) - I'm in my second year of debating at WKU, where I do NFA-LD and am planning on switching to primarily compete in NDT-CEDA next year.

Do not run arguments about death being good in front of me. Do not read explicit material surrounding sexual assault in front of me. You will be dropped and given the lowest speaker points possible if you do this, and I will also probably talk with your coach. I am fine with non-graphic depictions of SA given a content warning.

UPDATE FOR PFBC -I haven't been involved in PF actively for a few years. Accordingly, I have no strong biases in favor or otherwise of the inclusion or exclusion of any type of argument. I don't understand why impacts with no terminal are read (e.g., nuclear war with no extinction card). I also generally default to extinction first. I need a reason to vote aff/neg that isn't just like, saving the U.S. a few million dollars on their budget.I think that most of the things I like to see in a PF debate round can be cross applied from the rest of this section and chapter 1.

Update for practice round 10 and onwards:

Make fun of each others evidence more. It sucks. Aff teams don't have cards that say "surveillance infrastructure." neg teams are saying the status quo is bad.

Stop asking questions that aren't about your strategy.

Read topicality arguments against preposterous aff / neg cases.

If your turns in the rebuttal look like "T - drugs" or "T - backlash" i will cap your speaks at 28 and not evaluate them even if they are triple dropped. Arguments are a claim, a warrant, and an impact.

Update over.

If there is a problem with your opponent's evidence (ethical or otherwise), please bring it to them before you bring it to me.

If I think you're in the top 50% of the pool, you should get a 28.5 or above for speaker points. I don't try to make an exact science out of speaker points, because I don't think most judges follow those little charts they make. A lot of it is based on the context of the round and the tournament. You will be closer to the mean if you are in novice or JV because I struggle to identify who is at the top of the pack of these divisions, purely out of my own inexperience.

I've voted aff 38/64 (~59%) of the time. I attribute this more to a small sample size than a strong aff bias, especially considering that I've judged many different kinds of debate at several levels. You might think I have a disposition towards the aff based on this paradigm, but I think I have a disposition against the way negs try to engage in many instances. I’ve tried to be transparent about my prejudices to boost your chances of victory.

Try to keep your own time. I start time when you start talking, and I stop flowing after your time runs out, and will call it shortly after. Not making me do that is really cool too, though.

Number your arguments! It makes things easier for you and for me. In that same vein, slow down on tags and analytics (esp. If they weren’t in the doc). Sidenote: Numbers organize arguments, they aren't replacements for arguments. If your 2AC on case sounds like a calculator spitting digits at me then I'm going to stop flowing and be visibly miffed.

I’m fine with you “inserting” evidence if it is just for my visual reference, but if you want me to flow it as anything other than an analytic, you should be reading it because debate is an oral activity.

I am not a very fast flower, and I don't look at the docs which means that if you're speeding through your 2nc to condo and I didn't get any of it, you dropped it! In general I am going to signal to you whether or not I like an argument via facial expressions and body language, which is largely out of my control. It would do you good, then, to look at me when you’re giving a speech. I won't clear you because I think it is unfair but I will try to make it as clear as possible when I don't get something.

Something I have seen that bothers me - you cannot strongarm me into voting for you. Calling me “stupid” if I don’t vote for a DA (something that has happened on the circuit I compete on) is a surefire way to cap your speaker points at 27.5, even if you win. The core of debate is persuasion, and I cannot think of a less persuasive strategy than yelling at me, threatening me, accosting me based on a decision I haven’t made yet, etc.

I update my paradigm a lot. This is because I’m learning a lot about debate after being a (mostly) lay PF debater in high school. This also has the fringe benefit of making me understand my own positions better, and scratch out takes that end up being not very sound.

Chapter 1 - My General Debate Philosophy

I like debates that include affs who read a topical plan, negs who read arguments about the plan (excluding process counterplans that do the aff, Ks that don't rejoin the aff, bad theory arguments like ASPEC, etc.), and debaters who cut a lot of cards and do not run from engagement. Still, I will try to fairly evaluate debates that do not fit this archetype.

I think death is bad because suffering is bad and because life is good, thus extinction is bad. It is difficult to persuade me that any of the things stated in the previous sentence are wrong.

I don’t like arbitrarily excluding arguments based on content alone (sans the above warning in bolded letters, but that is strictly for personal reasons, and if reading “death good” is something you have to do every round for some reason, you should strike me regardless). Assertions that an argument is “problematic,” “science-fiction,” or “stupid” are unlikely to convince me to vote for you absent an explanation. Although, the bar for explanation becomes lower the worse the argument is. If you would describe your argumentative preferences as “trolling,” “memes,” “tricks,” or anything in that region - I am a bad judge for you, as your opponent will have comparatively little work to do to defeat you.

As an extension to this, if I feel neither side has explained their case sufficiently, I'll default to card quality / reading the cards. If you don't want this to happen, explain your argument.

You should assume I know nothing about the topic, and debate accordingly. I’m a big dumb idiot who needs everything (especially acronyms if it is a very technical topic) explained to me. This, in my opinion, will not only improve your explanation and avoid making your speeches a jargon salad, but is also probably the best way to approach having me as your judge, given that I do very little topic research for high school resolutions (if any).

Try or die framing is very intuitive to me, and it should guide many late rebuttals where the neg is going for a disad. It is hard for me to vote neg if the aff has definitively won that the status quo causes extinction, and there is a risk that voting aff can stop that extinction scenario. Negs should mitigate this through 1) in-depth weighing and turns case analysis and 2) impact defense.

Chapter 2 - Affs

I read up the gut, very topical affs in my own debating, and this is what I prefer to see debates about. I generally prefer big stick to soft left because I find the strategy of calling link chains fake to be generally unpersuasive, but I do not have any strong preferences here. I have also found some soft left affs to be frankly overpowered due to how true they are and to how little disads seem to link to them.

I think T/FW is true, but I by no means automatically vote neg in these debates. I think K teams have figured out ways to put a lot of ink out on the flow in addition to being more persuasive. However, I think that under closer examination, a lot of the arguments that these teams make are either (a) wrong or (b) misunderstanding the neg's argument. For instance, I find the claim that an unlimited topic is good because it gives more ground to the neg is facetious and is a blatant misrepresentation of the way neg prep happens.

Here’s how I prefer the traditional impacts to FW: Clash>Fairness>Skills

I don't know if fairness is an impact - but I think I'm more easily persuaded that it is than many other judges. I think the usual 2AC strategy of just saying “it’s an internal link” is insufficient given how much explanation FW debaters tend to give in the 2NC/1NR. I also think the aff probably relies on fairness as a value in the abstract as much as the neg does - else they would concede the round to have a much more educational conversation on the aff.

Clash as an abstract value, i.e., that it makes us better people by allowing us to come to new convictions about the world, seems extremely true. In my own personal debating career, deep debates over a singular resolution have allowed me to come to a very nuanced understanding about the topic. I think there’s also empirical research which backs this up, but I can’t remember the study.

I’m also fine with skills, especially since it’s frequently the more strategic option. I don’t know if it’s true that debate makes people advocates (it definitely gives them the tools to become better advocates, but I don’t know if there’s an actual correlation there). It also isn’t apparent to me that becoming an advocate is something that is something which can be exclusively achieved through plan-focus debate. A normative reason why debating the resolution you’ve been instructed to debate would be helpful for convincing me of this argument (e.g., learning about immigration policy is good to become an immigration lawyer and help people who are persecuted by ICE).

There are other impacts to FW, of course, but I’d like more explanation for these if you’re going to go for them in the 2NR, as I will be less familiar with them.

If you are for sure reading a K aff and I'm you're judge, here's what you can do to improve your odds:

• I need a strong reason in the 2AC as to why switch-side debate doesn’t solve all your offense.

• I prefer a well-thought out counter interpretation to impact turning limits.

• A functional critique of the resolution which mitigates the limits DA (if applicable)

If you're reading a K aff and I'm you're judge, here are some things that will not improve your odds:

• "Karl Rove, Ted Cruz, etc."

• Saying predictability is bad when you make debates incredibly predictable for yourself

• Saying that FW is intrinsically violent

Chapter 3 - Topicality (Not Framework)

Love it! I think that learning the difference in legal terms is incredibly valuable for topic education, and learning how to navigate those differences is a potent portable skill.

I think I'm better for reasonability than most judges. It doesn’t mean (despite popular explanations) that the aff is reasonable, but that their counter interpretation creates a reasonable limit for debate. Aff teams should abuse how flippant and blippy neg teams can be with the reasonability/competing interps debate.

Yet I still find myself persuaded by the neg in many debates on topicality. The aff frequently lacks explanation for what their version of the topic looks like, which makes it difficult to endorse it. Aff teams would do good by explaining what affs are topical under their interpretation, what kind of debates that invites, and why those debates are good.

Although I think in principle “T Substantial” having a quantitative definition is nonsensical absent a field-contextual definition, I find myself increasingly persuaded by negative pushes on this question. The argument that the resolution includes the word “substantial” for a reason, and that quantitative barriers are the only way to make the word matter, for instance, is compelling - especially if the aff meets a particularly low threshold of reductions/expansions (i.e., an aff that expands social security by 0.02% is probably not substantial).

Topicality is never an RVI. Don’t bother reading them.

Chapter 4 - Non-T Theory

SLOW DOWN ON THEORY PAGES-- I cannot flow as fast as you can talk. I get that you don't want to spend a lot of time on "New Affs Bad," but if I have nothing legible on my flow then if the neg goes for it, you're kind of toast!

I find the debate community’s shift towards counterplans which do the aff to be unfortunate. As a result, I am generally slightly more aff leaning on counterplan theory than some of my peers. However, I think the only reason I would reject the team absent a strong, warranted push by the aff is conditionality.

In general, theoretical arguments against counterplans should be articulated as reasons why it is not an opportunity cost, not why I should reject the team/argument.

Disclosure-- I will steal what Justin Kirk says about disclosure because I agree with it 100%: "While I am not an ideologue, I am a pedagogue. If you fail to disclose information about your affirmative or negative arguments on the wiki and then make a peep about education or engagement or clash in the debate, you better damn well hope your opponent does not mention it. Its about as close to a priori as I will get on an issue. If your argument is so good, what is the matter with a well prepared opponent? Disclosure is a norm in debate and you should endeavor to disclose any previously run arguments before the debate. Open source is not a norm, but is an absolutely preferable means of disclosure to cites only. If your opponent's wiki is empty, and you make a cogent argument about why disclosure is key to education and skill development, you will receive high marks and probably a ballot from me."

I hate the trend in high school LD where people read frivolous theory/tricks, I’m not persuaded by it, and you’d be better off reading substantive arguments.

Chapter 5 - Counterplans

I obviously have big feelings about process counterplans. Functional and textual competition is probably a good standard, though objections to textual competition also seem legitimate. I'm not too familiar with deep competition debates, so slowing down if this is going to be a big part of your strategy is a good call in front of me.

I'm honestly not very familiar with 2NC counterplans strategically speaking - heads up. I'm not necessarily opposed to them, but be slower when explaining why you get them if contested.

I am not a huge fan of uniqueness counterplans, though part of this could also be due to my inexperience in judging and hitting them in my own debate career.

Sufficiency framing seems intuitive to me, therefore affs should try to impact out their solvency deficits to the counterplan rather than sneezing a bunch of arguments in the 2AC and hoping the block drops something (I once judged a round where the 2AC read like, 12 solvency deficits which, from my perspective, all made no difference on whether or not the counterplan was sufficient to solve the case). If I have to ask at the end of the 2AC on the CP, “so what?” you have failed to convince me.

I will never vote on a counterplan that had no evidence attached to it when it was first read UNLESS that counterplan uses 1AC ev to solve it (i.e., if the aff's advantages aren't intrinsic). An example of this would be in the NFA-LD Democracy Topic (2022-23), where everyone read affs that said that we should ban a certain interest group from lobbying (ex. the pharmaceutical lobby) and then read advantages about how good medicare for all/price caps for drugs would be. These affs got solved 100% by reading an analytic counterplan that just passed these policies. Even if you are doing this, you should be inserting a piece of 1AC ev or justifying it analytically. I think a good standard is that you need to have solvency evidence that is on-par quality wise with the 1AC. If the 1AC has no solvency advocate then I guess you're fine.

Chapter 6 - Ks

I am not well-read in most K literature, I’ll be honest. Explain things slowly, and try not to use your favorite $100 word every other word in a sentence.

Some would describe me as an aff framework + extinction outweighs hack. I think if debated evenly against most Ks, I do lean aff on this (especially framework), but I'm definitely not opposed to alternative forms of impact calculus and frameworks. I struggle specifically with understanding what the neg's model of debate ACTUALLY looks like.

Take the following example: neg says the 1ac is a research project and any part of it is up for debate. So specific lines from the 1ac evidence that aren't highlighted that might be problematic are up for debate? Most debates I've seen have the neg say yes. Cool! Does the aff get to read unrelated lines from the 1ac evidence that are objectively morally good as offense? If no, why not? Does the neg get to critique the broad idea of incrementalism divorced from the plan? Under this interp, obviously yes. Then, does the 2ac get add-ons that explain why incrementalism is good, listing examples that aren't the plan? (e.g., campaign finance reform, public option for healthcare, etc.) If the aff doesn't get to do either of those, how do they generate reciprocal offense against the negs infinite, tiny claims against the 1ac's epistemology?

I don’t like how many judges just refuse to evaluate framework debates and arbitrarily pick a middle ground - this harms both teams as it arbitrarily has the judge insert themselves into the late rebuttals which is completely unpredictable and not reflective of the debate that happened. I will pick either the aff interp or the neg interp, and make my decision accordingly.

I prefer links that critique the impacts or implementation of the plan. I do not like links which point out a flaw in a not underlined portion of one 1ac card that seems largely irrelevant to the argument the aff is making (sidenote: this is not a "specific" link because it has nothing to do with the 1ac).

If you’re a K debater, this all might seem a bit daunting. I admit, I do have a bias towards the policy side of the spectrum. However, superior evidence, technical debating, and explanation can overcome every bias I have presented to you. I promise that if I am in the back of the room, I will try to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible.

Epilogue - Weird things that didn’t fit anywhere and I think make my preferences unique

I do not care nearly as much if you reference my paradigm compared to other judges who "cringe" when you make clear that you care about adaptation. I've judged so many rounds where it is evident one (or both) teams decided to completely ignore the fact that I am the one who is in the back of the room. Referencing my paradigm is not only a signal that you've read it, but I believe that a paradigm is a contract that I have signed that indicates how I will vote.

Open CX is fine, don't be obnoxious though. 2Ns and 2As, please let your partner ask and answer questions I'm begging you. (Especially 2Ns, though). Policy debate is a team activity, and part of working in a group is trusting other people. Talking over your partner destroys your credibility.

In and outs are fine - never judged one of these but I truly don’t care as long as both debaters give one constructive and one rebuttal each.

She/they

kimmerle.debate@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grant McKeever – he/him – ggmdebate@gmail.com (put this on the email chain and feel free to ask questions)

Experience: Current coach for Lincoln Southwest. Current NFA LD debater (1v1 policy) for UNL (elections, nukes) - did DCI/TOC style stuff senior year (water) and was on the trad/KDC circuit in Kansas prior (criminal justice, arms sales, immigration) at Olathe Northwest HS so I’m most likely familiar with whatever style you’re going for

TL;DR: Run what you run best. I’m open to mostly whatever, specifics down below. Default to policymaker. Give me judge instruction, explain arguments, and tell me how to vote because that’s probably how I will. The rest of the paradigm is moreso preferences/defaults/advice than explicit constraints; my job is to flow the round and evaluate what happens in it, and I try to do so as unbiased as possible.

Don’t be disrespectful. Just don’t.

I've noticed a lack of warrants and impacts from claims coming out of debates - an argument has 3 parts; you will get a MUCH more favorable (or, at the least, less intervention-y) RFD if you go beyond the claim and give me comparative reasons why it is true and how it frames my ballot.

ON EVIDENCE CITATIONS -

My patience is growing thin on a lot of these questions - I have watched blatant violations of the NSDA rules on evidence (sources:https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hq7-DE6ls2ryVtOttxR4BNpRdP7xUbBr0M3SMYefek8/edit#heading=h.nmf14n). I will not hesitate to tank speaks and/or drop the debater for failure to comply with these standards (and it's magnified if your opponent points it out).

What this means:

1. You MUST provide cut cards with full citations - this means setting up some form of evidence sharing (speech drop, email, flash drive, paper case, etc.) that I have access to for the ENTIRETY of the debate to check for clipping and evidence standards. THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE CARDS YOU READ IS SILLY AND MAKES FOR BAD DEBATES. (stolen from Zach Thornhill). This includes having access to the original source material the card was cut from, and provide : full name of primary author and/or editor, publication date, source, title of article, date accessed for digital evidence, full URL, author qualifications, and page numbers for all cards. In round, you only have to verbally say the name and date, but I need the rest of this information provided in another format. HYPERLINKS ALONE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT - THEY ARE ONE PART OF THE CITATION, AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE REST OF THIS INFORMATION IS SUFFICIENT TO VOTE DOWN.
2. I am VERY unlikely to give you much leeway for paraphrased/summarized evidence - this model highly incentivizes debaters misconstruing evidence, and 99% of the time misses out on the warrants as to WHY the claim is true (which means even if it follows evidence rules I am unlikely to give it much weight anyway). In addition, paraphrasing is only used for one small, specific portion of an original source, not summarize pages of information into a sentence to blip out 20 cards. If you are concerned I may misinterpret part of your paraphrased case as violating this and/or are concerned, you should read cut cards that highlight the words from a source read in the debate. If you do paraphrase, you MUST have outlined the specific part of the card paraphrased clearly - failure to do this is an evidence violation.
3. Clipping, even if accidental, is enough to be voted against - I don't care who points it out when it gets pointed out or how - I will be following along, and if I find you clipped I will vote against you. This is non-negotiable.
4. Distortion, nonexistent evidence (in here, point 1), and clipping (point 3) are the only violations in which the round will be stopped - that doesn't mean any other evidence violations will not negatively impact your speaks and the arguments I have on the flow.

I don't want to do this to be mean, but these are necessary to maintain academic integrity and faithful representation - especially at postseason and national-level tournaments, these violations are inexcusable.

Pref Sheet (mainly for LD, but works for policy too)

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 1/2

Theory*** - 1/2

Phil - 3/4

Tricks - 5

Other: probably somewhere throughout the paradigm - or just ask

General

Debate is a competitive game, and it is my job as a judge to evaluate who wins the game. As competitors, you get to tell me how to evaluate the game outside my defaults and why I should evaluate this way - this takes a lot of different forms with many different reasons, criteria, benefits, and more, but my job is to evaluate this clash to decide a winner (which becomes much easier with judge instruction). However, debate as a game is unique with the educational benefits it provides and have real impacts in the way we think about and view the world - I think debate about what debate should look like are important to framing the game, and can easily be persuaded to find extraneous benefits to the "game" to evaluate/vote on.

Tech>truth, though sticking with the truth usually makes the tech easier. I've especially noticed the more pedantic impact/internal links/interps/etc. the less likely I am to give it a bunch of weight.

Prep Time - not a big fan of people stealing prep. If it gets bad enough I will start to just dock prep time as you're stealing prep so steal at your own risk. I also give verbal warnings, if I tell you to stop please just stop I don't want to be grumpy. TIMES TO NOT TAKE PREP: while someone is uploading a speech doc, as someone is going up for cross, after your prep time has expired, etc.

Speed – Spreading is fine. Make sure everyone in the round is okay with it though before you do. If you spread make sure it’s clear. If you’re super fast I probably can't understand your top speed, and appreciate going a slower on tags/analytics. I'll yell a few times, but if the keyboard ain't clacking/I'm frantically trying to keep up I'm not recording your arguments.

-Within that, I'm probably not going to verbally call on a panel; I'm going to assume the speed you're going at is to best adapt to the other judges; a lot of the same signals tho will still apply, I just won't be as verbal ab it

Framing – it’s good. Please use it, especially if there’s different impacts in the debate. Impact calc is very good, use it to the best of your ability. I'm a policymaker after all you’ll win the round here.

I've increasingly noticed that heavily posturing is becoming less persuasive to me; it looks much better to frame the debate through you being ahead on specific arguments (ie evidence/warrant quality, impact weighing, etc.) then posturing about the round writ large. Especially with the way I evaluate debates, the last minute ethos/pathos push is by and far less important than writ large "I'm soooooo far ahead" that can get articulated on the flow to shape my ballot.

Neg

Ks – I probably don’t know all of your lit. As long as you explain I should be fine and am more than willing to vote on them. I'm once again reminding that you should either send your analytics or slow down otherwise else my flow WILL be a mess. Judge instruction is key here - give me ROB and impact stuff out.

Topicality – I love a good T debate. Not a fan of T as a time suck; it's legitimately so good. If the aff is untopical/topical/exists go for it. That being said, I need good violations on T. Slow down a bit on the standards/voters piece of things. I default to competing interps, but can evaluate on reasonability if it's won.

CPs – Swag. Theory is highly underused here, so as long as I can flow them (slow down on them) I'll vote on them. Condo is usually good but I default a bit to reasonability here - especially if the aff points out specific abuse stories. I default to framing this debate as a scale of "if the CP solves ___ much of the aff, what does the risk of the net benefit need to be to outweigh" - so pairing good case defense and net benefit debate is crucial.

DAs – Good. Please just have at least a somewhat reasonable link chain.

Theory – I'm fine with it. I heavily lean towards drop the argument and not the team unless it's egregious/about in-round discriminatory behavior. Still will default to competing interps but would be happy to go for good C/Is under reasonability. Disclosure (for an example): I think disclosure is good and you should disclose, but I am much less likely (not opposed) to reject the team and instead default more towards leaning neg on generic links/args. Condo/Topicality are probably the only ones that I reject the team on. Generally frown on RVIs, the better out is making those articulations under reasonability.

Case – I feel that case debate is highly under-utilized. A strong case debate is just as, if not a slightly more, viable way to my ballot. However, please pair it with some sort of offense; case defense is good but if there's no offense against the aff then I vote aff. Especially with a CP that avoids the deficits heck yeah.

Aff

K Affs – Refer to the K section. Fairness and education are impacts, but the more they are terminalized/specified (to things like participation) the more persuasive your arguments become. Haven't been in enough FW debates to know how I truly lean on that, I'll evaluate it like everything else - impacts are key.

-TVA is better defense than SSD imo but both are defense; they take out aff impacts on the flow, but if you go for these (which u should) pair it with other offense on the page

Extinction Impacts – have a probable link chain and make sure aff is substantial - that's much easier to win and helps u later on.

LD

I'm a policy kid, LD circuit norms and evaluations can fly over my head. I did a couple years on the trad circuit so I know some things but it's not my forte - refer to the policy stuff and ask questions before round. Judge instruction is still CRUCIAL.

I don't know philosophy and I won't pretend to know it. You can run it but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain it and how I evaluate it - odds are LD time constraints make it an uphill battle.

Not a fan of tricks. I have low threshold for responses to it and actually considering it in the round. Couple this with the theory section above.

I think LD uses the word "ought" for a reason, and that it's to make it an uphill battle to win PTX/Elections DA/Process CPs/any argument that the link relies on certainty/immediacy of the resolution being bad and not the actual implementation (read all your other DAs/CPs to the rez/their plan/whatev)

-this isn't to say you can't just that it's a bit more uphill - win the definition debate to win these are legitimate

PF

You still should be cutting evidence in PF with good, clear cites.

I still will judge this event like any other - judge instruction and impact calc are key.

Most of my policy section still applies (focus on aff + DA sections - CPs and Ks in PF get wacky and is prob easier w/o them).

Good luck, and have fun!

Last Major Update 5/27/2023

Email chain if there is one: logan.michael1101@gmail.com speech drop is kool too.

Debated policy for 4 years at Washburn Rural High School and I'm currently in my 4th year of debating NFA-LD (one person policy) at Washburn University. Second year assistant coaching at WaRu

Generics

Speed: I'm fine with speed if the rest of the room is too. Just slow down for analytics

Judge instruction is real important. Write my ballot for me.

In general you do you. I default to evaluating the round how you tell me to. I would prefer to see you do what you want to do well than do what I like bad. But, just in case

specific arguments:

T/Theory

I can evaluate T so if you feel like the aff is untopical or that you can justify why it's untopical then don't be afraid to go for T in front of me. Also means that you can read untopical affs in front of me if you think you can out tech your opponent

Probably default to condo being good

Ks

I will listen to any K. That being said, i haven’t engaged in the lit base of a lot of them so, if I don't understand the K and it's clear you don't understand the K it will be extremely hard for me to vote on it so make you explain everything (especially your links) well.

CPs

Read 'em

DAs

Read 'em

Things I like: Bow-ties, kool socks. Things I don't like: People being rude (don't do this). I also reward interesting/innovative arguments, don’t be afraid to break norms.

If anything is unclear or you want further clarification just ask before the round or email me. Good luck!

Debate Experience: I did Congressional Debate for 3 years at Lincoln High in Nebraska and currently compete in NFA-LD for UNL.

Speed is fine unless it impacts the clarity of your words. If you are going too fast for me, then I will say “clear”.

It is your job as the debater to weigh impacts. I am open to just about any argument as long as the debater clearly explains why it is relevant to the round and how it solves. When cross applying in later speeches, give a one or two sentence explanation of why the evidence is being cross-applied. How does it impact the hypothetical world?

CX is binding. What you say is what your case represents for the rest of the round.

Topicality arguments are best when confronting proven abuse.

If you have questions, then feel free to ask before the round. I am there to make sure the round is as educational and accessible as it can be for everyone.

I Debated 4 years in HS and currently debate in the NFA-LD (1 person policy) circuit at Washburn University. Email is huntersquires4@gmail.com for email chains/more explanation on a decision/questions about NFA-LD and Washburn

I don't have a strong preference in types of arguments. If your argument is better than your opponents and you explain better than them why that gets you the ballot you'll win the round. I like listening to unique arguments so if you've been wanting to try something new or odd out it wouldn't be a bad idea to read it in front of me. Just make sure it makes sense...

Please run whatever arguments you are best at/make the most strategic sense in the round. If you get done reading this and think "He isn't going to like our strat" you are probably wrong and you should read it anyway.

Like most judges, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but everyone has experiences in and outside of debate that influence decision-making. Any judge that tells you they are purely tab rasa should not be trusted, because it is impossible.

The role of the judge is to be mostly robotic, but there are some exceptions. First, I will do my best to protect the 2NR. Second, I may intervene if you are being violent/threatening.

I usually assume that implicit statements/assumptions are true unless they are argued against. For example, if neg reads T and says non-topical affs collapse debate, they are implicitly arguing/assuming that we should preserve this space. If the neg doesn't impact turn that, I assume everyone agrees that the space is good, so I wouldn't say in the RFD "Idk why we need to preserve the space so I'm not voting for the neg on T." That seems pretty interventionist. The same concept applies to extinction, suffering, and whatever else isn't contested.

This logic also applies to things like links. If in the 2AR and 2NR both teams tell me I'm just weighing the impact of CC on the aff's ADV vs. Impact of Econ collapse on the neg's DA, that's what I'll base my decision on, even if I don't fully understand how the aff solves or how the DA link works.

I won't judge kick unless I'm told to. If we are going to have a judge kick debate please give actual warrants. If this debate is one line from both sides I probably will judge kick but don't put me in that position.

But on specific arguments

T- On the neg, make sure I know interp, violation, standards, and voters. Cards are cool, but not totally necessary usually. I lean towards competing interps.

Theory- Like T, I should clearly know the interp, violation, standards, and voters. I like weird theory arguments, and also think they're strategic. I'm very sympathetic to solvency advocate theory.

Case- Defense is good, but make sure you're generating offense because I probably won't vote on presumption except in rare scenarios because try-or-die makes sense.

Disads- I don't really care about specific links as long as you can prove that the aff does link. A lot of the time a specific link will be able to show this better but if the generic link applies I'll value that as much as a specific link.

CPs- Make sure you have a good net benefit for your CP. Presumption flips aff if you go for this. Perms are a test of competition.

Ks- Ks are one of my favorite arguments when ran well. Please just understand what the literature says (or seem like you do) if you're going to run this. I know a lot of lit but don't assume I know your lit. I'm most well-versed in arguments from the Baudrillard vein, especially semiocap. You can also ask me how much I know about your genre of K before the round if that changes anything.

I've found that when I'm looking at a paradigm as a competitor a sliding scale is very useful so I'll implement one into my own.

Policy------X----Kritik

Competing interps----X------Reasonability

Condo good---X-------Condo bad

Perf cons bad-------X---Multiple worlds good

Presumption--------X--Try-or-die

Speed good--X--------Speed bad

Cheater CPs good (Consult, delay, etc.)-X---------Cheater CPs bad

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

I will read all the ev----X------You have to point out things you want me to read

Disclosure good-----X-----Disclosure bad

Summary- Run whatever you are the most comfortable running. I think every type of argument in debate has a valuable place. In your last speech tell me what you win and why that makes you win the round. I need to know why to vote for you.

Most importantly, don't make debate a negative space for anybody. Don't be rude to the other team and don't have your objective be to make the other person feel dumb and want to quit. Sometimes one team is a lot better than the other team. If that's the case just be nice, take the W, and move on to the next round.

Being mean is a voter :)

If you would like to know about college debate please email me at ttatedebate@gmail.com. I debate policy at Texas State University and we would love to have you reach out.

they/them

Speed: Probably like a 7/10. I can do better if you are clear, which shouldn't be hard to do cause I can spread and still be clear. You just have to practice more. If you cannot be clear I'll probably stop flowing because I'm not gonna read your speech doc for a whole speech, this is an event based entirely in effective communication.

For all forms of debate: In the event any kind of discriminatory behavior occurs in round, the debater engaging in such activity will immediately receive an L- minimum speaks, and their ballot will identify what was said so their coach can address it with them. This is aimed at preventing overt acts of discrimination, IE racism good, conversion therapy args, use of slurs in round. If you seem to have said something ignorant or implicitly offensive, I might dock speaks and tell you about it after round, but you probably won't lose unless your opponent can make it into an argument in the debate.

Policy Paradigm: If you read 26 off, A-Z spec I will give you 30 speaks. That's funny. Don't read psychoanalysis if you don't actually know what it says. That's very unfunny. Tell me where to vote and why. Other than that read anything you'd like, I read K affs and love a good policy debate as well. The easiest way to get my ballot is win an impact, explain why it matters and outweighs the opponents impacts in the last speech. Good articulations of your arguments will always beat out blippy responses in front of me. I consider myself a flow judge however, and will evaluate things primarily on the flow. If I see extensions through ink, I won't extend them. If there's a claim without a warrant, it's not an argument and probably won't get you anywhere. I'm open to voting on warranted out RVIs, but not blips such as "Time suck: it's a voter for fairness and education."

T and Theory: I am pretty open to voting on T on this topic, I think even the common topical affs can have a debate about whether their advocacy is truly stable or fits within the definition of fiscal redis, but to vote on T I will need well warranted out standards and voters. Otherwise, the T debate becomes almost impossible to evaluate in a constructive way for either team. On theory, I prefer theory about how we play the game of debate, I think that it's fun to evaluate whether or not a team has done something we should reject in the debate space, like condo, solvency procedurals, and pics bad. That said, these args need to be well warranted like a T shell.

Friv theory and tricks: I'm not gonna vote on it unless it's totally dropped and like, really funny. But if you're a high schooler you will have a hard time making it very funny to me. No offense, we have different perspectives on comedy and that's not a bad thing.

DisAds: I prefer a specific link, a solid internal link chain, and a clear impact. I don't think the link evidence has to say the policy of the aff, so long as the negative can make a well warranted comparison as to how the aff triggers the link.

CPs: I like all types of CPs, please just make sure you explain how the CP works and how it competes with the aff.

Ks: I am a queer theory debater. I like Ks and am familiar with almost all of the popular K lit. That being said, I am not down to interpret Lacan for you. If you read a K, you need to explain the arguments and show an understanding of the literature base. If you do not, affirmatives will get much more grace in making more defensive arguments or generic arguments to the K. As much as some people might like to think it does, none of what Baudrillard says makes sense unless you explain it and contextualize it. I prefer you don't read an identity based argument if you are not a member of that community. There are good ways to advocate for things like stopping antiblackness without reading a method from an author who literally says "White people should stop reading my stuff in debate rounds" (Wilderson). Systems Ks like Cap, Democracy, Anarchy are probably my favorites. Same with decol Ks. I think they're strong and make for generative debates.

K Affs: Should be related to the topic in so much as talking about how the topic is bad/flawed. I debate K affs and even at the college level this doesn't always happen in the most persuasive way. I'm down to vote on offense against T-FW as long as it's warranted out. In a debate about debate I encourage you to use real world examples because it will make it more persuasive. Otherwise, refer to my other notes on Kritiks because they will apply all the same.

I haven't judged a ton on the this topic so don't assume I know a whole lot about the lit base and pertinent policy issues, I'm busy researching nuclear weapons and queer theory dawg, there's only 24 hours in a day.

High School LD: I think LD is a value debate, meaning I put major emphasis on the framing. I prefer debates with different aff neg framings and clash over which is better. I am open to hearing less traditional values/criterions/standards as long as they are explained. On a topic that has a more policy oriented resolution, (The USFG ought to do etc.) I am open to hearing a plan text. I would still prefer the plan text be supported via a particular framing because I think it will make for the best debate, absent a provided framing I will default to CBA for plan texts. If a neg provides a framing and the aff has provided none in 1AC, there is almost a 100% chance that we will be evaluating the rest of the round through the negatives framing. The way I judge heavily depends on the circuit I am judging examples below:

UIL: I will vote for the best trad debater that reads framing and generic args in line with the res.

TFA: I will evaluate the flow and give extra room to any debaters that may be stepping out of the UIL sphere. I will probably drop you if you read disclosure against a small school debater. I will not vote on disclosure cause TFA rules say not to. Otherwise refer to my policy paradigm for arg specific stuff.

TOC: I haven't judged at an official TOC tourney this year but have judged TOC debaters quite a few times. Disclosure is fine, just don't bully small school debaters with it. Keep things clean on the flow. I'm fine with speed as long as it's clear. Otherwise refer to my policy paradigm.

High School PF: I do not know how PF works or how to judge it. If I am in your PF round try to make it easy for me to evaluate a flow and identify a reason to vote for you.

*LD PARADIGM AT THE BOTTOM*

Bio Stuff:

I am a third-year debater at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He/Him/They/Them/Whatever

Email Chain: zach.wallenburg@gmail.com

Debated 4 years of policy at Shawnee Mission West (2017-2021) [Education, Immigration, Arms Sales, Criminal Justice]

UNL NFALD (2021- ???) [Forever Wars, Election Campaigns, Nuclear Weapons]

Assistant Coach at Lincoln NorthStar 2022-23

Big Picture: (edited 9/13/22)

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

I default to an offense/defense paradigm. Every debate can be condensed to questions of theory (T & FW) and then of implementation (Plan, DA, CP/Perms). Chances are I will evaluate them in that order.

SOME SPECIFICS:

Speed:

is fine. but slow down for tags and analytics and be conscious of the setting-

IF YOU DON'T SIGNPOST I MAY NOT FLOW IT

DAs

IDK what to say here... ask me questions I guess if you have them

More impact calc in the rebuttals == more likely I'm gonna vote for you.

CPs

need a net benefit.

I like a good PTX Da with a CP that solves enough of the aff.

I'll default to sufficiency framing until I'm instructed otherwise

I'm probably not gonna kick the CP for you unless I receive that instruction- you generally need to answer the offense on it if you're gonna go for it

cheating cps are fine until you get called out- then give a good reason why you read it.

CP/Perm Theory can be a voter for either side if I'm given strong standards and in-depth impact analysis.

That doesn't mean you should go for (or waste very much time answering) a blippy theory violation or RVI in your last speech

T

is my favorite. I default to competing interps. Reasonability is best explained as an impact filter to education as opposed to some arbitrary gut-check. I think potential abuse is generally a voter, but, like all things, I can be persuaded otherwise.

Ks

ON THE NEG:

Generally speaking you don't need to go for the alt. The framework page is super important and often underutilized-

Links are best framed as linear disads to affirmative methods

I have a working understanding of Puar, D & G, Foucault, dare I say Baudrillard?, and Marx/Cap, so other lit bases will require a bit more explanation.

***Don't use words you don't understand/can't explain to your opponent(s)***

I can usually tell if you're just racing through blocks and would definitely prefer contextual analysis

PLANLESS AFFS: I am probably not the most qualified to judge your K aff although I have read several planless affs before - if you read one there's a chance you'll get a frustrating ballot (especially if I feel that analysis is lacking)

My very favorite rounds are K v K but those rounds get messy fast so proceed with caution.

FW/T vs K aff

Win your method. I don't think Fairness is the best stand-alone impact but it probably functions well as an internal link to nearly every other impact on this flow. A better way to phrase this argument would be "clash is key to sustainable debate" and don't shy away from big impact framing. i.e. under the affs interpretation, debate would collapse.

Speaker Points?

I'll try to rank speakers based on who had the largest impact on the round and more often than not, who does the best job at framing each argument in the context of my decision.

----------------------------------------------------------HIGH SCHOOL LD---------------------------------------------------------

(updated for Lincoln Southwest 2022)

I rarely did Lincoln Douglas in high school so I may not be familiar with many "community norms" right off the bat. When in doubt, read my policy paradigm from above because that's kinda my "default" most rounds.

Generally speaking, I will do as little intervention as possible so please do your best to write my ballot for me.

"You are voting ___ today in order to _________ and __________." A lot of times if I like and agree with this sentence I will use it as part of my RFD.

PHIL: Do what you do best. I would hope that anyone reading a case that creates a moral imperative would explain that imperative and why it outweighs or turns any competing method. Morality framing can be persuasive but it's no excuse for lazy debating. If you are winning your philosophy, it is also important to win how your case accesses that philosophy and why your opponent fails to access it. I have seen too many debates that end up in "Kant is right vs Kant is wrong" which makes my job particularly difficult if neither side explains how the answer to that question should compel me to vote one way or another.

PROGRESSIVE: This is the type of debate I am most familiar with. See policy paradigm for details.

TRAD: Cool. This is the type of LD they did in Kansas so I am slightly more familiar with this structure. I will always evaluate through a lens of offense and defense so win your framing and filter the rest of the arguments through that lens.

TRICKS: Usually not for me. I will note vote on incomplete arguments, even if dropped. I am sympathetic to bad defense when its responding to bad offense. I think all arguments should be contestable and winnable.

My preconceived notions of this particular activity have been highly influenced by Nicholas Wallenburg and Colin Dike so I recommend reading their paradigms if you want a better idea of where I'm coming from.