Paradigm.

Please treat your opponents with respect. Talking over each other in CX, making disparaging comments or personal attacks will cost you speaker points (at best) and/or make me reluctant to vote for you (at worst).

Please speak clearly at all times, especially on the text of cards. I will not be reading along during your speeches, so enunciating is the only way to make sure I know the content of your evidence.

Nearly any argument can win my ballot, provided you argue it well. Exceptions include: any defense of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Debate is not an activity isolated from the rest of the world, and the morality of certain things has already been settled by history.

Bonus speaker points if you can make me laugh :)

Bill Batterman
Associate Director of Debate — Woodward Academy (2010-present)
Director of Debate — Marquette University High School (2006-2010)
Assistant Debate Coach — Marquette, Appleton East, Nicolet, etc. (2000-2006)
Last Updated 9/17/2021

Twitter version: Debate like an adult. Show me the evidence. Attend to the details. Don't dodge; clash. Great research and informed comparisons win debates.

My promise: I will pay close attention to every debate, carefully and completely scrutinize every argument, and provide honest feedback so that students are continuously challenged to improve as debaters.

Perspective: During the 2010s (my second full decade of judging/coaching debate), I coached and/or judged at 189 tournaments and taught slightly more than 16 months of summer debate institutes. I don't judge as many rounds as I used to — I took an extended sabbatical from judging during the 2020-2021 season — but I still enjoy it and I am looking forward to judging debates again. I am also still coaching as actively as ever. I know a lot about the water resources protection topic.

Pre-round: Please add billbatterman@gmail.com to the email chain. Respect your opponents by sending the same documents to the email chain that you use to deliver your speeches. If you create separate versions of your speech documents (typically by deleting headings and analytical arguments) before sharing them, I will assume that you do not respect your opponents. I like debaters that respect their opponents. I will have my camera on when judging; if it is off, confirm that I'm ready before beginning your speech.

1. I care most about clarity, clash, and argument comparison.

I will be more impressed by students that demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful flowing), and intelligent cross-examinations than by those that rely on superfast speaking, obfuscation, jargon, backfile recycling, and/or tricks. I've been doing this for 20 years, and I'm still not bored by strong fundamental skills and execution of basic, core-of-the-topic arguments.

To impress me, invite clash and show off what you have learned this season. I will want to vote for the team that (a) is more prepared and more knowledgeable about the assigned topic and that (b) better invites clash and provides their opponents with a productive opportunity for an in-depth debate.

Aff cases that lack solvency advocates and claim multiple contrived advantages do not invite a productive debate. Neither do whipsaw/scattershot 1NCs chock-full of incomplete, contradictory, and contrived off-case positions. Debates are best when the aff reads a plan with a high-quality solvency advocate and one or two well-supported advantages and the neg responds with a limited number of complete, consistent, and well-supported positions (including, usually, thorough case answers).

I would unapologetically prefer not to judge debates between students that do not want to invite a productive, clash-heavy debate.

2. I'm a critic of argument, not a blank slate.

My most important "judge preference" is that I value debating: "a direct and sustained confrontation of rival positions through the dialectic of assertion, critique, response and counter-critique" (Gutting 2013). I make decisions based on "the essential quality of debate: upon the strength of arguments" (Balthrop 1989).

Philosophically, I value "debate as argument-judgment" more than "debate as information production" (Cram 2012). That means that I want to hear debates between students that are invested in debating scholarly arguments based on rigorous preparation, expert evidence, deep content knowledge, and strategic thinking. While I will do my best to maintain fidelity to the debate that has taken place when forming my decision, I am more comfortable than most judges with evaluating and scrutinizing students' arguments. I care much more about evidence and argument quality and am far less tolerant of trickery and obfuscation than the median judge. This has two primary implications for students seeking to adapt to my judging:

a. What a card "says" is not as important as what a card proves. When deciding debates, I spend more time on questions like "what argument does this expert make and is the argument right?" than on questions like "what words has this debate team highlighted in this card and have these words been dropped by the other team?." As a critic of argument, I place "greater emphasis upon evaluating quality of argument" and assume "an active role in the debate process on the basis of [my] expertise, or knowledge of practices and standards within the community." Because I emphasize "the giving of reasons as the essential quality of argument, evidence which provides those reasons in support of claims will inevitably receive greater credibility than a number of pieces of evidence, each presenting only the conclusion of someone's reasoning process. It is, in crudest terms, a preference for quality of evidence over quantity" (Balthrop 1989).

b. The burden of proof precedes the burden of rejoinder. As presented, the risk of many advantages and disadvantages is zero because of missing internal links or a lack of grounding for important claims. "I know this argument doesn't make sense, but they dropped it!" will not convince me; reasons will.

When I disagree with other judges about the outcome of a debate, my most common criticism of their decision is that it gives too much credit to bad arguments or arguments that don't make sense. Their most common criticism of my decision is that it is "too interventionist" and that while they agree with my assessment of the arguments/evidence, they think that something else that happened in the debate (often a "technical concession") should be more determinative. I respect many judges that disagree with me in these situations; I'm glad there are both "tech-leaning" and "truth-leaning" judges in our activity. In the vast majority of debates, we come to the same conclusion. But at the margins, this is the major point of disagreement between us — it's much more important than any particular argument or theory preference.

3. I am most persuaded by arguments about the assigned topic.

One of the primary reasons I continue to love coaching debate is that "being a coach is to be enrolled in a continuing graduate course in public policy" (Fleissner 1995). Learning about a new topic area each year enriches my life in profound ways. After 20 years in "The Academy of Debate" (Fleissner 1995), I have developed a deep and enduring belief in the importance of public policy. It matters. This has two practical implications for how I tend to judge debates:

a. Kritiks that demonstrate concern for good policymaking can be very persuasive, but kritiks that ignore the topic or disavow policy analysis entirely will be tough to win. My self-perception is that I am much more receptive to well-developed kritiks than many "policy" judges, but I am as unpersuaded (if not more so) by kritiks that rely on tricks, obfuscation, and conditionality as I am by those styles of policy arguments.

b. I almost always find kritiks of topicality unpersuasive. An unlimited topic would not facilitate the in-depth clash over core-of-the-topic arguments that I most value about debate. The combination of "topical version of the aff" and "argue this kritik on the neg" is difficult to defeat when coupled with a fairness or topic education impact. Topical kritik affirmatives are much more likely to persuade me than kritiks of topicality.

Works Cited
Balthrop 1989 = V. William Balthrop, "The Debate Judge as 'Critic of Argument'," Advanced Debate: Readings in Theory Practice & Teaching (Third Edition).
Cram 2012 = http://cedadebate.org/CAD/index.php/CAD/article/view/295/259
Gutting 2013 = http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/a-great-debate/
Fleissner 1995 = https://the3nr.com/2010/05/20/chain-reaction-the-1995-barkley-forum-coaches-luncheon-keynote-speech/

Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Please read rehighlightings out loud rather than inserting them.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

Yes put me on the email chain: Risha[dot]X[dot]Bhattacharjee[at]gmail[dot]com and I prefer this to pocketbox although you do you. I'd appreciate it if after the last corresponding rebuttal each side puts together a doc of all relevant cards and sends it to me even before I ask but no worries if you forget.

Philosophy last updated December 2016 (goal is to include trends I've noticed in my judging and also new opinions I've noticed myself start developing as I judge a lot, although some of these opinions haven't necessarily played out in my judging yet).

General Things 

TLDR: I don't really care what you do. I am most familiar with "policy" arguments and do research in high school and college more on the "policy"-side of things, but I judge a lot of different types of arguments, so my familiarity with those is growing quickly.

My own background: I debated at Coppell High School in Dallas for 4 years and then the University of Texas for 5 years, and am now coaching at Georgia State University and Wayzata High School. This will be my third year of judging college debate and eighth year judging high school debate. I typically judge a LOT of debate rounds every year. I was a 1A/2N for most of college, and most of my 2NRs were counterplan/politics or framework.  I did debate for UT/in D3, so I had my fair share of “K-debates". I found myself personally going a bit more “left” (with a particular interest in arguments about gender) in my last year of debate, but that was more in terms of opinion and not actually argumentative choices, and I still ended my career going for mostly "policy" arguments. I have generally viewed debate as a game, but can understand why others do not see it that way, and am open to alternate views of the activity. 

Top-level: You should do what you do best, and I'll reciprocate by trying my best to approach the debate with an open mind. I really don't care what kind/type of arguments you choose to make. I find that teams have much more success when their judge adaptation involves accounting for specific things a judge might think about a certain argument, instead of just choosing to make a different argument altogether. Do what you do best. The only caveat is you should not say things like "racism/sexism good". 

I think that racism and sexism (and other forms of exclusion) are problems in the debate community, but am uncertain as to what I think is the best way to combat forms of exclusion. I do think that debaters are required by the nature of the activity to contest arguments that their opponents make, and that there is value in that contestation. That being said, I think certain things are uncontestable - like I said above, impact turning a form of exclusion is not going to fly. I also dislike it when people try to dispute claims about debate as an activity being racist, sexist, ableist, etc. At this point, I honestly think it's violent to say a certain form of exclusion does not exist in debate, esp to people whose identity forces them to face that exclusion on a daily basis. That is different than, for example, contesting the claim that requiring a topical plan furthers those forms of exclusion.

I’ll ask to be included in any email chains, but I will not open the speech docs in most situations until the debate is over, because imo reading along lessens the impact that good communication would otherwise have on my decision. 

I generally don’t think it counts as prep when someone is saving a speech doc to a jump drive, etc. 

Pet peeves: “Always already” and “debate space” - i.e. redundancy. 

Card Clipping: Like I said above, I won’t open speech docs before/during a speech. So it’s impossible for me to follow along as a debater is reading. That’s just something to keep in mind if you want to call out another team for clipping cards. So, make sure there’s video if you want to make an accusation. I do think that card-clipping is absolutely unacceptable, and if an accusation is made, I will immediately stop the debate to resolve the dispute. If an individual is determined to have clipped cards, they will receive zero speaker points and the team will get an automatic loss. If it is determined that card-clipping did not occur, then I will assign speaker points based on what has happened in the debate so far, and assign the loss to the team who made the accusation. Purposefully being unclear just to get through a card faster is not much different from clipping cards. Since I obviously cannot decide intent, if you are unclear/it is hard to tell if you read a certain part of a card, I will err on the side of you did not.

I appreciate it when people tell me at the top of their last rebuttals what an RFD for them would look like.

I will not yell clear if I cannot understand you (I think that's just as interventionist as a judge yelling "smarter" and I do not share the same views as Dallas Perkins on that subject). So don't assume I'll let you know if I can't understand you....although the lack of typing should probably tip you off.

On a somewhat similar note, if I look confused, it is probably tech related or possibly just how my face usually looks. I rarely (knowingly) react physically when unconvinced by an argument. 

Asking a team what cards were or were not read in a speech doc is either cross-x time or prep time, unless their speech doc is egregiously terribad (a standard to be somewhat arbitrarily determined by me).

(Please note that this next thing is really not a big deal, I'm just letting you know in case it helps, but I don't expect any one to adapt in any way to this). -I don't really try to line things up from speech-to-speech while flowing. This is really just how things play out because of the kinds of debate I tend to judge. On that note, in almost any possible situation, no matter what you say, I will almost certainly just flow a speech on a specific argument straight down. Just to be clear, I will obviously still separate off case positions and 1ac pages onto separate pages. But if you're like "I'm going to start with the perm and then this thing and then blah" or whatever else, I'll probably ignore you. You can still say it for the purpose of the other team or your partner or out of spite etc., but just know that I will keep flowing straight down because roadmaps seem to be more like New Year's resolutions than actual truth. 

Links are not case arguments. Neither are random framework args. In a K or framework debate, please please please save us all the trouble and just read the links on the same page as the actual arg. I like case arguments but I like being honest about not having specific case args even more. I recognize that there are ways to interact with the aff that do not involve a case debate in the traditional sense. That's fine. What's less fine and substantially more annoying is arbitrarily splitting the K debate (or FW debate) onto two different flows which inevitably become combined in the last rebuttals and create more work for all us.

It is rarely successful in front of me for your only answer to a fully-developed arg by the other team to be that they don't have a card to back it up. By all means point this out if true, but also please substantively answer what is now a fully developed analytic (i.e. still an argument).

Lastly, please be respectful to your partner and your opponents. I don’t like excessively rude people and my speaker points will reflect that. I do enjoy snark if it's intelligent and furthers an argument and isn't just aimed solely at making fun of your opponent. It annoys me when people speak during their opponents' speeches in a way that is loud and/or makes it difficult to hear the speaker (or seems like it would bother the speaker), and is perhaps the only time I audibly intervene during a round (to shush the offender(s)). 

"Policy" vs "Policy"

General:

-High school: I do a TON of high school topic research (along with already having done a ton because of last year's college topic) so generally speaking I know what's up. In the past I've judged a lot of clash and left-left debates in high school, but this year I've found myself judging quite a bit more of policy debates as well. 

-College: I don't judge many policy debates in college, although this year I've judged a few relatively speaking. I've done a fair bit of research on the topic and almost all of it is more "policy" oriented research. I would like to judge some more "policy" debates but whatevs not my job (or desire) to dictate what people say in front of me, and I certainly do not have anything against debate arguments that do not involve both teams agreeing from the get-go that the discussion should be oriented around the results of USFG-enacted restrictions on ghg emissions. 

Topicality: I love a good T debate. Don’t really care what the topicality argument is. If the interpretation is something "silly," then the aff should be able to beat it without help via me giving the interp less weight. That being said, I often think that good explanations of reasonability are often persuasive. The aff will probably lose if they don’t read a counter-interpretation. I also am generally not convinced by most precedence arguments, or arguments about an aff being read all year means that it’s topical. Frankly, I couldn’t care less what the rest of the community thinks about whether or not an aff is topical. Obviously if a precedence arg is conceded I'll evaluate it, but just know that the aff won't have to do much to beat it.
(High school specific: this topic is obviously terribly huge and also lacking good definitions for neg interps - perhaps a useful thing to note about me is that I think of T "definitions" as another standard for a T interp, albeit a rather important one, but I don't think having a definition exactly backing up your interpretation is as absolutely necessary as many seem to think. Sometimes I think the bigger problem with the more obvious or better (in some ways) interps for 'engagement' is their tendency to run into brightline problems).

Theory: I generally default to reject the argument not the team for most theory arguments other than conditionality bad, and have noticed in my judging that it is difficult to convince me otherwise.

Gut-check, I probably think that conditionality is good, 50-state fiat is bad, and international fiat is bad. But I also almost exclusively went for the states counterplan on the energy topic and the Turkey CP on the democracy assistance topic, so I can definitely be convinced by the other side. Trump probably also makes the states counterplan a more important/necessary discussion on the college topic now. Conditionality bad is probably harder to win in front of me, but I'm sure it's doable. Something that is important for me in counterplan competition debates is the question of literature/solvency advocates. The more evidence the neg has about their counterplan in comparison to the aff, the better off they are for the theory debate. That being said, counterplans that result in the aff are probably not competitive. 

Disads: I went for them a lot (especially politics) and enjoy these debates (topic disads>politics obviously). Comparative impact calculus and turns case arguments are always ideal. 

The risk of a disad can sometimes be so low that it should effectively be rendered zero for the purpose of making decisions. The existence of a counterplan in the debate obviously affects this calculus. 

Counterplans: I like them. I like counterplans that are cut from aff articles. I like smart, specific PICs, depending on competition issues and how much evidence there is in context of the aff. See theory blurb above for more details, but would like to reiterate as said above that counterplans that result in the aff are probably not competitive. 

If the 2NR doesn’t say anything, I will not revert to the status quo.

Case debates: Obviously always appreciated. I think that zero risk of an aff can very much be a thing, and something that neg teams are often too hesistant to go for. Sometimes affs just doesn't make sense and/or are lying about what their evidence says. Don't be afraid to call them out. I'm not a huge fan of giving affs leeway just because certain things irl (like Trump's win) make it harder to solve while being topical. A good example for college folks is I also disliked judges giving affs an extra benefit of the doubt on the democracy assistance topic because the affs were all terribad and clearly didn't do anything (as may be fairly obvious, I was a 2N on this topic lol).

Criticisms versus Any Kinds of Args:

Criticisms: I explained my general proclivities above, but, things that are important for winning kritiks in front of me include: reducing the risk of the aff (how you go about doing this is up to you), having a clear explanation of what the alt is, and contextualizing link arguments in terms of the aff. Against race args especially, people seem to love going for some version of "only a risk we're better than the squo" and so it is useful for me as a judge if the contextualized link arguments include either an opportunity cost argument or a reason why that's a bad burden to have to meet (i.e. maybe presumption should stop flipping aff in these instances for whatever reason).

I think that role of the ballot claims are almost always not a real argument. They’re self-serving, arbitrary, and just a fancy way of saying that a certain impact should come first. The only role of the ballot imo is just to vote for the better debating. 

Performance: Most of my general stuff above also address my thoughts on this. Like I said, you do you. I did go for framework a lot in college, and at the beginning, it was because I really "believed" it. At the end of my career, and now, I see a lot of benefits in having a topic, but I also see a lot of reasons for why the way the topic is constructed and the way that debates occur, can be problematic. But just to be clear – when I debated, I viewed debate as a game. But I respect the fact that this isn’t how everyone approaches debate, and can be convinced that as a judge, I should also not view debate as a game. 

"Policy" Affs vs K's

As much as it saddens me to admit, I think (slash hope) we are all aware that I unfortunately do not have the power to actually enact federal government policy if I sign the ballot aff (as cool as that would be). So generally speaking, in front of me, neg teams should stop pointing this out like it's a big deal and if they do, affs should stop being jetti-mind tricked by it. 

I have never found an argument more silly (this is slight hyperbole but it makes me cranky) than the blanket statement that "discourse (or reps or whatever) doesn't shape reality", both because that just seems patently untrue (at least as a blanket claim) and also incredibly ironic to say in a communication activity of all things. There are much more nuanced ways of making a similar argument, i.e. perhaps keep in mind that on the aff you don't have to win that discourse/reps/whatever NEVER affect policymaking.

On a similar note to the above, I find almost all framework debates useless. Aff framework arguments on a theoretical level (we get to weigh our aff bc fairness or education etc) are meh to me - even if you win these arguments, that doesn't resolve the substantive arguments the neg will (hopefully) be making about why their links shape the way the aff's policy happens, which in turn affects the aff's ability to get to the impact they so dearly want to weigh, etc. Also everytime I hear "moots 8/9 minutes of the 1AC" I think "so what?". Seems like if the neg wins a link and an impact and those things moot your 1AC, then you should have picked a better 8/9 minutes of things to say. Much more useful than a theoretical fw debate is answering those link arguments on a substantive level and explaining why your offense still applies even if you don't get to weigh your impacts. Also I will probably never decide the neg doesn't "get" their K unless its a warranted argument made and somehow fully conceded by the other team in all the speeches or something. Tbh I appreciate it when affs don't ever try to forward the argument that the neg shouldn't get their k.
On a similar note, I think aff's often should get access to more of their offense than they realize even if the neg wins their "framework", and are often tricked into thinking otherwise. 

Judge choice is not an argument. Even when technically conceded by the neg team, there are usually 82930281390 other things said by them in the debate that implicitly answer it, and it's a safe bet that I'll do the "work" (is it even work?) for them.

K's vs K Affs

Dear gawd "method debates" are not a thing. Neg teams say "no perms because it's a method debate!" and all I hear is "maybe if we just arbitrarily call what is clearly still a K alt something different, we can jetti-mind trick Risha into thinking we no longer have to actually answer arguments and can, without any real justification, win that affs don't get perms anymore."  This doesn't mean I am just unconvinced by the arg that certain affs should not get permutations - I certainly think there are persuasive, debateable reasons for why affs that choose not to fall under the bounds of the resolution should not - so it just means that "it's a method debate" is not something I consider to be a justification for the claim that affs don't get perms. 

Framework Debates vs K Affs 

I judge a lot of these, so this is the longest section of my philosophy.

Imo non-fairness impacts are better than fairness impacts against affs that talk about various types of oppression in relation to the debaters' own identities - I think it usually hurts to allow these affs to read their impact turns to fairness and thus focus the debate on what was basically the core aff arg to begin with (and thus also likely their best offense). I do find fairness a much better impact against more high theory-ish affs (or ones that talk about oppression but less in relation to debate/personal identity) than the more social justice-y ones but I don't really have many thoughts on fairness as compared to other impacts against the more high theory-ish affs. 

Sort of related to my last point - I don't get this whole procedural vs structural fairness distinction people keep trying to make. Or rather, I get it, but imo it seems like a distinction without a difference, at least how I've heard it explained. Like sure there are different types of fairness and one maybe slightly more controllable than the other but the terminal impact to both (people quit, fun, other args for why ruining the activity matters) seems to be the same so esp when debating an aff talking about a type of oppression esp in relation to debate, the attempt to make a distinction seems not useful and also kind of the point of the impact turns/inevitability arguments the aff usually makes. 

2ARs for K affs against framework rarely have success in front of me if a counter-interp is not extended. I find that solely going for impact turns often devolves into having to defend basically that all clash is bad, and in an activity that (presumably, until proven otherwise really) seems to depend on clash in some form, that usually ends up a difficult position to defend. (This applies less to affs that are an impact turn to debate good from the get go, by which I mean the more high theory-ish affs that say the whole thing is bad, and not other affs that usually critique specific parts of it.)

I've found that people are often bad at explaining why debate is good and useful against high theory affs, esp the ones that explicitly say debate (the whole thing and not just like certain specific aspects) is bad/useless. I spend a great deal of my time doing things related to this activity, and I'd like to think it's not completely a waste, so it shouldn't be hard to convince me that debate has some value, yet I have found myself voting for the argument that it does not in the past. Negs need to make sure they tell me what that value(s) of debate is/could be, etc. when pushed by the aff. Or even just pointing out that while isolating certain values of debate is difficult, the fact that we all clearly spend some time doing the activity means something, etc. 

Truth testing has not been an argument with much success in front of me. By truth testing, I mean what people generally seem to say in front of me, which is some version of: if the aff is unpredictable and the neg wins they could not (or should not) have prepared for it, then since it could not be tested I should assume everything the aff says about the aff is false. Generally speaking when a team spends minutes of each speech explaining an aff and the explanation makes sense to me, I'm not just going to decide that the neg perhaps not having answers means all the plausible/convincing things the aff said are wholesale not true. To me this argument is really no different than saying new affs should also be presumed untrue if the neg isn't ready for one and thus the aff couldn't be tested, and that I think is generally considered to be a not-great arg by most people. I find truth-testing more persuasive when the impact is some version of the argument that it's key to searching for the best method to resist things, like the aff's impact(s). 

In a similar vein to my last point, a counter-interp for affs in these debates should be clearly explained - this means telling me what it is supposed to solve vs not, so this includes making sure it's clear why it doesn't link to your own offense. On a basic level, counter-interp explanations should include a description of the role of the neg in debates and (in most situations) also how you still allow for clash. Neg teams should point out when affs fail to do so, or do so unconvincingly (i.e. explain why the counter-interp doesn't actually solve any of your impacts and/or why it links to their offense). 

It makes zero sense to me when neg teams try to have squirrely interps to try and get out of aff offense when those interps involve basically saying the aff is beholden to meeting certain parts of the resolution but not others (seems to be kind of arbitrary and unpredictable and a great justification for the aff choosing to pick a different part of the resolution to not meet).

Affs should clearly explain the internal link between the neg's intepretation and their impact turns. Notice I said interpretation, and not just explain why *framework* causes the impact turns, i.e. be specific to the neg's interpretation instead of making generalizing claims about framework debates.

There have been many times the aff almost completely concedes the neg's topical version of the aff and it doesn't help the neg in any way. This is not to say that I hate topical versions of the aff lol, and PLEASE affs do not take this to mean you can just not answer them bc I'm sure that now that this is my philosophy, I will vote on a conceded tva the very next time I judge framework, but negs should try to understand the point of the aff a little more. Basically, if your tva and explanation of it against all affs that discuss race issues is the exact same, then it's probably not a great tva, at least for me.

I rarely find it convincing when neg teams try to go for the Lundberg card as a reason for why the aff's interp causes extinction or why the neg's interp solves it, due to having never heard a plausible causal internal link chain between a framework interp and extinction. I'm honestly pretty convinced that I will never hear one. This is like my version of all the philosophies that say something along the lines of "stop saying framework is genocide". Which btw is true but not something I've found necessary to include in my philosophy although I guess I kind of have now. 

I debated in policy at Glenbrook North from 2008-2012. I'm comfortable with any arguments, but please keep in mind that I have not been deeply involved with content development on this year's topic so I expect that debaters will make well warranted arguments.

Updated 2 September 2024

Debated Maine East H.S. 2009 -2012, Coach/Judge 2012 -

I have not done any research on this topic so do not assume I understand your terms, ideas, and or acronyms.

Debate is an educational game where everything in debate is debatable i.e. should I prefer tech over truth, do I need a plan text. Be nice to each other, try your best and have fun. Prefer debates were debaters are challenged to think in new ways. Do not be deterred from going for any argument because of what you read here. (Do not read Death Good in front of me.)

I’m open to listening to and voting for any argument even debates about what debate should be i.e. k of debate. Just because I stated that I will listen to / vote on / prefer something does not mean that it is an automatic win. If I do not understand something I will not vote on it.

Has been said in many different ways by many different individuals: debating / coaching for a school without many resources and understanding the experiences of similar schools competing against schools who are well resourced,I am not unsympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debates

I will default to a policy maker but am open to other ways of deciding the ballot. I will go off the flow and will try not to intervene, however I might default to my opinions below (which are not concrete).

I will vote for the least complex way to sign the ballot. Explaining your arguments / ideas and keeping the debate organized by road mapping, sign posting, and line by line are key and will help your speaker points. Other things that are key and help to explain / frame the debate are: overviews with impact clac, turns case/da arguments, framing of arguments and the debate, impacting out arguments, and in-depth analysis of arguments. Likewise, overall analysis and framing of evidence / arguments / warrants / qualifications / the round, is key. “Even if” statements will help with speaker points and to frame an argument. Do not assume that I know an argument, author, or specific terms. Analytics, defensive arguments (even without your own evidence) are able to reduce any argument/evidence to zero risk or close to it. If I do not understand a part of the argument or it is not explained/major gaps in your logic I will be less likely to vote on it, even if it is dropped. Explain to me why you should win the round and what this means for both you and your opponent’s arguments. Speed is ok but need to clear. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Emailing speeches does not count as prep time as long as it is reasonable and send it all in one doc. Have cites available after the round. I will vote down teams/dock speaker points for rudeness, racist, sexism, unethical, offensive and unacceptable arguments / behavior.

Look at / debate / answer the actual warrants (or lack thereof) in the cards not what the card is tagged as. Comparing evidence / qualifications with explanations as to whose is better helps me to evaluate an argument (even just reading evidence and pointing out its inconsistency is great (will help your speaker points)) and is something that I find is missing in a lot of debates. If their evidence is bad point it out. I will read evidence if call for or if I believe there is an issue with it.

Cross x – Tag Team is fine if both teams are ok with it. Overtaking your partner’s cross-x might result in lower speaker points. Be sure to carry cross-x into the rest of the debate. If you indicted a piece of evidence or proved that an argument does not work, say so in your speech.

Theory – Just like any other argument dropping theory is not an auto-win. If a part of the theory is not explained well enough or the other team points out that it is not explained or missing, I will be less inclined to vote for it. Will vote on all types of theory, but need to explain the theory, in-round abuse (why what they did was bad), voters, fairness, education, impacts and why I should either reject the argument or the other team. Do not just re-read your blocks. The more specific the theory is to the argument / abuse / voters / round, the better.

Topicality – Overviews help. Tend to lean affirmative (Neg has the burden) unless there is a clear: violation / definition, bright line between topical and untopical, impacts for allowing the affirmative and others like it to be topical and in-round / potential (prefer in-round) abuse. Will default to competing interpretations. Explanation on all parts of the flow are key i.e. definition, bright line, topical version of the affirmative, case lists, reasons to reject the team (in-round and potential abuse), standards, ground, limits, voters, fairness, education, and impacts. Reasonability, clash / lit checks, race to bottom, etc. are able to reduce the chance of voting on topically. Will vote on aspec / other spec arguments however, need to show abuse in-round.

Speaker points – My range is 27.8- 28.5, this does not mean that I will not go above a 28.5. The road to better speaker points is in this philosophy i.e. know your arguments, be clear, do line by line, point out inconsistency in arguments and evidence, extend / explain / compare warrants and or qualifications (or lack thereof), road map, sign post, impact clac, frame the debate and the other things that are listed in the various sections.

Plan text / Counterplan text – Should be written down. Check how they are written. Will vote on plan flaws and counterplans that change the plan text with a net benefit.

Affirmative – Two things are key: good overviews with impact clac and in-depth case analysis.

Counterplan – Use overviews. Make sure that there is a clear net benefit and/or solvency deficit.

Disads/advantages – Good overviews with turns case /da along with impact analysis/clac where opponent’s impacts/arguments are considered. Disad links should be clear and specific to the case. All types of turns (link, impact and straight) are also a good idea.

K–Explain. Have a general idea on the basic k, not a k hack, but will vote on them (including k of debate arguments / debates about what debate should be). The k needs to be specifically explained not just in terms of what the idea of the k is, but what is the framework, link (the more specific and clearer the better), impact and alterative (not only what the alterative does but how its solves the k and plan’s impact (i.e. root cause) and what does the world of the alterative looks like). A good overview of the k and framework helps a lot. The affirmative should always question the alterative.

K affirmatives and framework -

Last year, many framework debates were not organized, explained or impacted out. You will need those three if you want to win.Will vote on k affirmative and k of debate arguments / debates about what debate should be. Needs to be a clear role of the ballot and clear reason why your version of debate is better. Totally fine with looking at images, listening to music, narratives, stories and other things. Debates are more interesting when: the neg does not just read framework / k but engages with the affirmative and the affirmative k the negative positions through the lens of the affirmative. Framework and disads to framework have to be explained, show how your interpretation of debate solve or root causes the other side’s impacts, impacted out fairness and education, have analysis to show which style of debate is the best and show why the affirmative or argument should be or not be in debate.

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy---X------------------------------------------K

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

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

Glenbrook South 2014, Northwestern 2018, now Dartmouth, he/him/his

Email chain: c.callahan45@gmail.com

Climate topic: I like it. I know a lot about it.

IPR topic: Assume I do not even know what a patent is. This would not be very far from the truth.

General thoughts:

The older I get and the more time out of debate I spend, the more of a curmudgeon I become. I am interested in in-depth, well-researched debate, and uninterested in things that are not that. This has two implications.

First, I am most likely to vote for strategies that are based in coherent literature bases, lend themselves to high-quality and detailed evidence, and have deep defenses of the way their conclusions arise. I care a lot about interactions between flows -- I'm most comfortable voting for teams that structure coherent narratives across multiple flows and through multiple speeches, and I'm uncomfortable when basic thesis claims are in tension across positions.

Second, I find that I am more willing than other judges to issue decisions in T or theory debates that amount to "I know it when I see it." Just because one relatively reasonable practice might justify the most extreme form of that practice doesn't mean those two are indistinguishable. This doesn't mean I'm unwilling to vote on T or theory. On the contrary, I'm perfectly happy to do so when the other team has engaged in a facially unreasonable practice -- just not otherwise.

K things:

If recent history is any indication, I am an excellent judge for the neg when going for a critique like security or neolib against a typical policy aff. I do think, however, that objective truth is a real thing and that well-defined actions to improve the world are generally good, so I tend to be reluctant to accept most flavors of political or philosophical nihilism.

I'm also willing to vote for teams that don't read plans. My biggest concerns in T/framework debates are the role of the negative and the kind of debates that would take place in an alternative vision of the topic. This means going beyond the typical "you could have read the cap K" and developing a coherent theory for how debate operates and why a topic without a resolutional focus would still promote clash and in-depth debate. I find it hard to vote aff when the neg has won that the aff's interpretation makes debate shallow and prevents the specific testing of aff arguments.

Old man yells at cloud:

Things that will damage your speaker points:

- Answering arguments that were in the previous speech's document but not read

- Spending significant cross-ex time figuring out which cards were and weren't read and which theory arguments were made

- Going for backfile slop

If you ask the speaker to remove everything they didn't read from a speech doc, I will tell them they don't have to do that.

Better-than-average for:

50-state fiat bad, dedev, plan-inclusive K alternatives, the intrinsic perm against process counterplans, author indicts/debates about qualifications

Worse-than-average for:

Climate change not real, the perm double bind, con con, plan text in a vacuum, any argument that could be described as trolling, cards with sentences highlighted across multiple paragraphs, impact arguments that use the word "miscalc" as a substitute for explanation

Ethics stuff:

In general, my priority in cases of ethics questions is to maximize the amount of good-faith debating that can occur. If there is a way to resolve the issue and continue the debate, I will do my best to find it.

I would generally like to assume ignorance rather than malice when it comes to things like mis-citing or mis-cutting evidence. By this I mean cards being cited incorrectly, parts of cards not appearing in the original article, cards being cut in the middle of paragraphs, etc. If this kind of thing happens, I would prefer to just disregard a piece of evidence rather than deciding an entire debate about someone's card-cutting practices. Mistakes happen and people are people, and I would like to think that all debaters are here in good faith. However, if something is super egregious, I can be convinced that it should be a reason for a team to lose.

There needs to be a recording to accuse someone of clipping cards. This is a debate-ender: if you accuse someone of clipping, I will decide the debate on that issue. It has to be clear and repeated, not just missing a line or two. I will often glance at speech docs during a debate, but I do not closely read along with the debaters.

Conor Cameron
ccameron3@cps.edu
he/him/his
Coach, Solorio, 2012 - present

TLDR: Better for CP / DA / impact turn debates

I'll do my best to evaluate arguments as made. When the way I make sense of a debate differs from the way debaters make sense of a debate, here seem to be some common sources of the disparity:

1) I'm pretty ingrained in the offense defense model. This means that even if the NB is substantially unpersuasive, if the aff cannot generate a solvency deficit against the CP, and the aff has no offense against the DA, I am highly likely to vote negative.

Some notes: a) I do not think a solvency deficit needs to be carded; b) more difficult, but I could envision voting on analytic offense against a DA, c) I'm willing to vote on zero risk of the DA, but we'd both benefit from you taking a moment to explain why the offense-defense model is inapplicable in the debate at hand

2) I still think I have a relatively high bar for voting negative on topicality; however, I've tried to begin evaluating this debate more from an offense-defense perspective. In my mind, this means that if the affirmative does not meet the negative's interpretation, and does not have its own counterinterpretation, it is essentially arguing that any affirmative is topical and is conceding a 100% link to the limits disadvantage. I'm highly likely to vote negative in such a debate.

General argument notes:
3) I'm probably more sympathetic to cheaty process counterplans than most.

4) While I may complain, I do vote on the standard canon of negative kritiks. Things like cap, security, standard topic kritiks, etc. are fine. Extra explanation (examples, stories, analogies, etc.) is always appreciated, all the more so the further from my comfort zone you venture.

5) FW vs K Affs: I lean negative. However, I judge few of these debates. Both teams would benefit from accepting that I know very little here, slowing down, speaking clearly, and over-explaining (depth, not repetition) things you assume most judges know.

Other notes
6) I judge because:
a) I still really enjoy debate.
b) Judging is an opportunity to continue to develop my understanding of debate.
c) I am covering my students' judge commitment so that they too can benefit from this activity.

7) Quick reference
Policy---X------------------------------------------K

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

Read no cards-------X----------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good----X------------------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-----X------------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Limits----------------------------------X------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

I haven't judged this year so don't assume I know as much as you do.

Specificity and accuracy are crucial to good debate. The more specific your evidence, plan, etc. the better off you will be. I firmly believe from a strategic (generally speaking) and educational perspective substantive, specific, well-evidenced clash should be something to strive for, not run from.

The more accurate your retracing of debate is in your final rebuttal the more convincing your speech will be -- did they (really) drop something, and what does it mean?

If the 2ac says the words "not intrinsic" and the block drops it, that's probably not game over because the 2ac did not make a full argument. If the 1ar blows it up, the neg gets one last chance to answer it. This standard applies in other instances. I firmly believe debate should not be about cheap shots but about substantive engagement. That being said, I highly value technical debating as long as you are making full, coherent arguments.

I'll listen to anything but everyone has biases. I'll be transparent and say that I find affirmatives which focus on defending the resolution more pursasive than those that don't. I'm not telling you to debate a certain way, but I believe debate as an activity is most productive when two teams square off with the same idea as to -- generally -- what is the topic at hand is.

Leah Clark

*** Update: In light of our current political reality of fear mongering racists targeting ethnic groups as terrorists, either foreign or domestic, and the very real mortal danger to which that rhetoric leads, I will evaluate terrorism scenarios and impacts as tantamount to hate speech. Thus, expect me to vote accordingly... #debatenolongeragame

Howdy All,

Below are a few general guidelines that help me adjudicate, and by extension, help you debate in front of me:

I like to see direct clash (they say this, we say that), analysis with warrants (prefer our argument, because…), impact/implications (what the world looks like if we don’t do x), warrants for why your impact(s) hold(s) greater significance/is more likely/is the reason I should vote.

Make it clear to me. If I have to call for cards (which I rarely do), unfortunately, that situation becomes open to my interpretation of the evidence (underlined, not underlined, context from what I know of the author—or don’t) and is never satisfactory for either party.

Ultimately, debate is an educational activity and a ton of fun! Please try to have a good time in a respectful, inclusive and meaningful way.

Topicality— I will vote on it. Such debates should be a clash between two competing interpretations and impacted. Tell me why I should prefer one interpretation to another. Saying ‘T is a voter for blah, blah, blah…’ won’t do much to convince me it is important to evaluate. Use answers on other flows to prove things like ground loss, in-round abuse etc. It is pretty unlikely that I will vote simply on potential for abuse.

Dis-Ads— every argument in the round should functionally operate, in its own way, as a disad-- specific link/internal link/imapct story is key and explain to me how it turns case.

Counterplans— I like ‘em. Win the net benefit, explain how it operates as a disad to the permutation, win answers to perm/theory.

Permutations-- Slow down! There are few things I hate more than tests of competition that unfairly morph by the end of the debate because nobody in the debate really caught the text/concept of the perm.

Explain to me what ideas or actions you propose testing and how it functions-- I do not buy glib perms like 'perm all non-competative parts of the alt'. Describe to me what that world looks like/how they are compatible.

Theory— Tacked on, unreasoned, un-warranted theory arguments will not be evaluated. I am happy to vote here but you have to do some serious work to make it impactful. Slow down—I want to catch your analysis!

Critical Arguments/the ‘K’—I really enjoy these debates, and truthfully where I focused my attention as a competitor--both on the Aff. and Neg. However, please do not operate under the assumption that I am familiar with your authors or your interpretations. Please be clear in identifying your links and implications. I especially dislike kritik debates that devolve into generic disads. Specificity is key and tell me a story! Always a good choice to slow down! Also a great choice, cut the jargon.

If your strategy when confronted with a critical argument is to rest solely on your Framework laurels, you will have a lot of difficult winning in front of me. I like to see arguments engaged directly— more on Framework….

Framework—Thus far, observing framework arguments, I am not a fan. I am not of the opinion that debate is the wrong forum and that arguments should, on face, be excluded. A more sophisticated argument, and one that I am definitely willing to vote for, is one that identifies how the argument operates as a disad to the K/critical case, provides impact comparison, and warranted analysis how they cant capture/access x advantage.

Clint "C.J." Clevenger
School: None
Years Judging: 10+
Rounds on Topic: 0
Last Updated 2023

ImportantUpdate: For those who don't know, I have stopped officially coaching and judging at this point, which means that I have stopped cutting cards and keeping a detailed account of the topic, I might not even know the topic at this point. For those of you filling out prefs who might recognize my name from years ago (you are probably a coach now) who have had me previously as a judge and were accustomed to me being deeply on top of the topic, consider this fair warning.

General:I enjoy watching very technical debates with good strategies. This guide is to get you to a point to win the debate with the best speaker points possible. Arguments need to pass the common sense test (i.e. the use of logic)…There are 3 parts of an argument Claim, Warrant, and Data, your arguments need to use all 3, otherwise they cease to be arguments. It helps to point out missing items of these if you are the opposing team. FLOW!FLOW! FLOW! FLOW! My flow is a written account of the debate and how I make my decision. You should be flowing the debate and use the line by line to answer arguments that the other team is making.

Clarity: SLOW DOWN!!! You are not as clear as you think you are! I don’t call for many cards (read almost zero) unless I need them to clarify and argument or compare the warrants that were discussed by teams. I don’t think it is my job to read your evidence to determine what it says. I do think it is YOUR job as a debater to communicate both with me and the other team what that evidence says and means. Speech docs are not an alternative to your spoken word. I expect to be able to understand every word that you say. The text of the evidence that you read is the most important thing you read in debate because it is what gives you the warrants to win debates in front of me. I think debaters would be well advised to slow down to 85% of their top speed, because you are not as clear as you think you are. Important notes: I will call clear if I can’t understand you twice. After that I will give non-verbal signals like putting my pen down and staring at you. You should take this as a clue that I have quit flowing your arguments and they at that point cease to be arguments in my mind in the round. Your speaker points will suffer if I am yelling clear. Debaters should feel free to make arguments during their speech about the clarity of an argument that the other team made, I will give non-verbals if I agree or not. This is a good way to show me two things: 1. that you are listening to the speech and not just reading the speech doc and 2. that you are probably flowing. Both of which are likely to help your speaker points.

Voting Speed:I have been told that I vote very quickly. Most of the time I already know what the nexus issues in the debate are that I have to resolve for me to make a decision, once I have identified these, decisions come quickly. If you want to win, I would recommend you start to identify them as well. Often times I do not call for cards. This is because I am not going to sort through your evidence to find the warrants in it to support your arguments. You should be doing this work not me. If you are not doing it, that is probably a reason that you will lose the debate. This is a spoken activity; I listen to all of the speech, not just the tags. I do this because I want to list to what your evidence actually says (you know the warrants you are supposedly reading that you have not highlighted out of them). I expect clarity through the entire speech, if you are not able to perform this, then you are wasting your breath. I flow warrants of evidence and I also flow the Cross-X.

Topicality:Competing interpretations really make sense to me. Reasonability seems pretty circular. I am a judge will to vote on T. The biggest problem that I see in T debates is the lack of internal link and impact work in the standards debate. Painting a picture for me of what the topic looks like under your interpretation (usually large or small) and WHY that interpretation is best for debate is the simplest that I can break it down. Too often teams just say, here is our interp and we/they are in/out of it. That is not enough, because the inclusion/exclusion of one case does not make a topic. It is all of the other things that your interp allows/excludes that make the topic, it is really just happenstance that it excludes/includes the affirmative.

Kirtiks:I am getting there. I have read some lit now, I am coming along slowly. Still think I am not the best judge for the K, but there is not an ideological predisposition for voting against it. Read more below on the "performance" debate section about teams that want to pref me who go for the K. I think the same things apply here as well. Sometimes I get lost, once I am lost, like most people I tend to seek ground in debates that I am familiar with, this probably means aff arguments like No V2L without Life and case outweighs or permutation arguments.

Performance/Non-Resolution Engaging AFFs: In my ideal world I think the Affirmative should defend some form of engagement of the resolution. My predisposition does not require the defending of a "plan" but does incline me to believe that the AFF should certainly engage the idea that there should be an (insert action of the resolution here) Now, saying that I think the AFF should engage the resolution does not mean they have to, nor do I have a predesignated will to vote against teams that choose not to. I will and have listened to debates about the state of debate and other things. The difference in my comfort has to do with a level of understanding of arguments. I will be honest. The more often I am prefed into these debates and watch them I think the better understanding I will have for the arguments, allowing me to develop a better skill set as a judge. If you are a team chooses to debate in this style, I understand the perceived risk in prefing me, I will definitely say I am not a perfect judge for this style of debate right now, but to be clear - this is a statement of a willingness to learn and expand upon my capabilities as a judge. So on that note - I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to both broaden and sharpen my skills.


Theory:Still have yet to hear a good reason that makes sense for conditionality, especially when used in conjunction with contradictory arguments. I spend a lot of time coaching and thinking about theory. I actually don’t mind theory debates. I give 2ARs and 1ARs a little more leeway in going for theory, but the argument still needs to be there for the 2AR from the 1AR. I want to hear a warrant for your argument not 7 points of blip. I think 3 good warranted arguments are better than 7 sentences about 7 different things. That being said, plenty of people run conditional arguments in front of me, and it still takes the right arguments from the AFF to win conditionality debates. That being said I think I voted AFF on condo bad when the AFF went for it in the 2AR (does not need to be the whole speech, but you need to invest some time to get it done) probably around 80% of the time. Most of the other theory questions you have about CPs will be answered below.

Counter-Plans:I think most CPs are legit. You should have some form of solvency advocate for your CP. Evidence about the link to the net-benefit is not a solvency advocate. In these instances lit checks abuse for the most part. Be willing to spend time talking about the impact. So be willing to do an impact comparison that "if I reject the argument not the team, then they d/n have a cp to solve case, which was conceded by the 2NR and it outweighs their net-benefit without a CP" This will get you a very long way. NEG read the inverse if you think you are schooling them on the rest of the debate and this is their only way out, a little preempt will go a long way to better speaks. Consult CPs/Condition CPs/PICs are a different monster. AFFs too often fail to debate or understand the normal means, that can get them out of a lot of the consult debates. PICs out of words are probably not the best strat in front of me. There are a TON of CPs on this topic, and there is zero reason why we should not debate them. International fiat is a risky endeavor. I can be sold either way.

Rebuttals (specifically 2NR/2AR):This is where you should be comparing impacts for me and explaining how I should vote. A good impact comparison does more than just magnitude, timeframe, and whatever.. it actually compares your impact risk in relation to their impact risk. Reality is you are not winning all of your arguments. You will start to lose fewer debates once you can realize what arguments that you are and are not losing. This is the speech that you have to think like a judge. The tag line in the rebuttals is not an argument, you need to be drawing distinctions between the text of your authors and theirs and giving me reasons why your evidence or analysis answers their arguments and theirs does not answer yours and what that means to me in how I should evaluate those claims. Seem like a lot to do? Really helps if you are setting this up in the block and 1AR. Just remember that if I have to do work for you, you might not like the outcome…..


Speaker Points:Some have asked me about how I assign speaker points. So the things I think about when I am assigning speaker points are (in no particular order), clarity, delivery, style, strategy, success, how bad you made my flow look (I flow unlike you. My flow is how I decide the debate, the more painful you make my life the more pain I inflict on your speaker points. Line-by-line argumentation is good, and is a dying art. Note: this is about the umpteenth reference in my judging philosophy to flowing...it might be important!

There are 3 things you need to know about my paradigm:

1) I believe that high school policy debate is a communication activity; therefore, I expect a clear explanation of the arguments in the round as well as a clear delivery.

a. I will do my best to evaluate whatever it is you want to debate.

b. If I do not understand your argument (or your delivery)--it is your fault, not mine.

2) I believe that high school policy debate is about policy.

a. If you want to talk about something else, please make sure you can connect it to policy in a meaningful way.

b. The less your arguments have to do with policy, the harder it will be for me to evaluate them.

3) I believe that high school policy debaters should conduct themselves both professionally and amicably

a) Tag-teaming and prompting are neither professional nor amicable.

b) If you do either of these in the round, you will lose speaker points.

Current head coach at Homewood-Flossmoor High School since 2014.

Previous Policy debater (Not about that life anymore though...)

If you start an email/doc chain - kcole@hf233.org

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

When it comes to LD, I am 100% more traditional even though I've spent time in policy. I don't believe there should be plans or disads. LD should be about negating or affirming the res, not plan creation. You should have a value and value criterion that is used to evaluate the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

Traditional PF judge here. I dont want to see plans or disads. Affirm or negate the res.

Card Calling ----- If someone calls for your cards, you better have it very quick. I'm not sitting around all day for you to locate cards you should have linked or printed out in your case. If it gets excessive you'll be using prep for it. Same for obsessively calling for cards --- you best be calling them because you actually need to see them instead of starting card wars.

IN GENERAL

I'm not into disclosure so don't try and run some pro disclosure theory because I won't vote on it unless it's actually dropped and even then I probably wont vote on it.

I'm not going to fight to understand what you're saying. If you are unclear you will likely lose. I also feel like I shouldn't have to follow along on a speech doc to hear what your saying. Fast is fine, but it should be flowable without reading the docs. Otherwise....what's the point in reading it at all.

BE CLEAR - I'll tell you if I cannot understand you. I might even say it twice but after that I'll probably just stop flowing until I can understand you again. Once again -- Fast is fine as long as you are CLEAR

I am an advocate of resolution specific debate. We have a resolution for a reason. I don't believe running arguments that stay the same year after year is educational. I do, however, think that in round specific abuse is a thing and can be voted on.

K's- Most of the common K's are fine by me. I am not well read in K literature. I will not pretend to understand it. If you fail to explain it well enough for me and at the end of the debate I don't understand it, I will not vote for it. I will likely tell you it's because I don't understand. I will not feel bad about it.

Be a good person. I'm not going to tolerate people being rude, laughing at opponents, or making offensive comments.

(I wrote this years ago when I was coming out of high school - please forgive me)

email: chriscoleman100@gmail.com

Debated at Glenbrook South for 4 years, currently a senior at Northwestern University. Debate is foundationally a dialectical game. There are no fundamental truths and we are always forming new concepts and discarding old ones. This means that everything is up for debate (whether it be the words in the plan text, who gets to define them, whether over-limiting is good or bad, whether hegemony is good or bad, whether death is good or bad, blah blah blah).

That being said, as a debater, it’s an impossible burden to make you justify every single thing you say. However, certain warrants are usually more important in different debates. I try to evaluate debates with a focus on why your warrants matter - there are two parts to this. The first part is “actually having a warrant to support up your claim” part. The second is “impacting” your warrants: why does democrat backlash matter more than the plan appeasing republicans? This is essentially impact calculus and shouldn’t just be limited to the impact debate – you should weigh the importance of your arguments versus theirs. Tell me why your argument is more logical. Tell me why your specific evidence indict matters.

This tends to be important for me in critical debates for both the affirmative and the negative. Why does the plan’s security discourse lead to the complete failure of the aff? Why does the permutation resolve the link arguments? Both sides of K debates have a tendency to drift towards spewing claims without warrants. This is a shame because impacting your claims is crucial here. Alternative solvency should be articulated – if it’s not, why does the alternative not matter?

Of course, there are some fundamental predispositions that all judges have. I try my best to judge from this objective lens but this objectivity is impossible. In high school, I debated both critical and policy arguments. For critiques, I researched and debated everything including but not limited to neoliberalism and capitalism, feminism and security, Chernus, Heidegger and Introna, Deleuze and Guattari, anti-blackness, and Baudrillard. I might have some knowledge of things not on this list, but you should debate acting like I do not. The policy list is probably less important to go into detail over - everything from politics to advantage counterplans to PICs is fine.

I don’t really “err” anything for framework debates/no plan teams. I have gone for framework and I have read a no plan aff. I don’t have any theoretical leanings regarding counterplan theory and conditionality. You can convince me a disad is zero risk but this entails more than just saying that the link is small – you would have to make an argument about why change below a certain degree becomes background noise.

Linda M. Collier, The Barstow School
25+ years coaching—

Please ask questions before the round if these remarks don't answer your questions.

Paperless debate—love it. Stealing prep time—hate it. I won’t run prep while you are jumping your speeches, but that means everyone stops prepping while the files are being transferred. Email chains are great solution.

Two reasons you should slow down--1. I'm hearing impaired and wear two hearing aids. 2. I’m old fashioned and flow by hand. That means you need to slow down.

I’m also old fashioned in that I prefer a policy approach. I’ll listen to all of the arguments and evidence presented, but if you need to win on theory, T, or a critical argument rather than an evaluation of the case v. the cp, disad + case defense, or impact turns, or any cost/benefit approach; make sure you take my preferences into account when you are comparing your arguments with those of your opponents. The Trump administration is insane. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use politics arguments, but I have some pretty fixed ideas. I'll do my best to be objective, but...

Debaters should use less jargon and explain their arguments in relationship to the competing arguments. In fact, I suggest that when you answer arguments you read less new evidence and instead make more nuanced explanations of the distinctions and warrants in your original cards. That doesn’t mean NEVER read new cards, just that you should read the best evidence first rather than last.

Debate is about comparisons--the more you make on the way toward drawing sound conclusions, the better.

Enjoy yourselves and debate well--

Background:
2014- : Northwestern University 
2010-2014: University of Chicago Lab Schools (UC Lab) 

Top Level:
I will vote on almost anything. For speaker points, I often weigh strategic decisions as much as technical skills. That is not to say that the more technically proficient team won't be rewarded, I just think many very good and technical debaters get tunnel vision and don't know how to make connections that could make all the difference in my decision. Good debaters write the possible ballot(s) for me that would win them the debate, and un-write the possible ballot(s) that would lose them the debate.

Tech over truth or truth over tech are bad models in my opinion. If anything, tech is a pre-requisite to truth. Accordingly, a conceded argument is a true argument if it is in fact an argument (claim+warrant/explanation/evidence). With evidence, I'm increasingly concerned that we are heading toward a norm where judges read every piece of evidence for which the author name is mentioned in the 2NR/2AR. I will rarely read a piece of evidence unless there is a clear disagreement in the debate over its content, qualifications, etc.

Speed is great if you're clear enough. I have no problem basing my decision on the fact that I did not hear something. If you were unable to properly communicate the arguments you needed to win, you should lose.

Also, please remember that there is a clear line between being aggressive and being obnoxious and/or offensive. I can tell you first-hand that crossing this line won't do anything for you.

Most importantly, try to have fun and respect the activity. I hope I never have to settle an ethics challenge, but a recording and the highlighted speech from both teams that prove clipping will result in an immediate loss for the team doing the clipping. I cannot say false ethics challenges will always result in an immediate loss for the team who challenged, because it depends on the situation, unless it's clear to me that they changed the highlighting (yes, unfortunately I have seen this happen).

Counterplans:
-I have no predisposition to any type of CP, but I can certainly be convinced that a certain CP is bad for debate. What that means is, the aff should really try to contextualize the abuse story in terms of the exact CP, not only the type of CP. Neg, have a solvency advocate and most of their offense goes away if you do the work. Aff, see below about impact work on T.
-If you want me to have the option of kicking the CP in the event of some theoretical/positional objection, make that clear in the 2NR.

Disadvantages:
-I lean toward the idea that the link determines the direction of uniqueness, but can of course be persuaded otherwise 
-Impact out your turns case arguments in a way that I can apply them (i.e. if they implicate solvency or just the internal link to an impact).
-Just answer politics theory. If the articulation is as lacking as something like the two words "Vote No," then I'm quite lenient.

Kritiks:
-While I love the K, cheating frameworks bother me. I have a fairly low threshold for the aff to get to weigh their impacts.
-The 2NR should engage and implicate the entire aff. I say this because the best way out of a tough spot for the aff is to isolate an internal link or full advantage that the block or 2NR doesn't have a link to or other argument that short-circuits it, and do impact calculus on why the corresponding impact outweighs the kritik.

Topicality:
-Saying "explodes limits" or the like is insufficient. Impact standards out to fairness, education, participation, or even fun (basically participation).
-My two cents:
-Ground is unconvincing, and predictability boils down to limits.
-Limits is convincing. That being said, the neg should beat the aff to the punch on functional limits. For example, instead of including a few absurd possibilities in your case list to make it seem like you don't underlimit, narrow it down to possible affs that are actually strategic/reasonable to read and then debate it out on those terms. Overlimiting is always better than underlimiting, to a point.
-With over/underlimiting, I don't know what the difference is between 10 and 15 affs, or even 10 and 20. This is where reasonability is persuasive, unless the neg explains why those extra five or ten are uniquely bad or justify more.
-Reasonability is not an alternative framework for evaluating T, it's a way to evaluate competing interpretations. Reasonability also doesn't mean "reasonably topical," it refers to whether or not the aff being topical justifies a reasonable topic to debate.

Theory:
-If positional theory (i.e. not Conditionality/Dispositionality Bad) is intended as a reason to reject the team, articulate it that way throughout the round and have a more compelling abuse story that is applicable to the round as a whole.
-Conditionality debates are fine, but it's like T. There's major impact work to be done even if there are more than two advocacies.

Affs w/o a plan:
-I've given this some serious thought lately, and it's clear debate is moving in the direction of affs without a plan. I think to some extent these are fine and even beneficial to our greater worldview, but they should be relevant to the topic to have any hope of gaining traction on the framework debate.
-In novice debate, these affs are rare, but I really believe that first year debaters should not read these affirmatives this early on in their debate careers. Obviously there is no brightline to when it becomes acceptable, but I was extremely persuaded by a novice team last year who used this to answer the aff's impact turns. A first year debater does not know what education is stale, nor do they know what the debate community is truly like. None of this is to say I won't vote for a novice team reading an aff without a plan that is relevant to the topic, just some thoughts to consider if you're negative against one.

I prefer real-world policy debate with high-probability impacts. Kritiks are welcome but they need to have strong case-specific links. I typically won't vote on generic kritiks with generic links. 

andres.gannon [at] gmail.com - Updated 11/09/2013

I am not altering the manner in which I give speaker points unless the tournament provides a particular set of guidelines, recommendations, or suggested metrics for points.

Things someone could reasonably disagree with me about (big picture):

- It is productive and possible for all people to have an opinion about things the federal government is doing and should do

- Warranted arguments made from personal experience are not inherently less persuasive than warranted arguments made from those who professionally study the issues we debate, but arguments about the broader accuracy, applicability, and  relevance of a personal experience to the broader issues in question should be debated in a productive fashion

- Offense-defense obsession counterproductively incentives a race to hyperbole. I won't give you full weight of an impact just because its dropped, you have to persuade me. An argument must exceed the threshold of being a credible, coherent, warranted, and plausible warrant before being one that helps you win the debate
- I've never been convinced any aff or DA actually accessed extinction of the human race. People are more concerned with the "terminal" part of their impact than they should be.
- The most important skill we acquire from debate is learning how to make and evaluate decisions in a way that is applicable to life outside of debate. Teams that win debates oriented around this question are those that convince me their model of debate is the most productive means of doing this. (http://t23367.education-region-usa-edebate.educationtalks.info/challenge-to-the-community-t23367.html)
- Debate needs to be more technical and specialized when it comes to discussing federal policies. The issues we discuss are incredibly complex. We should dive into that, not shy away from it (http://osdir.com/ml/education.region.usa.edebate/2007-06/msg00001.html)
- Try or die is a peculiar way of making decisions
- Impact and impact defense evidence are one of the most useful things to debate when it comes to education about public policy

Things someone could reasonably disagree with me about (small picture):

- Winning uniqueness does not mean the link turn isn't true/your link is true
- Counterplans that fiat an actor other than that of the resolution are not productive for debate
- Affs don't get to define the words in their plan in whatever manner is most convenient. Evidence gets to define words from the plan.
- Many impact turns to advantages are not intrinsic
- Arbitrary roles of the ballot are not persuasive. An issue being important doesn't mean it is a good role of the ballot
- Feasibility is a factor in determining the desirability of K alternatives
- Perms are a better way to eliminate unproductive counterplan discussions than theory

Logistics:

- Debate should be a safe space. Hostility, vulgar language, unnecessary antagonism, aggression, and patronization will not be appreciated
- I may want speech docs as the debate progresses
- I don't want it to be your job to monitor for card clipping. You debate, I'll enforce the rules
- Prep time stops when the jumpdrive is on your opponents hand
- You are not helping your partner's cross-x when you get involved
- I'd rather hear your cards than call for them after the debate

School: Stevens Point Area Senior High (WI)

Experience: I've got three years of high school debate experience, I'm the assistant coach of the SPASH debate team, and this is my second year judging.

I'm a tabs judge but I have a few preferences:

T: I'll always look to competing interpretations, and you should throughly explain your standards/voters. In round abuse will be more persuasive
Kritiks: I'll default to a policy framework if none is presented, so I guess I'm a little biased against Kritiks but if you win the framework flow I'm down. Also I have probably a higher standard for alt solvency.

Impact calc/ framing the round is key. In the end I'll vote on anything, but you need to tell my why I'm signing my ballot.

email me at dgord325@uwsp.edu if you have any questions

If I am judging you at a tournament with preferences, then you should strike me if you do not agree with all of the following:

-I am an educator first. If anything happens in the debate that I deem would not be okay in a high school classroom, I will stop the debate and vote against the team that engaged in the inappropriate behavior.

-The affirmative should defend a topical plan and defend the implementation of the plan.

-Affirmative plans these days are too vague. You only get to fiat what your plan says, not what it could mean or what you want it to mean. If you clarify your plan in cross-x, the negative can use that clarification to setup counterplan competition.

-The negative should prove why the plan causes something bad to happen, not why it justifies something bad. In other words - most of your Kritks are probably just FYIs.

-I evaluate debate in large part based on the line-by-line. If you cannot flow, I am not a good judge for you. If you cannot specifically answer the other team's arguments and apply your arguments to them and instead just read pre-scripted blocks, I am not a good judge for you.

-Debate is a communicative activity. I don't follow a card document. I listen to what you say. I will only read evidence if I cannot resolve something in the debate based on how it was debated.

-For something to count as an argument it must be complete and explained. I also must be able to understand what you are saying.

-My lifetime speaker point average range is probably lower than what you are used to.

-If you are visibly sick during the debate, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

Experience: This is my sixth year in debate, I did four years in high school at Brother Rice and now debate for Michigan State. I've debated at both the TOC and the NDT. On this topic, I've judged at the Umich tournament and worked at the SDI. 

Preferences (Short version): Run whatever you debate best, and do comparative impact calc in the 2NR/2AR.

Preferences (Long version):

Theory: I lean neg on most theory questions, I think that two conditional counterplans is becoming a norm especially in high school debate, but I'll default to execution. To win condo in front of me, the aff probably has to prove some in-round abuse other than "the 2AC was spread out." You have blocks. If the neg reads the cap K and an econ impact in the 1NC, however, that is worth pointing out in the 2AR if you're going for condo. My interpretation of conditionality is that the status quo is always an option, regardless of whether the 2NR extends a counterplan, but the question is certainly debatable. Most other theory questions in my opinion are always a reason to reject the argument rather than the team. I'm not a huge fan of counterplans that compete on the nature of fiat. I think that politics theory is generally a reason to indict the internal link, not a reason to start permuting disads.

Topicality: For me, T usually comes down to whether or not the literature base the affirmative opens up is uniquely bad for debate. This means that providing a case list is particularly important for me, so both the aff and neg should try to do so. I think limits are generally good, and if your strategy on T is to impact turn things like ground and predictability, you probably shouldn't pref me. I think that affirmative interpretations should do more than say that whatever the aff does meets x word, they should also provide a general definition of x word. I'm particularly receptive to "topical version of the aff."

The Kritik: It was never really my thing, but if it's yours you shouldn't change your strategy. In my opinion, in a great number of K debates, both the aff and neg forget about the case. This usually leaves the judge in a bad spot, and in that situation I am likely to lean affirmative unless they make large mistakes on the framework flow, etc. 2NR "kritik turns the case" will get you much further than "x is a prior question" when i make my decision. Even if you don't have specific cards about the affirmative, try to create a link/impact story which deals with the case. The affirmative should defend the scenarios they lay out in the 1AC and give me a reason why those matter in the 1AR/2AR. I'll rarely conclude that there is a 0% risk of the case, so try or die is a good framing for the 2AR. I'm an ok judge for the affirmative to go for framework in front of, but you have to impact it in the 2AR. "Kritiks are unfair" is a bad argument, "questions of policy should come first" is a better argument. That said, I won't vote on a floating PIK if the word "perm" is anywhere in the 2AR.

Impact calc: For some reason, there is often a lack of impact defense on both sides in high school debate. When this is the case, I will usually default to whatever impact has the largest risk of either occurring first, implicating the other side's impacts, or outweighing for an external reason. Phrases like "the disad turns the case faster than the case can turn the disad" can go a long way in the 2NR, and will help your speaks. Alternatively, try or die is also a good framing for the aff in debates without a counterplan or much impact defense on the case. I very rarely drop the neg when they win their impact substantively turns/outweighs the case in a close debate. Maybe this means you should read an extra card on DA turns case in the 2NC rather than the eighth politics uniqueness card.

Paperless things: Someone suggested I add this, I don't really care what you do paperless-wise, but if you take ten minutes to flash your speech, I'll probably be annoyed. I get that computers fail sometimes, however, and if that happens to you, just tell me rather than have an emotional meltdown.

Etiquette: There is a fine line between being right and being an asshole. If you are totally crushing the other team, I'm probably going to realize it even if you don't make the 2A cry and quit. This mostly applies to prelim debates, if you're in outrounds and its a grudge match, I get it. But if you're a complete jerk, I'm probably going to hate you. Act like you've been there.

Kim Hill
Glenbrook North High School ('14)
Northwestern University ('18)

Meta: I went to GBN. And I go to Northwestern.

What sits below this sentence is my general set of predispositions about debate. To win debates, you will have to overcome these predispositions. 

Specific:

Kritiks: (I put this first since this is all anyone cares about anymore). I really do not like listening to a K debate. It makes me angry. I like framework, I think the aff should defend a plan text and fiat and I think that neg alternatives are abusive. If you do not read a plan text, you should consider reading one in front of me. That being said, I won't automatically vote against you just because you read a K. I often find that Kritiks that are specific to the affirmative are one of the most interesting types of debate BUT IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU ARE THOROUGHLY EXPLAINING THINGS THOROUGHLY, ESPECIALLY THE ALT AND/OR FRAMEWORK BECAUSE THAT IS HOW I WILL EVALUATE THE DEBATE. 

In high school I often found the most successful strategy to be aff against the K was to pick things to put in the 1ac that are defensible and defend them. While I am a good judge for the framework, perm, case outweighs strategy, I often think at times it is the harder debate to win and an uphill battle for the aff.

How to go for framework in front of me: Point to the resolution in the invitation. Sit down.

But seriously, the way to win framework is to ensure that framework operates on a different level than the aff. If not, you need to make sure that the impacts to framework outweigh the aff. T version of the aff and go for this on the neg are convincing arguments in front of me. 

Counterplans: My favorite strategy tends to be high-tech, specific counterplans (usually PICs) that are well-researched and explained by the negative. I am totally open to any counterplan, even those that compete off of certainty and immediacy. In general I think that debate is a game, especially when it comes to thing like counterplan competition.

Theory: I'm chill with any theory argument. What's most important is that you win a reason to reject the team. I generally think theory arguments that affect the entire debate (like condo) are reasons to reject the team and why specific counterplans are bad are reasons to reject the argument, but if you win that it's a reason to reject the team I'm all for doing that. 

I will give you extra points if:
1) You strike me.
3) If you make fun of people that I do not like.
For a list of people I do not like see: the caselist.
4) You are sassy, but not mean.
2) You are Esteban Pipkin.

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan (2015-)

Debate Coach, Westwood HS (2024-)

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23), University of Chicago Lab Schools (2023-24).

Last updated: August, 2024

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college energy topic and the HS intellectual property rights topic. For intellectual property rights, I wrote the topicality file and delivered the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp.

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure few allegedly "dropped" arguments can accurately be described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is extremely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

Admittedly, these don't exclude a ton of counterplans, but they're extremely powerful when they apply. There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing. There are obvious and reasonable disadvantages to textual competition, and there is something inelegant about combining two models together, but I don't think there's a clear and preferable alterantive template when it comes to affs going for competition/theory against new or random process CPs.

And to be clear about my views: "functional-only" is an extremely defensible model, although I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is extremely intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you. I generally coach my teams to 2NC CP out of straight turned DAs, read 5+ conditional advocacies in the 1NC, etc.

I don't default to the status quo ("judge kick") if there's zero judge instruction to that effect, but I default to the least interventionist approach possible. If the neg says the CP is conditional, never qualifies that "2nr checks: we'll only go for one world," and aff accedes, I will default to judge kick. One side dropping "yes/no judge kick" at some point in the debate obviously wins the issue for their opponent.

I've led a strong group of debaters in a summer institute lab every year for over a decade, and I think some of the lectures or discussions I've led on various theoretical subjects (in which I often express very strong or exaggerated defenses of one or more of the above arguments, for educational purposes), have influenced some to interpret my views on some aspect of competition as extremely strongly-held. In truth, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. Nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know... debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would). Second, "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality for Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

My name is Sherri and I’ve debated Maine East High School from 2010 to 2014. When I debated in high school, I would run a lot of politics, case-turns, security k, colonialism k, neoliberalism k, and counterplans. I have been a 1A/2N as well as a 2A/1N so I know how both sides function.

I am not that familiar with this year’s topic but here are a couple of things that I feel about certain positions:

Kritiks

Overviews are quite helpful. If you provide an overview, please tell me so I can flow it on a separate sheet of paper. I hate debates where the negative just uses a bunch of jargon instead of engaging with the affirmative and vice versa. If you go for the kritik, create a link story that is specific to the affirmative. Pull out some of the rhetoric from the affirmative and explain how it links to the kritik.

Framework debates tends to bore me because there’s a lack of clash on each side. If affirmative does go for framework, please provide some type of substance instead of just a generic framework argument, otherwise I will just side with negative on their interpretation of framework. I usually don’t vote on framework often due to the lack of clash.

For the affirmative, if you go for the permutation, you must tell me how it functions in the world of the alternative or how it is able to negate all the harmful impacts that the affirmative causes. I think it’s aff’s burden to explain that to me and not the negative.

Counterplans

I think the counterplan text is quite important. If you go for abusive counterplans, I think negative teams should be smart enough to write their counterplan text so that it can dodge a decent amount of the theory arguments. That being said, I think any theory that gets thrown at to the negative team is fair game especially if you run a highly abusive counterplan.

I would rather have the negative run a case-specific counterplan instead of a generic one.

For the affirmative, make sure to create convincing solvency deficits. If you are able to win the solvency deficit, negate some impact of the net benefit, then I believe the permutation is a much more convincing story. That being said, explain to me how the permutation function.

Theory

I don’t often vote for theory but if you want me to vote for it, you must prove in-round abuse. I will be more reluctant to vote on theory if there’s no in-round abuse proven. The reason I don’t vote for theory often is because I often see a lack of clash from both sides.

Topicality
For every offense you go for, I believe a mini overview is always good.

I believe that competing interpretations is an effective way to evaluate T-debates. Impact your arguments. Don’t just say.. “oh, their affirmative is bad for fairness and education because we lose ground”. Explain what type of ground is lost and why that specific ground is important. If negative team goes for topicality, explain why their affirmative is bad in the first place and create a topical case list under your interpretation. For the affirmative, explain why the ground that you provide is good enough for the negative team etc.

Kritikal Affirmatives

I’ll listen to any arguments thrown at me. That being said, I am not that familiar with the kritical affirmatives for this year’s topic. I believe that framework debates are quite boring but I will evaluate them. I think a better debate would be the negative to fully engage with the affirmative instead of just going for “they aren’t within the resolution, that’s bad”.

Disads

People usually run generic disads, and that’s ok. I think trying to make the link specific to the affirmative is much more persuasive than a link that is something like “spending is bad”. Case-specific disads are much more interesting and fun to judge.

Cross X

Don’t be an ass. Tag team cross-x is fine but be respectful to your team members and competitors. I don’t want cross-x to end up as a “who can scream louder”-fest. Cross-X is a great way to establish links to your offense, to poke holes in other people’s arguments, and to increase your ethos. I do believe cross-x is binding.

Overall:

Do not run things like sexism good, rape good, racism good, patriarchy good or I will dock your speaks and vote you down instantly. BE CIVIL. Besides those typically horrible arguments, I am down to listen to any arguments as long as they are well explained. Don’t be discouraged to run arguments that I have never heard of. I will theoretically vote on anything if you are winning the argument.

For prep-time, be civil and do not steal prep. If you do, I will dock your speaks and take away prep time. Let’s maintain the integrity of this activity.

Hayley Hopkins
Dunwoody High School '13
Northwestern '17

I'm a senior at Northwestern and I debated four years for Dunwoody High School in Georgia. I have not judged many rounds on the high school topic.

I’m fine with anything; just do what you are most comfortable with. I’m pretty technical and definitely believe that tech is superior to truth.
These are some of my general preferences but I can obviously be persuaded otherwise. Ask me before the round if you would like to know anything else.

Impact calculus is necessary- you need to tell me how to prioritize impacts at the end of the round.
For most theoretical objections, I generally default to rejecting the argument not the team.
Absent in round discussion, I do not default to kicking the CP/alt.


Policy strategies: Impact interactions (turns case, if the aff turns the DA, etc) are persuasive for decision making. Impact solvency deficits in terms of the net benefit.

Kritiks: Debate the link to a K in terms of the aff- for example, sweeping generalizations of security discourse are less persuasive than contextualizing the kritik in terms of the 1AC. Explain to me the role of the ballot and how your impacts interact. I'm generally fairly moderate with framework; it will be difficult to persuade me that the aff does not get to weigh their off OR that the neg does not get a kritik.

I’m not the best judge for performance affs and generally find framework persuasive if you do not attempt to interact substantively with the resolution.

Topicality:
I’m not the best judge for this. I tend to default to reasonability and think that the neg needs to not only prove that their interpretation is better than the aff’s, but also that the aff’s interpretation of the topic is bad. I need a clear view of the topic under your interpretation and an impacted debate of your standards.

Short Version of Everything Below: Everything you say and extend should have a warrant. Line- by-line should include a comparison of the evidence (warrants, authors, descriptive v proscriptive, quality) in addition to the fact that the card answers what your opponent said. Impact each argument. Give me a reason to care that you just spent 15 seconds extending that card. I would prefer a policy round, but I will vote on any argument as long as it is explained sufficiently and impacted. Organization and clash on T, Frwk, and Theory is important if you want me to vote on it. I'm a stickler for prep time. I will ask you to take your hands off the computer when no prep time is running just in to limit the appearance of taking prep.  

Disads: I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). I think it is difficult for the aff to win no risk of the DA happening (if the negative answers all the aff args).  When I debated, I was a 2N and I went for a CP and P-Tix in most rounds.

                Intrinsicness- I really hate this argument. Very little neg theory on this is required. That being said, I have voted aff multiple times on intrinsicness.

Counter-plans: The only rules are that the CP should be competitive and have a net benefit. The net benefit can be an entire disad or a solvency deficit. I am not bias against any CP.

Framework: Absent any discussion of framework by the debaters, I default to a consequentialist and policy-making framework. Given framework, I will vote under any framework you provide me. I will evaluate framework prior to any other off-case arguments that it might affect (everything but topicality and theory) so if either team’s framework excludes the other, you have to win it to be able to weigh your impacts.

Kritiks: The framework stuff above is important to how I evaluate the K. In general, the world of the alternative needs to look different than the Status Quo. The aff needs to have some ground (the world post-alt) to attack. I am swayed by realism so neg will need to do a little more work on this to prove their alt will solve the link. Structure is the same on Ks as they are on any other flow. I do not like the trend of going in whatever order is most convenient for the neg block by giving me signposting of titles of arguments (on the perm, now onto the alt, on the link debate.) Remember that Line-by-Line follows the 2AC order.

Topicality: I dislike having to vote on T because it is usually sloppy. If you make it clear (possibly provide a neg block overview and then actually go line-by-line on the 2AC args), I actually like voting on T.  If the 2NR is going to go for it, do so for the entire 5 minutes of the 2NR. I think potential abuse is just as bad as in-round abuse.   I default to competing interpretations as a better way of evaluating a T debate. Affs will have to do a little more work if they want to win reasonability arguments, but I usually default to the aff on T if I think the neg standards are poorly articulated. Impact your offense.

Theory: Clash is important. Impacts of each subpoint should be compared to the opponent’s impacts. Theory is cumulative. I do not evaluate each subpoint as an independent voter. For both T and theory, there is a structure (the same as any other argument). It follows whoever spoke second.

Speaker Points Rubric

24-25: Reserved for inappropriate conduct

26: Major tactical errors (dropping key args, poor clash or warranting, organization, argument relations/ strat conflicts)

27: Minor tactical errors

28: Problems with technique (embedded clash, comparative analysis, resolving micro-debates)

Low 29s: Skillfull technique

High 29s: Nearly perfect speech (May have minor time allocation problems resulting in slightly undercovering 1-2 args but still maintained ability to resolve micro-debates/ put in larger context of the round.)

30: I literally cannot think of anything that could have been done better

Updated: March 29, 2016

Experience: This is my 10th year coaching collegiate debate.

Position: Assistant Professor, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Communication

Education: BA, Pittsburgh. MA coursework, Wake Forest. MA, University of Iowa. PhD, University of Iowa.

I have been involved in debate for 18 years.

An argument involves a claim, data, and some line of reasoning that connects the data to the claim. This data could be something taken from the correlates of war, it could be something taken from a political performance, it could be spoken word. I'm not in the business of sorting between these various bits of data and their relationship to claims. That's your job as the debater. Explaining to me the impacts in the debate, their relative importance, and how they interact with one another remains vitally important in every debate. Magnitude, probability, all that. Those are metrics that matter whether the debate is about various nuclear wars in the Middle East or fighting racism domestically.

I have primarily spent my time this year as a coach cutting policy cards. I have various and sundry familiarities with a lot of critical literature, keep up with the caselist more or less. My scholarly interests are not coterminus with my voting record. I tend to reward teams that privilege clarity of argument, have a well organized approach to the issues present in the debate, and those who innovate within the framework of the opportunity provided by the debate. Essentially, if you defend reducing military presence and have a novel, well-thought out interpretation of what that means that diverges from the conventional understanding, I am a good judge for you. If you are just grabbing some cards about a K you love and mention the resolution in passing, I am less good. 

I have some common notes here about things that tend to happen:

1. If you want to "escape capture of the line by line", I may not "get" that unless you are particularly good at doing so. This is just a warning based on my track record as a judge.

 2. Many framework/T debates posit two competing values: on the one hand, a fair and predictable debate community, and on the other, the set of practices/people/institutions to whom violence is done in the name of this debate community. Whats remarkable to me is how often the LINK to the former is often taken as the end of the story, with the goodness of debate taken to be an enthymematic given. Similarly, the "trained incapacity" of debaters to clearly weigh how a certain kind of structural or ideological violence is more important than the debate community's smooth functioning is befuddling to me. DONT ASSUME I KNOW WHAT YOUR TERMINAL IMPACTS VALUE IS. You need to make very clear why, if I'm put in the position of deciding between an opportunity cost of either preserving the debate community as a predictable/fair space or combating pernicious forms of societal injustice, I should prefer the one over the other. It seems simple, but trust me, you've got to do it.

4. . What sort of citizens is debate crafting? What interests do they have, and what attitudes towards the world are we trying to inculcate? These are meta level questions relevant for debates about framework, topicality, theory...

5.  What you want to do as a debater matters more than what you think you should do to appeal to me. Aside from some basics (answering arguments, going either in line by line or in some organized fashion that makes sure you don't drop things, weighing impacts, being clear) you should probably not futz with your content really. Those triangulating moves often don't pan out.

6. LISTEN to the other teams argument. Respond to it in a way that appreciates the difference in how debaters process arguments and how judges process arguments. Don't assume you and the panel share priorities: you aren't the same people. You have to communicate the importance of the values and content of your argument.

Other things

Topicality/Theory: I have grown to like topicality debates a lot more as I get older. contextual evidence: good. arbitrary definitions: bad. Also, for pete's sake, topicality/theory debates are really hard to flow. Slowing down a little on these will make my flow a lot better. Theorywise, I can list things I think are suspect: states, multiactor fiat i.e. Lopez, consult. But really, it doesn't matter. I haven't seen anyone go for theory in front of me in ages. I respect capable theory debaters not only for that talent but also because it gives them a powerfully abusive arrow in their strategic quiver.  Conditionality seems more or less ok. You could change my mind on something, or easily persuade me in a given debate to vote for something I don't really agree with. I ran agent counterplans and the states counterplan more than any other argument by about a billion, so I know how the game is played. Most judges just hunger for excellence. If your excellence is an artful destruction of the states CP on a theory argument, go for it.

 performative contradictions: i do think if the neg engages in some wacky reps, but makes a similar reps K against the aff, that it begs the question of why the aff can't just kick the advantage. Also raises some clear questions about the alt solvency if we're talking about an "unflinching paradigmatic analysis" or some such when the 1NC had contradictions...i have never understood why "negation theory" means you can just do what you want.

Embedded clash: its about the only way to give a top tier 1AR, but also about the only way to give a total catastrophe of a 1AR that no one can follow. If you can do it, and do it well, you'll be the master of your domain. Caveat: If you are trying to do this while working from the speech document and not the flow, yeeesh

Just debate. Some of the best speeches I have ever seen were based on a simple premise (The aff doesn't understand how deficits work, these Baudrillard cards don't make any sense, etc) and so you shouldn't be afraid to stake on a debate on a really salient point. I think there are a number of debates a tournament I see where the arguments being made are so (conceptually) unclear that a team which simply said as much would benefit substantially. 

I make audio recordings of every debate and I don't take kindly to clipping.

Finally, lets all try our best to debate our best, to compete, and to work hard. Our competitors honor us with their work and arguments. We honor them by taking their arguments seriously.

WWACD.

I am mostly interested in policy debate, and strongly prefer to judge debates about the results of potential public policy options. I find myself rarely judging such debates, but I thought I'd let people know anyway. 

I can't (won't? either way) vote on arguments that I don't understand, which behooves you to make me understand your arguments. 

I think that the best debaters successfully integrate tech and communication skills, rather than presenting speeches dominated by one or the other. Reading a list of cards is not particularly persuasive to me, and I frequently think a clear point of analysis defeats stupid cards. Another way of putting this, when there is a deadlock between logic on one side and “we’ve got a card” on the other, I think I am likely to vote for logic almost every time. 

I don’t really like it when people debate with their heads down all the time. I don't like it when debaters are difficult to understand because they are trying to speak faster than their natural pace. I think you would be better served slowing down and actually saying things, instead of trying to force the other team to drop stuff. 

Presumption: I am willing to vote negative on presumption. I think the aff has to construct a strong case for a departure from the status quo. Affirmatives that don't have an explanation for how we should depart from the status quo should be losing every debate on presumption. 

I am strongly convinced that conditionality is good, going for it in front of me is risky.

I am extremely likely to vote on well-executed topicality arguments about the substance of the topic (legalizing 'x', for example).

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

Please put me on the chain: debate@sarahlim.com, interlakescouting@googlegroups.com (high school), debatedocs@googlegroups.com (college)

Interlake '14, Northwestern '18, affiliated with both as of 2023–24. Fairly minimal HS involvement, actively researching/coaching the college nukes topic. she/her

• I am something of a curmudgeon (”old man yells at cloud”), more truth > tech, and extremely persuaded by argumentative rigor. I really do not want to vote for stupid arguments. I want us all to elevate the standard of this activity.
• Please slow down from your top speed, especially on topicality/theory/CP texts, and especially if you're debating online. I flow on paper by listening to the speech, not by following along in the doc. I will "clear" your analytics to a reasonable extent, but I will not vote on theory I cannot flow, and I will not backfill my flow by reading your doc to compensate for your lack of clarity.
• Presumption goes to the status quo, then the aff.
• The 2NR's job is to decide what to go for. I will judge kick the counterplan/fiated counteradvocacy if and only if the 2NR instructs me to do so, and the 2AR drops this argument. Just saying some variation of “the 2NR’s job is to decide what to go for” is usually enough.
• I detest intimidation, rudeness, or snark regardless of your argument content.
• I will not use my ballot to adjudicate non-falsifiable events that occurred outside the round. For in-round behavioral accusations that are debated out (rather than stopping the round), I reserve the right to evaluate these arguments using something other than offense-defense.

Administrative

• Please time your own speeches and prep.
• If you give your final rebuttal without a computer I will award +0.3 speaker points.
• I can’t believe this has to be said: please explicitly kick offcase positions you are not extending in the block/2NR. If you do not do this, the aff can leverage this on conditionality, or at the very least as a reason the world of the 2NR is incoherent.
• I attempt to line up arguments on my flow, rather than simply flowing straight down. Ideally these orderings will coincide, but oftentimes they do not, e.g. if you jump around, skip arguments, only flow off the doc, or otherwise mess up the numbering. When misalignments occur, I waste time trying to figure out where to flow you, and miss more of your arguments. Therefore, number/skip around at your own peril.
  • Given the precarity of numbering schemes, I find it much easier to flow debaters who label the arguments they are answering, either explicitly ("2AC 4 is 'alt fails'") or via embedded clash ("1NC 4: yes China war")
• Rehighlightings must be read out loud. I will not evaluate anything “inserted” into the debate unless it is talked about in the speech.

Affirmatives

• Claiming durable fiat is a prerogative, but not an obligation, of the affirmative.
• I believe the aff gets to make permutations by default, regardless of framework or the nature of the 1AC advocacy. I am open to debates about what kinds of permutations are theoretically legitimate depending on the context, e.g. intrinsicness tests, competing methods, etc.
• Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies; as a result, they are not offense and do not require net benefits. All permutation texts must be read (they cannot simply be inserted in the doc).

Disadvantages and internal NBs

• I believe that DAs and internal net benefits should be opportunity costs to the plan, and that this produces the fairest and most educational form of debate. Pet peeve: It’s not an “intrinsic perm”, it’s an “intrinsicness perm”, because it tests whether the neg’s offense is intrinsic to the plan. It also makes no sense to say “intrinsicness is a voting issue”, if you wanted to defend the negative should get non-intrinsic offense, the voting issue would be ”intrinsicness perms are illegitimate.”
• Most agenda politics 1NCs are incomplete arguments, and more affirmative teams should leverage the holes. “Plan popular” is link defense, not offense. “Winners win” can be offense. However, it is also a label that gets slapped onto a litany of different internal links. Some (e.g. Singer 9) require the plan be unpopular to count as a win. Others (e.g. Hirsch 13, Waldman 20) don’t really care about the direction of the link. I genuinely can’t tell what Kane 21 wants.

Counterplans

• I am extremely persuaded by analytic common-sense solvency deficits to absurd advantage CPs.
• For counterplans that compete only on "should = immediate and certain" (offsets, sunsets, recommendations, or your exciting new strategy that somehow still reads Summers 94 in the 2NC), assuming competent execution by both teams, the affirmative should almost always win my ballot. I find myself voting for these CPs due to aff execution errors, not because I find them in any way compelling.
• Textual competition is an utterly inane argument because that is not how words work in mainstream American English. Easy litmus test: if the plan says “do X” and the 2NR goes for DA/case, you are functionally going for “CP: don’t do X” which obviously represents an opportunity cost but would not be textually competitive. There are always better arguments for why a CP is illegitimate. The one exception is that this is sometimes a valid negative interpretation: for example, I can think of some topic-specific word PICs of terms of art that would be textually but not functionally competitive, with valid reasons why I should prefer certain language in the context of the aff's policymaking.
• Solvency deficits must be impacted and quantified. Corollary: you don’t need to tell me to use “sufficiency framing,” which is a three-steps-of-telephone mangling of the observation that CPs are tests of the plan’s necessity. This is like going to a DA and saying “evaluate this page using impact framing: if the negative impact outweighs the affirmative’s offense, vote negative.”

Kritiks

• I have a higher bar for the quality and execution of critical arguments. I am a very good judge for well-researched, novel/innovative Ks debated technically without much reliance on blocks. Otherwise zzzZZZZ
• Please be cognizant of your subject position as it relates to your arguments, and debate with the corresponding self-awareness.
• K vs. K rounds should maximize clash; these can be some of the most interesting positions to write.
• I think critical education is valuable and teams are unlikely to convince me otherwise. That being said, to quote Patrick Kennedy's philosophy, "I am interested in learning some things, but I am not interested in deciphering incoherent nonsense. I am not a nihilist, and I think 'things' are generally better than 'not things.' Ontology critiques are very interesting, for example, when articulated effectively. If you want to read the script of Dude, Where's My Car and claim it was an ontological critique, I don't think you want me to judge you. I guess you could win, but I think I hate you."

Topicality

• “Plantext in a vacuum” is incredibly silly because it implies I should reinterpret the words in the plan differently across different parts of the debate, which makes absolutely no sense as either a procedural locus or model of standard American English communication.
• For procedural impacts, I find clash and education more persuasive than fairness by default.
• I am unlikely to reject a team solely for being extra-topical.
• I evaluate “we meet” as a yes/no question. However, there are straightforward W/Ms and oblique W/Ms. Affirmatives depending on the latter would be advised to extend other offense in the 1AR. (Litmus test: suppose you were reading the negative’s interpretation as your own counter-interpretation. If the 2AC would include an additional line for “we meet our C/I” because it’s not blatantly obvious, then it’s an oblique W/M.)

Theory

• Please answer theory on the correct flows. These flow(s) should be present in the roadmap even if you are only answering theory and/or kicking (see above). Example: If the 2AC reads conditionality bad on the States CP and you answer it halfway through your K 2NC, whose roadmap did not include the states CP, that is not the correct flow.
• "C/I: we get what we did" is so annoying. I guess I'll vote for it, but like, why not just say conditionality is good??

Miscellany

• I think that teams often view conditionality as a blank check to make contradictory arguments, as long as they occur on different flows. I do not have substantive theoretical objections to this (assuming the neg is winning conditionality good, of course). However, debate is partly a persuasive activity, and when I hear a negative block consisting of diametrically opposed positions, I find it undermines the persuasiveness of the speech on both sides of the issue and becomes susceptible to 1AR strategic exploitation.

Leandra Lopez

Background:
Debated at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart (4 years), University of Miami (3 years) and University of Mary Washington (1 year)

Debate thoughts:
The affirmative should read and defend a topical plan that is an example of the current resolution. Advantages should stem from the theoretical passage of that plan. Certainly, it is the burden of the negative to make persuasive arguments for why this is true.

Topicality and conditionality are reasons to reject the team. Other theory arguments are typically reasons to reject the argument.

Critiques should link to the plan, as opposed to the advantages. Alternatives typically have serious competition problems and solvency deficits. The more the negative does to deal with these issues, the better.

If the 2NR goes for a CP or a critique, I assume the status quo is not an option unless the 2NR specifies otherwise.

Evidence quality over quantity.

Flow.

Arguments I do not want to hear:
-Death is good.
-Communism is good.

Please be respectful – of your opponents, your partner, the judge, the classroom.

If you have questions, feel free to ask. For questions or the email chain - leandrallopez@gmail.com

St. Mark's School of Texas

CXphilosophy = Years judging: 24 as a hs coach another 10 as a college coach
Rounds on this year’s high school topic: 0 (by the time the 2024 season starts I will probably have judged 30 or so debates at camp)
Rounds on this year’s college topic: 0

yes, please add me to the email chain smdebatedocs@gmail.com

update 6-16-24

Be Kind, be Clear, seek clash, read good evidence, be smart.

update 5-3-23

Clarity - If I yell clearer at you I don't mean slow down 1%. I mean clearly speak all the words in your evidence. Not just your tags - I want to hear and understand your evidence and your opponents shouldn't have to read your speech docs to know what your cards say. If I don't think you are clear be prepared to receive 27 speaker points.

Solvency advocate - your plan needs one and your cp needs one and I expect you to defend it.

highlight more of your evidence - other than a short time period in 1994 CEDA, evidence quality is at an all time low. I've never seen it this bad in high school.

update 6-21-22

Research over Truth. The best arguments are backed by research. The burden of rejoinder for most analytics is pretty low. The burden of rejoinder for a good card is high. (yes, this applies to your analytic DA's on framework)

Old stuff pre 6-21-11

yes, please send out a card document at the conclusion of the debate. please make sure that the card document accurately represents the cards relevant in the debate i.e. make sure cards that were marked are marked in the document and that cards not read in the debate don't appear in it, etc.



Teachers teach, coaches coach, judges judge.1
Clarity is king.2
I view my role as a judge in the frame of least intervention.3


More and more I'm starting to think that it should all revolve around solvency advocates. While I've probably had some tendencies toward that approach for a few years now it's even more prominent now. If a team is willing to read a plan and they have a card that says their plan is EE or DE with China then we should thank our lucky stars that they are willing to talk about the topic and try to give them a good debate. (I know that's from way back on the china topic but it's still a good example) Having said that if they have a solvency advocate for their CP I think the neg should get a tremendous amount of leeway on theoretically legitimate questions. The test is "Is the cp solvency advocate at least as specific as the aff solvency advocate".

New additions:
Framework: I'm over it. The aff gets to weigh their advantages (fiat) and the neg gets their K. The neg can't win fiat is an illusion but they can win it's a waste of time/bad idea to engage the state OR they can say "Our argument is that in the face of the aff Obama/Congress/Supreme Court/usfg should say 'no, we reject the securitization/racism/imperialism/capitalism/insert k lingo' of this idea the world would be better if we FILL IN WITH YOUR ALTERNATIVE". If you don't understand what I mean then feel free to ask questions about this.
If you say you are ready then say "Oh wait, I need another second." I will probably penalize you 15 seconds of prep. Don't say you are ready and ask me to stop prep time until you are ready.


Virtually everything else in this judging philosophy is about ways you can get better speaker points or some of my subjective biases I think you should be aware of. The reality is that most of my subjective preferences rarely matter in debates because the debates aren’t close enough to make it matter.

Respect others.4
Want good speaker points? Impress me with arguments that prove you have done a substantial amount of research on the topic and that you can make smart arguments.5
Previously I thought that new aff's were intellectual terrorism and justified conditionality. On the 2023 Fiscal Redistribution topic I realized that even when the neg ground was fantastic neg teams would still read multiple dumb counterplans and so reading a new aff no longer influences the likelihood that I will vote on conditionality6
Topicality is for the unresearched.7
Most theory debates are terrible.8
Evidence is a good thing. Read some cards, preferably some with warrants from people with expertise in the relevant area.9
Excessive arrogance is unacceptable.10
Take ownership of your arguments.11
Post round discussions are good.12
Notes on the use of computers in debate.13

Make complete arguments. "perm do both" and "voting issue fairness and education" are not complete arguments.

]1 While this may seem obvious it bears repeating. What I teach my students and what I coach my students, i.e. what I think about debate and how the game should be played, shouldn’t be relevant when I’m judging two teams that I don’t coach or teach.

2 I've decided that a part of my role as a judge is to ensure that all debaters speak clearly. It is unfair that some debaters are virtually incomprehensible forcing the other team to read over their shoulder or look at every card instead of just being able to flow. So I'm adding a deterrent to the unclear debater. I expect debaters to speak clearly at all times. That doesn't just mean the tags on your cards, it means all the words of your evidence, it means everything. When I say "clearer" what I'm saying is "you are so unclear I have virtually no idea what you are saying so please make a SIGNFICANT, MEANINGFUL change in your delivery". I don't mean make a .001 change. If I have to say clearer a second time you are well on the path to having a cranky judge.

3 As a judge I have two jobs 1) pick one winner in each debate 2) enforce time limits as set by the tournament. To some extent intervention may be inevitable, however, it is my job as a judge to pick a winner based on the arguments made in each debate. That includes being cognizant of my subjective biases and doing my best to keep those preferences from influencing my decision.

4 This should be self evident. See also, footnotes 10, 11 and 13.

5 If your strategy relies on your technical proficiency it probably won’t impress me. If your strategy relies on reading a host of confusing cards that you don’t really understand and you hope that the other team won’t understand them either then you probably won’t impress me. A 1ac with several advantages all with poor internal links probably won’t impress me. A 1nc with a clear coherent method of winning the debate based on good evidence probably will impress me. A 1ac with a solvency advocate and well evidenced advantages probably will impress me. I like it when the aff is kritikal and the neg beats them with a smart go farther left strategy.

6 If you really wanted to have an in depth educational debate you would have disclosed your plan and advantages and given the other team a chance to research it. Break a new aff and your chances of losing on T go up and your chances of winning that anything the neg did was an illegitimate voting issue go way down. Will I be really impressed if, in the face of a new aff, the neg provides a well researched coherent strategy? Yes. Will I understand if, in the face of a new aff, the 1NC is three conditional cp’s and a K? Yes. (For purposes of the fiscal redistribution topic this is out. The neg has a huge number of options and they should be able to figure out a good one before the debate starts - see above)

7 Limits usually wins topicality debates and that is unfortunate. Smart teams should make arguments not only about limits/ground but about the educational value of the topic envisioned by both sides. A narrow topic that excludes some of the core issues that would generate educational research probably isn’t as good as a broader topic that encourages students to research important issues.

8 I generally find theory debates to be the bastion of the weak. Your amazingly good ASPEC debate usually sounds like a 27 to me. Think of it this way…every time you say something besides topicality is a voting issue count on losing half a speaker point. Again, this will not affect who wins debates only speaker points. However, I can be persuaded that illegitimate counterplans have so skewed the playing field that reject the argument not the team is insufficient and they must be voting issues. There are probably a host of counterplans that fall within this category. Three that leap to mind are consult, delay, and states. Two exceptions to this rule to help the negative: If your counterplan is unconditional it will be pretty hard for the aff to convince me it has unfairly skewed the debate. Second, have a true solvency advocate for your counterplan. Just a hint, a card that says states have acted uniformly and another card that says the states have poverty programs doesn’t cut it. You need a card that is as specific as the aff solvency advocate. Of course, if the aff solvency advocate doesn’t really match up to the plan it will probably be difficult for the aff to convince me that the counterplan should be rejected for lack of an advocate.
It would help make theory/topicality debates better if you SLOW DOWN so I can flow your arguments. It’s not necessarily a clarity issue it’s just that it’s very difficult for judges to flow short analytical arguments as fast as you can spit them out.
“Voting issue – fairness and education” usually gets flowed as VI F@E and I presume that means it’s a voting issue if they go for whatever argument you have identified as a VI. If you expect it to be a voting issue if they don’t go for it then you need to give some type of warrant as to why the debate has been skewed by them merely making the argument.

9 One good card is better than three short bad ones. Qualifications should matter but debaters rarely take the time to explain what constitutes qualified evidence and what doesn’t. In front of me that would be time worth spending.

10 Confidence is good. It’s better when it’s backed up with smart arguments and good evidence. If you disrespect your opponents because of some inflated sense of your own importance be prepared for low speaker points.

11 If it sounds like you read the same argument every debate, your coach wrote all your blocks, and you have no idea how your arguments interact with your opponent’s arguments then your speaker points aren’t going to be very good. My argument preferences are way less important than your ability to explain arguments. When in doubt about what arguments to go for choose arguments you understand, you can answer cx questions about, and arguments you will be able to explain in rebuttals.

12 If you have questions about the decision please ask them. Don’t be afraid to ask pointed questions. However, don’t become the debater who always whines about every decision as if they have never lost a debate. Word gets around.

13 I don’t penalize your time to jump/email material to your opponents but I’m a stickler for stolen prep so if I think you are abusing the privilege be prepared to be called out on it. You get ten minutes of “crash” time per debate. If you computer crashes and you need to restart I won’t penalize your prep time. I’ll set a timer for 10 minutes and if you can’t get your computer ready in 10 minutes you are going to have to start anyway. Most other issues related to this are covered under #4.

Affiliation: College- Wake Forest '17, '19 High School- New Trier '13

Please add me to your email chains: jmichaelmanchester [@] gmail.com

This used to be a super long explanation of how I felt about debate, but given how little utility that has for many of you before a debate, here's the short version:

"I never was the smartest debater and I never will be, which means please do not make assumptions about argument understanding. Something could honestly just be over my head, this having happened multiple times in my debate career as a debater."- Lee Quinn hit the nail on the head. Don't assume that I'll know the in's and out's of your argument to the degree that you do. Regardless of argument type, explanation that contains an argument, claim, and warrant is essential.

Top shelf things for everyone:
Clarity- To quote the definition Jarrod Atchison has already beaten into my head: "Speed is the number ideas effectively communicated to the judge that the other team is held accountable to respond to." Slowing down on analytics and differentiating the tag from the rest of the card is a must.

Speaks- make fun of Duke and you'll be in a good place.

People on the right:
Do what you do well. Regardless of what you end up going for make sure you've got the "story" of your argument on lock. How does the aff's change from the squo cause the impact to the DA to be triggered? What affs are included under your interpretation of the topic? These narratives can be easily established in the overview of your DA/CP/T violation and go a long way in making sure I understand your argument as well as you want me to.


I tend to lean aff on most theory issues, though on most questions it isn't too far in the aff's direction (the exception to this is conditionality, I'm definitely in the you get one conditional option camp- that being said most people are bad at going for conditionality so that hasn't translated to any aff ballots on condo in front of me).


People on the left:
Do what you do well. I'll forefront that I'm not nearly as deep in the literature to the left as I am with the right but that doesn't mean I won't be interested in your arguments.

I think you probably should have some relation to the topic, whether that requires defending a normative action be taken by the state or simply discussing the implications of certain aspects of the topic is up for debate. If you're debating FW the question of reformism necessary v. unnecessary is super important.

If you're going for a K win framework and be good to go- though you should know I'll be inclined to let the aff weigh the 1AC if they put up a decent fight on FW.

Read links with clear impacts- just reading a wall of cards that says "the aff does the thing we are k-ing" without explaining how the interacts with the larger questions the alt/impact are getting at isn't super useful.

I have no argument preferences, as long as you don't say anything offensive and you explain your arguments well. Just please be clear (including in the text of evidence) and interact with your opponents' arguments.

Updated 9-26-2013

Kevin McCaffrey

Assistant Debate Coach Glenbrook North 2014-
Assistant Debate Coach Berkeley Preparatory School 2010-2014
Assistant Debate Coach University of Miami 2007-2009
Assistant Debate Coach Gulliver Preparatory School 2005-2010

I feel strongly about both my role as an impartial adjudicator and as an educator – situations where these roles come into conflict are often where I find that I have intervened. I try to restrain myself from intervening in a debate, but I make mistakes, and sometimes find myself presented with two options which seem comparably interventionary in different ways, often due to underarticulated argumentation. This effort represents a systematic effort to identify the conditions under which I am more or less likely to intervene unconsciously. I try to keep a beginner’s mind and approach every debate round as a new learning opportunity, and I do usually learn at least one new thing every round – this is what I like most about the activity, and I’m at my best when I remember this and at my worst when I forget it.

My default paradigm is that of a policy analyst – arguments which assume a different role (vote no, performance) probably require more effort to communicate this role clearly enough for me to understand and feel comfortable voting for you. I don’t really have a very consistent record voting for or against any particular positions, although identity- and psychology-based arguments are probably the genres I have the least experience with and I’m not a good judge for either.

Rather, I think you’re most interested in the situations in which I’m likely to intervene – and what you can do to prevent it – this has much less to do with what arguments you’re making than it does with how you’re making them:

Make fewer arguments, and explain their nature and implication more thoroughly:

My unconscious mind carries out the overwhelming majority of the grunt work of my decisions – as I listen to a debate, a mental map forms of the debate round as a cohesive whole, and once I lose that map, I don’t usually get it back. This has two primary implications for you: 1) it’s in your interest for me to understand the nuances of an argument when first presented, so that I can see why arguments would be more or less responsive as or before they are made in response 2) debates with a lot of moving parts and conditional outcomes overload my ability to hold the round in my mind at once, and I lose confidence in my ability to effectively adjudicate, having to move argument by argument through each flow after the debate – this increases the chances that I miss an important connection or get stuck on a particular argument by second-guessing my intuition, increasing the chances that I intervene.

I frequently make decisions very quickly, which signals that you have done an effective job communicating and that I feel I understand all relevant arguments in the debate. I don’t believe in reconstructing debates from evidence, and I try to listen to and evaluate evidence as it's being read, so if I am taking a long time to make a decision, it’s probably because I doubt my ability to command the relevant arguments and feel compelled to second-guess my understanding of arguments or their interactions, a signal that you have not done an effective job communicating, or that you have inadvertently constructed an irresolveable decision calculus through failure to commit to a single path to victory.

In short, I make much better decisions when you reduce the size of the debate at every opportunity, when you take strategic approaches to the debate which are characterized by internally consistent logic and assumptions, and when you take time to explain the reasoning behind the strategic decisions you are making, and the meta-context for your arguments. If your approach to debate strategy depends upon overloading the opponent’s technical capabilities, then you will also likely overload my own, and if your arguments aren't broadly compatible with one another, then I may have difficulty processing them when constructing the big picture. I tend to disproportionately reward gutsy all-in strategic decisions. As a side note, I probably won’t kick a counterplan for you if the other team says just about anything in response, you need to make a decision.

Value proof higher than rejoinder:

I am a sucker for a clearly articulated, nuanced story, supported by thorough discussion of why I should believe it, especially when supported by high-quality evidence, even in the face of a diversity of poorly articulated or weak arguments which are only implicitly answered. Some people will refer to this as truth over tech – but it’s more precisely proof over rejoinder – the distinction being that I don’t as often reward people who say things that I believe, but rather reward fully developed arguments over shallowly developed or incomplete arguments. There have been exceptions – a dropped argument is definitely a true argument – but a claim without data and a warrant is not an argument. Similarly, explicit clash and signposting are merely things which help me prevent myself from intervening, not hard requirements. Arguments which clash still clash whether a debater explains it or not, although I would strongly prefer that you take the time to explain it, as I may not understand that they clash or why they clash in the same way that you do.

My tendency to intervene in this context is magnified when encountering unfamiliar arguments, and also when encountering familiar arguments which are misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally. As an example, I am far more familiar with positivist studies of international relations than I am with post-positivist theorizing, so debaters who can command the distinctions between various schools of IR thought have an inherent advantage, and I am comparably unlikely to understand the nuances of the distinctions between one ethical philosopher and another. I am interested in learning these distinctions, however, and this only means you should err on the side of explaining too much rather than not enough.

A corollary is that I do believe that various arguments can by their nature provide zero risk of a link (yes/no questions, empirically denied), as well as effectively reduce a unique risk to zero by making the risk equivalent to chance or within the margin of error provided by the warrant. I am a sucker for conjunctive/disjunctive probability analysis, although I think assigning numerical probabilities is almost never warranted.

Incomprehensible value systems:

One special note is that I have a moderate presumption against violence, whether physical or verbal or imaginary – luckily for me, this has yet to seriously present itself in a debate I have judged. But I don’t think I have ever ended up voting for a pro-death advocacy, whether because there are more aliens than humans in the universe, or because a thought experiment about extinction could change the way I feel about life, or because it’s the only path to liberation from oppression. While I’d like to think I can evaluate these arguments objectively, I’m not entirely sure that I really can, and if advocating violence is part of your argument, I am probably a bad judge for you, even though I do believe that if you can’t articulate the good reasons that violence and death are bad, then you haven’t adequately prepared and should probably lose.

Email me:

I like the growing practice of emailing flows and debriefing at the end of a day or after a tournament – feel free to email me: kmmccaffrey at gmail dot com. It sometimes takes me a while to fully process what has happened in a debate round and to understand why I voted the way I did, and particularly in rounds with two very technical, skilled opponents, even when I do have a good grasp of what happened and feel confident in my decision, I do not always do a very good job of communicating my reasoning, not having time to write everything out, and I do a much better job of explaining my thinking after letting my decision sit for a few hours. As such, I am very happy to discuss any decision with anyone in person or by email – I genuinely enjoy being challenged – but I am much more capable and comfortable with written communication than verbal.

Evan McCarty

I. Introduction

I debated for Northwestern and graduated in 2016. I now work in strategy and biz ops at a legal technology company. I have not researched the [insert name of current topic] topic at all.

II. Top Level

The best debaters are hard-working, strategic, passionate about the activity, and gracious to others in the community.

Tech > truth, but it's often easier to win the tech if your argument is true.

III. Predispositions

I’ll vote on nearly any warranted argument. That being said, here are some predispositions that guide my thinking. All of these can be overcome with a warranted argument to the contrary:

1. Pragmatism > Idealism.

2. Debate should be about evaluating courses of action against their opportunity costs. If the AFF proves that the NEG's counterplan, kritik, or disadvantage is not a germane opportunity cost to the plan, I'm inclined to disregard the NEG's position.

3. Clash is good. Positions that promote clash are good for debate. Positions that avoid clash are bad for debate.

4. The AFF should defend topical action. The judge should vote AFF if a given topical action is preferable to the status quo or a competitive (opportunity-cost) action.

5. Presumption is toward less change from the status quo.

IV. Constraints

Some of my views are not subject to change. These include:

1. A dropped argument (claim + warrant) is presumptively true for the rest of the debate. However, I have a relatively high threshold for what constitutes an argument in the first place. For example, the phrase “conditionality is a voter – time and strat skew, argumentative irresponsibility – dispo solves” is not an argument, because it does not contain an actual warrant (and is not, for that matter, a complete sentence).

2. No take-backs – if you make an argument and the other team does not contest it, then you don't get to retract it.

3. Intentionally intimidating the opposing team, judge, or audience through threats of physical or emotional violence --> loss.

4. Respect for your opponents, the activity, and the community is important.

V. Kritiks

My voting record for critical arguments is better than one may have expected given the arguments I ran while debating. That being said, I would still generally consider myself "good" for framework against non-traditional affirmatives and "good" for the aff against most criticisms.

The efficacy of the affirmative's advocacy/negative's alternative is incredibly important. The more sweeping your impact claim, the more important it is that you have a clear proposal to solve it. Critical arguments that invest time explaining the efficacy of their proposal have a very good record in front of me.

I am a much better judge for affirmatives that are in the "direction" of the topic than those that simply mention the topic in passing (or worse, don't mention it at all).

I am a better judge for identity-based arguments than for anything postmodern/high theory.

Kritiks do best in front of me if they cause me to think implementation of the plan would be a bad idea.

VI. Other

1. Zero-risk is totally a thing.

2. High quality evidence > smart analytics > low quality evidence.

Pine Crest School Class of 2014
Northwestern University Class of 2018

I debated at Pine Crest and Northwestern. I am a student of the game and love argument innovation and the activity in general. I am thinking about debate an insane amount of time, especially during school, and hope that my dedication to the activity will be shown through my attentiveness in round. There are a few caveats if I am judging you discussed below but if you have any questions that aren’t answered there are a couple of steps you can take:

1. Look at other judging philosophies. The judges that I believe I am most similar to are: Jeremy Hammond (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Hammond%2C+Jeremy), Will Repko (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Repko%2C+Will) and Garrett Abelkop (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Abelkop%2C+Garrett). One of my favorite judges is jon sharp (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/sharp%2C+jon) though, so I’m not just influenced by MSU.

2. Ask me if you still can’t find anything. The question “what are your preferences” is annoying so be specific.

Meta-Judging Philosophy-
I believe that the purpose of the judge is to not only decide debates but to also decide what curriculum should be debated. Arguments such as timecube, dada and ashtar have little to no educational benefit. These can be adequately answered by saying “this is nonsensical and hasn’t disproven the aff” and moving on.

Absent the arguments above, there are a few things below that you should read if you are debating in front of me. I do think that tech is *very* important, but connections are as well. The point of a debate is to convince the judge to vote for you. The way that ethos are developed are by making connections with the judge. These are extremely good for speaker points as well.
At the same time, I default to tech over truth. If you win an argument/one is dropped even if it isn't the best then I will vote for you.

Clarity is more important than speed. Speed is measured in the number of arguments that the judge has on their flow, not how many words per minute you can speak.

When judging at round robins/tournaments with no prefs I will try to judge with as few predispositions as possible.
Judges usually give the 2AR too much leeway.

I lean more towards cards and believe that solid evidence and a good work ethic are two of the most important aspects in a successful debater.

A team that is caught cheating will be given zero speaker points and a loss. It is important for the other team to have a recording of the cheating team to decide the debate on this.
Paperless-
Prep time ends when the jump drive exits the computer of the debater giving the speech. I will be keeping track of prep but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t as well, keeping in mind that what I say goes. Not flowing is a terrible side effect of paperless and can be punished at my discretion.

Critical Affirmatives-
I ran them. I will listen to them. I will vote for them. I find these debates to be very interesting, but I hate when they become very personal/polemical to the point of putting everyone in the debate (including me) in an extraordinarily awkward or angry situation. If your argument is not based around identity I do think that you have an uphill battle on framework. This being said, I do enjoy affirmatives that defend topical action centered around a kritik. One example of this is the Cuban Hospitality aff.

Disadvantages-
I am a big fan of a good politics debate as well as any in depth disad debate. I find it hard, if not impossible, for the affirmative to defeat a disadvantage without a source of offense.

Impact calculus is very important when deciding any debate, and the more that you can get away from the traditional A. Magnitude, B. Probability, C. Timeframe model is better but only if you maintain the integrity of the arguments.

Counterplans-
Counterplans mitigate the risk of affirmative advantages against the disadvantage, and the 2NR should frame the debate in this way. I have found that without a solvency deficit to a counterplan the negative wins an astounding percentage of the time.
There is a debate as to what types of counterplans are acceptable in a debate, as well as what counterplans can fiat. I generally believe counterplans such as consult, conditions, recommendations, plan contingent counterplans or counterplans that compete off of certainty and immediacy are both abusive and not competitive. A counterplan should be both textually and functionally competitive, but this is up for debate and I can be persuaded otherwise. Competition is defined as both better than the plan and better than a combination of the plan and all or part of the counterplan.

Kritiks -
I believe that I am a much better judge for kritiks on the negative as opposed to the affirmative. Avoid falling into a debate about random buzzwords at all costs and engage the aff. I understand the technicalities of the kritik debate and am perfectly fine with the negative reading and going for kritiks such as Security, Lacan/Psychoanalysis, Cap (as well as most Zizek), Heidegger, Cuomo, Kappeler, Pan, Chaloupka, Spanos/Imperialism, Foucault/Biopower and Luke.
If you are not reading one of these kritiks know that I have read (a pretty decent amount of) K literature but do need clarifications if your argument is complex or different. Different kritiks that fall under this category are D&G (I do understand the argument, but am not in touch with the finer points of the debate), Hardt and Negri, Badiou, Baudrillard (I find this utterly not understandable, and, as one of my coaches said “if you think you understand it then you don’t understand Baudrillard), Zupanic, Bataille etc.

When debating either kritiks that I am familiar with or ones that I am not you should make the debate as specific as possible; I find that kritik debates often devolve into vague representations links or generic topic debates and would appreciate it if you can show how the affirmative specifically is an example of ___.
Ideologically, I do think the affirmative should get to weigh their aff, but am tech-oriented on the framework debate. Floating Pik’s are abusive. I do not understand why the negative can sever their reps from a DA but the aff can’t from their advantages.

Judge choice is an interesting argument but in a hypothetical instance that the affirmative reads 3 advantages, the negative k’s 2 and the aff says judge choice the negative should still weigh the comparative disadvantages of the 2 advantages vs. the advantage of the other 1.

Theory-
One conditional advocacy is usually not abusive. I think that ideological conditionality (1 CP and 1 K) is the best form. I can be persuaded that conditionality is bad for debate, especially if the negative reads more than 3 conditional advocacies. I feel that 3 conditional advocacies is playing with fire for the neg.

Reject the argument not the team applies to every theory argument except conditionality. Dropping subpoint 3- no neg fiat on the conditionality debate, or other similar cheap shot theory arguments are not a voting issue and I will give leniency to new answers.

Topicality-
The framework for evaluating topicality debates is an area where I lean towards competing interpretations. Affirmatives that are core of the topic often under-utilize precision combined with reasonability. I do not enjoy spec arguments.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Debate Coach - University of Michigan

Debate Coach - New Trier High School

Michigan State University '13

Brookfield Central High School '09

I would like to be on the email chain - my email address is valeriemcintosh1@gmail.com.

A few top level things:

• If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is. This also includes forwarding the argument that death is good because suffering exists. I will not vote on it.
• If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
• Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
• I'm a very expressive judge. Look up at me every once in a while, you will probably be able to tell how I feel about your arguments.
• I don't think that arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates are at all relevant to my decision and I will not evaluate them. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.

Pet peeves

• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start
• Asking if I am ready or saying you'll start if there are no objections, etc. in in-person debates - we're all in the same room, you can tell if we're ready!
• Email-sending related failures
• Dead time
• Stealing prep
• Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team
• Asserting things are dropped when they aren't
• Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards
• Disappearing after the round

Online debate: My camera will always be on during the debate unless I have stepped away from my computer during prep or while deciding so you should always assume that if my camera is off, I am not there. I added this note because I've had people start speeches without me there.

Ethics: If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points.
*NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me.

Organization: I would strongly prefer that if you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn that it go on its own page - its super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders. Ditto to reading advantage CPs on case - put it on its own sheet, please!

Cross-x: Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions. If you don't start the timer before you start asking those questions, I will take whatever time I estimate you took to ask questions before the timer was started out of your prep. If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Translated evidence: I am extremely skeptical of evidence translated by a debater or coach with a vested interest in that evidence being used in a debate. Lots of words or phrases have multiple meanings or potential translations and debaters/coaches have an incentive to choose the ones that make the most debate-friendly argument even if that's a stretch of what is in the original text. It is also completely impossible to verify if words or text was left out, if it is a strawperson, if it is cut out of context, etc. I won't immediately reject it on my own but I would say that I am very amenable to arguments that I should.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate: I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting. This can also be accomplished by reading those lines in cross-x and then referencing them in a speech or just making analytics about their card(s) in your speech and then providing a rehighlighting to explain it.

Topicality: I enjoy judging topicality debates when they are in-depth and nuanced. Limits are an an important question but not the only important question - your limit should be tied to a particular piece of neg ground or a particular type of aff that would be excluded. I often find myself to be more aff leaning than neg leaning in T debates because I am often persuaded by the argument that negative interpretations are arbitrary or not based in predictable literature.

5 second ASPEC shells/the like that are not a complete argument are mostly nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans: I would say that I generally lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps, but obviously am more than willing to vote for them if they are debated better by the negative.

I think that CPs should have to be policy actions. I think this is most fair and reciprocal with what the affirmative does. I think that fiating indefinite personal decisions or actions/non-actions by policymakers that are not enshrined in policy is an unfair abuse of fiat that I do not think the negative should get access to. The CP that has the US declare it will not go to war with China would be theoretically legitimate but the CP to have the president personally decide not to go to war with China would not be. Similarly CPs that fiat a concept or endgoal rather than a policy would also fall under this.

It is the burden of the neg to prove the CP solves rather than the burden of the aff to prove it doesn't. Unless the neg makes an attempt to explain how/why the CP solves (by reading ev, by referencing 1AC ev, by explaining how the CP solves analytically), my assumption is that it doesn’t and it isn’t the aff’s burden to prove it doesn’t. The burden for the neg isn’t that high but I think neg teams are getting away with egregious lack of CP explanation and judges too often put the burden on the aff to prove the CP doesn’t solve rather than the neg to prove it does.

Disads: Uniqueness is a thing that matters for every level of the DA. I am not very sympathetic to politics theory arguments (except in the case of things like rider disads, which I might ban from debate if I got the choice to ban one argument and think are certainly illegitimate misinterpretations of fiat) and am unlikely to ever vote on them unless they're dropped and even then would be hard pressed. I'm incredibly knowledgeable about politics and enjoy it a lot when debated well but really dislike seeing it debated poorly.

Theory: Conditionality is often good. It can be not. Conditionality is the ONLY argument I think is a reason to reject the team, every other argument I think is a reason to reject the argument alone. Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Kritiks: I've gotten simultaneously more versed in critical literature and much worse for the kritik as a judge over the last few years. Take from that what you will.

Your K should ideally be a reason why the aff is bad, not just why the status quo is bad. If not, you're better off with it primarily being a framework argument.

Yes the aff gets a perm, no it doesn't need a net benefit.

Affs without a plan: I generally go into debates believing that the aff should defend a hypothetical policy enacted by the United States federal government. I think debate is a research game and I struggle with the idea that the ballot can do anything to remedy the impacts that many of these affs describe.

I certainly don't consider myself immovable on that question and my decision will be governed by what happens in any given debate; that being said, I don't like when judges pretend to be fully open to any argument in order to hide their true thoughts and feelings about them and so I would prefer to be honest that these are my predispositions about debate, which, while not determinate of how I judge debates, certainly informs and affects it.

I would describe myself as a good judge for T-USFG against affs that do not read a plan. I find impacts about fairness and clash to be very persuasive. I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I am not very persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.

I generally am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.

I don't think debate is roleplaying.

I am uncomfortable making decisions in debates where people have posited that their survival hinges on my ballot.

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Piper's older brother (pref her, not me)

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain. Please do email chains instead of sharing in the zoom chat/NSDA classroom! PLEASE no google docs if you have the ability to send in Word!)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Stealing this bit of wisdom from DML's philosophy: If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Random

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

Absent a tournament rule allowing it, cross-x and prep time are NOT interchangeable. You have 3 minutes of time to ask questions. Cross-x time shall not be used for prep, and other than MAYBE a quick clarification question, prep should not be used to grill your opponents.

I debated for Wake Forest in college and SPASH in high school. I coached debate at Niles North/West. I then went to law school.

I prefer and reward the speaker points for:
- clarity
- organized debates
- strategic thinking
- well researched arguments

I dislike the following and dock speaker points for:
- unclear speaking
- prep stealing/wasting
- being belligerent/overly aggressive

I've updated the argument preference section. I think overall judges should try to fairly evaluate everything before them no matter what the argument is. However, all judges have preferences. If you have the flexibility, here are my most favorite to least favorite types of debates:

Tons of fun:
Specific case neg/DA

Aff-specific CP/PIC (not a word pic - a pic out of something substantive in their aff or a CP that comes from the lit about their aff).

Impact turning the aff

K of the specific aff

Totally fine:
Generic DA/Case
Substance CP (not process based) and a DA
Generic middle of the road K (security, neolib, cap, biopower, topic K)
A good T argument (not ASPEC/OSPEC)

OK but a high threshold for good research and practice:
Agent CP's
Wilderson/anti-blackness
Performance arguments

No. Please don’t read or go for these:
Baudrillard/Nietzsche/Lacan/Psychoanalysis/Bataille
Process based arguments: consult CP's, rider da's, veto cheato, con con, etc
ASPEC/OSPEC

Do these things when going for these arguments to maximize speaker points and win

K's: 1. Focus on the link and turns the case arguments - these should be your primary focus. 2. Avoid relying solely on cheap-shots like "you dropped value to life".

T: 1. Be slow and clear. 2. Have a case list of what you include, what the aff includes, and why your caselist is better for debate.

3. Impact your arguments and compare them to your opponents.

DA's: 1. The link is the most important to me. 2. Have specific/reasonable turns the case arguments (not nuke war turns terrorism, but instead trade turns terrorism).

CP's: 1. Be as specific as possible to the aff. 2. Don't compete based on the process. 3. Debate the comparative impact to the solvency deficits to the net benefit.

Please forgive me - my paradigm of a billion years got erased somehow and I'm bit by bit trying to re-write it....

HS Policy Competitor - St. Mark's - 2007-2010
College Policy Competitor - Trinity - 2010-2014
Consultant - New Trier/St. Mark's - 2015-2016
Assistant Director of Speech and Debate - Hendrickson - 2017-2023
Director of Speech and Debate - Sandra Day O'Connor - 2023-Present
(yes I am old now)

CX/Policy:

Affirmatives:
I far prefer affirmatives with strong internal links and solvency even if their impacts are "common" or non-extinction based than affs that use contrived internal links with weak, underhighlighted evidence to get to the most random impact they think their opponent won't have impact defense to. Shallow debate is bad debate - good debaters don't run from the fight.

Framing:
It matters a lot in my decision making. If it is a point of contrast between the two sides, time spent here is worth it.

Negative Strategy:

Michael Moorhead
Affiliation: Appleton East

Updated: 1/17/2017

I hardly judge debate anymore, but when I do it is generally LD. I do a little bit of coaching for Appleton East, but not in an official capacity. I prefer progressive style debating, but you are more than welcome to have a traditional values oriented debate. Beyond that, I consider myself tabula rasa and all my policy opinions stated below apply to progressive-style LD.

Updated: 11/7/15

If you're not going to participate in community norms of past argument disclosure and flashing speeches, then you should not pref me. I write this because of an experience I had while judging LD, but will say I have not experienced this to be a problem within policy debate. I will tank your speaks if you think there is any reason to not allow your competitors access to review your evidence while you are in the debate because it promotes a poor form of deliberation. I interpret your reluctance to make your evidence accessible as a petty antic to secure a minor advantage within the debate space and haven't heard a legitimate reason to think otherwise. 

Updated: 8/16/13

Experience: I debated in high school for Appleton East. Although it is a small school in northern Wisconsin, my experience is predominantly on the national circuit at bid tournaments. My 2NRs in high school were about an even split between policy based arguments and Ks. I am now the Varsity Debate Coach at Appleton East High School. 

Short Version (to be read during pre-round prep)

I believe debate is about hard work. If you do not believe the same or do not put much work into debate, you should not pref me.

I prefer good argumentation/execution above all else. I would much rather see someone get rolled on death good than a K team try to run a politics disad or vis-à-vis. As more of an abstract concept, you should do what you do best in front of me. I should not affect the strategy you were planning on running against the team you are now debating. Nearly everything in my philosophy is debatable, and you as a debater should realize that my opinions are merely that: things that are open to change. This is the part where I give the schpiel about me trying not to intervene except when only left with that option. Being involved in debate as a debater gives me an interesting perspective in that I try to judge as I think that my favorite judges did while adjudicating me. I genuinely believe I am better at judging debate than doing the debating first hand.

Long Version

Miscellaneous:

1. In complete honesty, I don’t believe I have the personal ethos to be like “I refuse to let this argument be read in front of me” and have probably read a variation of whatever you could possibly read at some time or another. The bottom line is that if you have a consult counterplan that some big wig coach wouldn’t listen to, don’t think that their opinions apply to all of us. This should NOT be interpreted as “I want to hear a time cube debate,” but more like, if someone can’t beat a cheater counterplan, then they deserve to lose to one.
2. This should go without saying, but you can read as fast as you want. If you are fast at reading, and know you can do it reasonably clearly, we will not have problems. If I am telling you to be more clear while you are speaking, you will likely have heard you have clarity issues before.
3. I am very firmly tech over truth. I believe a dropped argument is a true argument, except in the instance in which that argument is objectively false. It is worth noting, however, that you first need to meet the criteria of an argument before it has the ability to be dropped by the opposing team.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations. Whenever I see a good T debate with the aff emerging victorious, it is generally because their interpretation is better for debate for reasons of limits or education rather than because it seems reasonable. Reasonability (taken in any other context of debate) seems silly, and seems to necessitate intervention. The times when I am likely to lean more towards reasonability are instances in which the neg reads arbitrary definitions or has trouble defending their own. Don’t get me wrong, reasonability is very good for the aff, but is not a round winner in all instances. The real question you should ask before embarking on a T debate while neg is if you have a contextualized definition that is specific in excluding the aff you are trying to prove is untopical. If the answer to that question is yes, you will likely do well in front of me providing you can argue T technically and proficiently. Clash and impact comparison is just as important in a T debate as in any other aspect of debate. Ks of T essentially function as impact turns, which means impact calc is still a must, but make it contextual obvi (or just don’t do it because it is dumb). Aspec, Ospec and all other relevant spec arguments are generally not round winners unless the other team is pulling even more intellectually deficient shenanigans. These arguments are better suited either on CPs for questions of competition or as instances of abuse on different T violations.

Counterplans: Bread and butter of a debate. They should be competitive both functionally and textually. While counterplans that only compete off one of those have won in front of me, my presumption is that they are not entirely competitive. Just as a precursor to reading my thoughts on which counterplans are most competitive, this should mean little when preparing for a debate. What I have found generally is people willing to run process counterplans are best able to defend them theoretically. I don’t roll my eyes when someone reads a process/consult counterplan, I just think there are often more strategic options. With all of that being said, I do think the best strategic decision for the affirmative when faced with a process/consult counterplan is to go for theory (in most instances). 

In order from most legitimate to least:
Advantage CPs (ran individually)
Plan Inclusive Counterplans (not including word PICs)
Actor CPs
Multiplank CPs
International CPs
Multiactor CPs
Conditions CPs
Threaten CPs
Process CPs
Consult CPs (i.e. commissions, qtr, etc.)
Delay CPs

Theory: I don't mind theory. I default to rejecting the argument except in the instance that the debate proves irrevocably altered by the theory violation (i.e. condo). I went for condo a decent amount while in high school and think it can be a round winner but only in select circumstances. In round abuse is probably a pretty standard prerequisite to getting me to vote on theory unless you can somehow convince me otherwise. I find myself leaning neg on condo (and most questions of theory), but closer to the middle than most judges you will probably find. Being double twos in the later part of my high school career, I am sympathetic to negs that run 2 CPs and a K, but could also paint a very reasonable picture of someone going for condo in that scenario. It will truly come down to how well you argue theory in that instance. On this thread, I believe performative contradictions in a debate beg the question of why the aff couldn’t sever their representations/methodology/whatever in a similar fashion. I don’t find “they introduced those reps/methodology/whatever first” to be a captivating argument or even a logical response to perf con. A defense of multiple worlds debate being good is probably a better answer, or better yet, just not contradicting yourself. Dispo is probably condo in disguise, and if you are running a CP/K dispo together, you will likely find yourself in a pickle. Otherwise, cheap shots are a reason to reject the argument and not the team, but first need to rise to the level of being an argument. Saying “politics isn’t intrinsic” is not an argument. In the instance that someone were to drop that in the block, then you explode on it in the 1AR, I would likely not credit their arguments in the 2NR as being new simply because you didn’t make an actual argument until the 1AR. I also believe theory is a question of competing interpretations, but could see a more logical argument for reasonability on a theory flow than a topicality flow.

Criticisms: I like GOOD K debates. I have a good background in psychoanalysis specifically, typical reps Ks, and then random flourishes of epistemology based k tricks I would typically deploy while running more normative kritiks. This should mean relatively nothing to a talented debater. If you are actually good at running the K, the amount of background I have in the literature should be relatively irrelevant. I generally think that the framework debate is a race to the middle in who allows the most ground for both sides. Affs should probably be able to weigh their advantages but that shouldn’t discount questions of ontology/method/reps/etc. I can play out many instances in which the aff wins they should be able to weigh their impacts but then loses on the K turning solvency, so that is something you should look out for if you are aff. Link/impact questions are more important to me than the alternative provided you are making the proper framework arguments. As Gabe Murillo once told me, alternatives are generally 2 things. 1. Dumb and 2. Uniqueness counterplans for your K. As such, so long as you can defend that your alt can solve whatever you are criticizing, it can be as dumb as you are willing to make it. Good Neg K debaters will: Employ all of the typical K tricks (Framework, Method First, Epistem. First, Reps First, Floating PIKs, etc.); have a short overview (if necessary) articulating their position on the K in the 2NC, but a larger overview in the 2NR that would reasonably answer most levels of the K debate via embedded clash, and be talented technical debaters that do not group the perm debate. Good Aff debaters answering the K will: Leverage FW as a reason they should be able to weigh their advantages, have a defense of their method/reps/etc., make perms (double bind is probably most captivating), and attack the link of the K.

K affs/Performance: These are generally fine. They are better/more easily judged if they include a topical plan text and defend the resolution, but if your thing is running an aff with a plan you don’t defend because the state is bad or whatever then that is cool too. I find topicality arguments to be more captivating than less definitionally sound framework interpretations. I don't think that non-traditional debating is bad, but I do think resolution based debating is good. That means I probably slightly err neg on an "ideal" topicality debate, but if you are a non traditional debater and win on it often, I will be a more than adequate judge for you.

Disads: Obviously they are good and you should run them. I love a great politics debate more than anything. Refer to my theory section above about cheap shots/politics theory for more information on that. If you have generic evidence, it’s important to frame the disad in the context of the aff. Do impact calc – absent so your disad holds little relevance to the aff. If your turns case argument is garbage, it won’t get you very far unless dropped, if it’s well developed, it could be a round winner. For the aff: Don’t just contest the impact, differentiate your aff from the generic link; if the impacts of the case interact well spend some time drawing differentials/making comparisons. Conceded turns case arguments in the 1AR can be problematic if developed properly.

Generally, I consider myself relatively flexible about what sorts of arguments I'll evaluate. In most circumstances, the debate seems to come down to the affirmative defending their advocacy against the negative's attempt to establish that an offensive position is competitive with and outweighs the Aff. 

The debaters who tend to get my ballot (and good points) are good rebuttal debaters. I most respect the debater who can zero in on the central question and explain 1) why that is the central question and 2) why they're on the right side of it. This requires an ability to isolate the finer distinctions involved and debate those as well (e.g. impact calculus often doesn't just require the statement "our impact is bigger because of timeframe, magnitude, and probability," but rather "our impact accesses a faster timeframe, and timeframe is a more relevant consideration than probability because ...").

I'll add more specific things below:

-- If your opponent deliberately concedes an argument you made, that argument is treated as 100% true. I'm potentially willing to consider cross applications and the like in the instance of an incidental concession (this is subject to debate - see the "finer distinctions" discussion above), but I think you're fully responsible for a claim you made if your opponent decides to strategically concede it.

-- I find myself voting Aff on "try or die" style arguments all too often. If you want me to reject the Aff in favor of the status quo, you need to win that extinction is not inevitable in the status quo. If you want me to vote on a disad, you need either a CP or "status quo solves" case arguments - not merely "aff doesn't solve" case arguments. I do believe that the debate can become close to irresolvable if the Aff wins that extinction is definitely going to happen if I don't vote Aff and the Neg wins that the Aff is more likely to cause another scenario for extinction than it is to solve the advantage (in which case the finer distinctions of impact calculus become decisive). Nonetheless, protect yourself from logical quagmires.

-- I get the sense I care more about "precision" as a link argument for the T disad than some other people. I can understand the objection that certain T jargon ("ground," "predictability," etc.) gets thrown around in a way that begs the question of other issues (namely, the determinable qualities of the interpretation). But, I do not believe that limits (i.e. how many affirmatives does this interpretation allow?) is the only issue that matters, since questions such as the evidence's intent to define, the quality of the source, and so forth are also determinable qualities of the interpretation that access the internal links ("ground," "predictability," etc.) in the same manner as limits.

More to come. 

I debated for four years in highschool for Whitney Young. I have some experience on this topic; I lead a lab at the Chicago Debate Summer institute and worked on the Core Files for the Chicago Debate League. There aren't many arguments I won't vote on, as in I don't really have a policy/ K paradigm, i'll vote for who ever did the better debating on those issues. I am willing to vote for procedural args (t, theory, framework) if the final rebuttals come down to it, as long as they are treated like every other argument in debate and are clearly impacted. 

Oakland University - PhD Applied Mathematics (2017)

U of M - Dearborn - BSE Computer Engineering & Engineering Mathematics (2011)

I debated for Groves High School for two years, U of M - Dearborn for one year, and I debated for U of M - Ann Arbor for one year. I have been coaching at Groves High School since August 2007, where I am currently Co-Director of Debate.

Please include me on the email chain: ryannierman@gmail.com

Please also add the email grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

Top Level: Do whatever you want. My job is to evaluate the debate, not tell you what to read.

Speed: Speed is not a problem, but PLEASE remain clear.

Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation.

CPs: Sure. I try to remain objective in terms of whether I think a certain cp is abusive or not - the legitimacy of a counterplan is up for debate and thus can vary from one round to the next. I believe the same is true for multiple counterplans.

Disads: Sure. There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. Overviews should focus in on why your impacts outweigh and turn case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line.

Kritiks: I enjoy a good kritik debate, but make sure that there is a clear link to the aff. This may include reading new link scenarios in the block. There should also be a clear explanation of the impact and the alternative. What is the alt? Does it solve the aff? What does the world of the alternative look like? Who does the alternative? What is my role as the judge? The neg should also isolate a clear f/w - why does methodology, ontology, reps, discourse, etc. come first?

Theory: I don't lean any particular way on the theory debate. For me, a theory debate must be more than just reading and re-reading one's blocks. There needs to be impacted reasons as to why I should vote one way or another. If there are dropped independent voters on a theory debate, I will definitely look there first. Finally, there should be an articulated reason why I should reject the team on theory, otherwise I default to just rejecting the argument.

Performance: Sure. I prefer if the performative affirmation or action is germane to the topic, but that is up for debate. I will do my best to listen to any argument and evaluate them fairly.

Paperless Debate: I do not take prep time for emailing your documents, but please do not steal prep. I also try to be understanding when tech issues occur, but will honor any tech time rules established and enforced by the tournament. I will have my camera on during the round. If my camera is off, please assume that I am not there. Please don't start without me.

Other general comments:

Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

I do not feel comfortable voting on issues that happen outside the round.

You should read rehighlightings.

Please make sure that your cards are highlighted in a way that makes grammatical sense. Please avoid word salad. I will not piece together your evidence after the round to make a coherent argument. Quality > Quantity.

Don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is.

Cross-x is a speech - it should have a clear strategy and involve meaningful questions and clarifications.

Have fun!

Niles West High School '14

University of Kentucky '18

Chicago-Kent Law School '24

Northwestern University Coach '18-21

University of Kentucky Coach '22-23

Put me on the chain theonoparstak22@gmail.com

GENERAL THOUGHTS

I decide debates by re-organizing my flow around the issues prioritized in the 2nr and 2ar, going back on my flow to chart the progression of the argument, reading the relevant evidence, then resolving that mini-debate. Tell me what I should care about in the final speeches. Use the earlier speeches to set up your final rebuttals.

I try not to consider personal biases when judging policy or k debates. Debates hinge on link, impact, and solvency questions that have to be argued whether its plan/cp, perm/alt, fw/advocacy.

I believe the most important skill a debater should have is the ability to do good comparative analysis.

I'll read evidence during and after the debate. Evidence quality influences my perception of the argument's strength. Bad evidence means there's a lower bar for answering the argument and vice versa.

When trying to resolve questions about how the world works, I defer to expert evidence introduced in the debate. When trying to resolve questions about how the debate in front of me should work, I defer to the arguments of the debaters.

The debates I enjoy the most are the ones where students demonstrate that they are active participants in the thinking through and construction of their arguments. Don't be on auto-pilot. Show me you know what's going on.

Have an appropriate level of respect for opponents and arguments.

SPECIFIC THOUGHTS

I would strongly prefer not to judge debates about why death is good that may force an ethical debate about whether life is worth living.

K Affs: There is a place in debate for affirmatives that don't affirm the resolution. I will not vote for or against framework in these situations based on ideological preferences alone. I wish the activity had clearer rules for what we consider fair game in terms of links to negative offense/competitive advocacies against affs that don't affirm the resolution/read a plan text because I enjoy debates over specifics more than rehashed abstractions. But I am sympathetic to neg arguments about how the aff precluded those good debates from occurring, depending on what the aff defends in the 1AC.

T: I would prefer neg teams only go for topicality when the aff is very clearly attempting to skirt the core premises of the resolution. Going for silly T arguments against super core affirmatives is a waste of everyone's time. Having said that, T debates have the potential to be the most interesting and specific arguments in debate, so if you feel really good about the work you've put into developing your position I encourage you to go for it.

Theory: I feel similarly about theory. It's hard for me to take theory arguments seriously when they're not made in specific response to some seriously problematic practice that has occured in the debate at hand. Debate is supposed to be hard. People are way too quick to claim something made debate 'impossible'.

K: When the neg is going for a kritik, I find the framework debating from both sides largely unnecessary. The easiest and most common way I end up resolving framework debates is to allow the aff to weigh their advantages and the neg to weigh their kritik. You'd be better served spending time on the link/impact/alt.

CP: When judging process counterplans, I'm most interested in whether there are cards a) tying the counterplan to the resolution b) tying the net benefit to the plan. This is what usually pushes me aff or neg on theory and perm arguments.

DA: I usually think the link is the most important part of an argument

RETIRED FROM DEBATE COACHING/JUDGING AS OF FALL 2024. WAHOOOO!!!!

Please put me on the email chain:eriodd@d219.org.

Experience:

I'm currently an assistant debate coach for Niles North High School. I was the Head Debate Coach at Niles West High School for twelve years and an assistant debate coach at West for one year. I also work at the University of Michigan summer debate camps. I competed in policy debate at the high school level for six years at New Trier Township High School.

Education:

Master of Education in English-Language Learning & Special Education National Louis University
Master of Arts in School Leadership Concordia University-Chicago
Master of Arts in Education Wake Forest University
Juris Doctor Illinois Institute of Technology-Chicago Kent College of Law
Bachelor of Arts University of California, Santa Barbara

Debate arguments:

I will vote on any type of debate argument so long as the team extends it throughout the entire round and explains why it is a voter. Thus, I will pull the trigger on theory, agent specification, and other arguments many judges are unwilling to vote on. Even though I am considered a “politics/counter plan” debater, I will vote on kritiks, but I am told I evaluate kritik debates in a “politics/counter plan” manner (I guess this is not exactly true anymore...and I tend to judge clash debates). I try not to intervene in rounds, and all I ask is that debaters respect each other throughout the competition.

Identity v. Identity:
I enjoy judging these debates. It is important to remember that, often times, you are asking the judge to decide on subject matter he/she/they personally have not experienced (like sexism and racism for me as a white male). A successful ballot often times represents the team who has used these identity points (whether their own or others) in relationship to the resolution and the debate space. I also think if you run an exclusion DA, then you probably should not leave the room / Zoom before the other team finishes questions / feedback has concluded as that probably undermines this DA significantly (especially if you debate that team again in the future).

FW v. Identity:
I also enjoy judging these debates. I will vote for a planless Aff as well as a properly executed FW argument. Usually, the team that accesses the internal link to the impacts (discrimination, education, fairness, ground, limits, etc.) I am told to evaluate at the end of the round through an interpretation / role of the ballot / role of the judge, wins my ballot.

FW v. High Theory:
I don't mind judging these debates. The team reading high theory should do a good job at explaining the theories / thesis behind the scholars you are utilizing and applying it to a specific stasis point / resolutional praxis. In terms of how I weigh the round, the same applies from above, internal links to the terminal impacts I'm told are important in the round.

Policy v. Policy:
I debated in the late 90s / early 2000s. I think highly technical policy v. policy debate rounds with good sign posting, discussions on CP competition (when relevant), strategic turns, etc. are great. Tech > truth for me here. I like lots of evidence but please read full tags and a decent amount of the cards. Not a big fan of "yes X" as a tag. Permutations should probably have texts besides Do Both and Do CP perms. I like theory debates but quality over quantity and please think about how all of your theory / debate as a game arguments apply across all flows. Exploit the other team's errors. "We get what we get" and "we get what we did" are two separate things on the condo debate in my opinion.

Random comments:

The tournament and those judging you are not at your leisure. Please do your best to start the round promptly at the posted time on the pairing and when I'm ready to go (sometimes I do run a few minutes late to a round, not going to lie). Please do your best to: use prep ethically, attach speech documents quickly, ask to use bathroom at appropriate times (e.g. ideally not right before your or your partner's speech), and contribute to moving the debate along and help keep time. I will give grace to younger debaters on this issue, but varsity debaters should know how to do this effectively. This is an element of how I award speaker points. I'm a huge fan of efficient policy debate rounds. Thanks!

In my opinion, you cannot waive CX and bank it for prep time. Otherwise, the whole concept of cross examination in policy debate is undermined. I will not allow this unless the tournament rules explicitly tell me to do so.

If you use a poem, song, etc. in the 1AC, you should definitely talk about it after the 1AC. Especially against framework. Otherwise, what is the point? Your performative method should make sense as a praxis throughout the debate.

Final thoughts:

Do not post round me. I will lower your speaker points if you or one of your coaches acts disrespectful towards me or the opponents after the round. I have no problem answering any questions about the debate but it will be done in a respectful manner to all stakeholders in the room. If you have any issues with this, please don't pref me. I have seen, heard and experienced way too much disrespectful behavior by a few individuals in the debate community recently where, unfortunately, I feel compelled to include this in my paradigm.

Neil Patel

Glenbrook South High School ‘13

Updated: December 2017

Education Topic: Not at all as familiar with the topic as I have been with the past few. Have judged zero debates on this topic. 

Debated for four years at GBS and coached for four as well during college. Don't really do any debate stuff anymore.

Debate is a game that is a tremendous learning opportunity for a variety of professional careers and I have experienced first-hand the real world benefits of the activity. I appreciate how it allows you to test a variety of ideas and strategies that you normally wouldn't be able to. 

Please resolve issues at the end of debates with not only impact calc, but the implication of you being ahead/winning arguments in the broader context of the debate. 

Flow. 

Debaters work hard and I feel I should do the same as a judge. 

An arg is a claim+impact+warrant. 

"You can't beat an argument by simply pointing out that an argument should be ignored. If you cannot logically deconstruct a 'dumb' argument, what does that make you?" - Ben Wolch. At the bare minimum, present a reason why.

1% risk doesn't make sense. Mitigating the risk of something sufficiently enough will make its risk inconsequential. 

Try or die only makes sense if the trying somewhat resolves the dying. 

I have a a strong emphasis on clarity and efficiency – generally, debates center around a few key arguments but the last rebuttals include a lot of irrelevant substance filling arguments instead of a focus on the core issues. 

Pieces of evidence are only useful as support for an argument. Make sure each piece of evidence you read is carefully selected to serve an explicit purpose. Analytics suffice in the absence of evidence as long there is a logical warrant proving the claim true. 

The content and source of an argument are relevant, in so far, as the argument that you are making. 

My favorite part about debate is research. Take that for what you will. 

Truth versus tech is sort of arbitrary. It's not new if it is true. 

“I enjoy debaters doing what they do well. If you’re funny, be funny. If you are smart, be smart. Cordial debates are generally more enjoyable. Context matters. If two aggressive teams have a heated rivalry then it’s going to produce an aggressive debate---I get that. Unnecessary aggression/rudeness/etc will result in lower points.” – Jordan Blumenthal

Impact turn + Advantage CP/Case is my favorite strategy.

There is a strategic utility to certain critiques (more commonly known as kritiks) when executed in a fashion that makes it a relevant consideration of the affirmative.

after my time in the activity and experience in the real world, my parting words of wisdom is that the single most important thing I took away from the activity is to maximize your fun. 5 years from now - you are going to tell the stories where you had the most fun. 

For questions related to anything, email me: 

Neilp1215@gmail.com

Maine East 07-1

I've been working as an assistant coach for Maine East since then.

Meta Issues

- A dropped argument doesn’t translate into a true argument ex. Reverse voting issue

- If you initiate evidence comparison = good = I don’t have to read as many cards. Evidence comparison also determines how I’ll read said cards. A debate filled with evidence does not necessarily mean that an argument is going on – you should challenge the logic behind the evidence. If it’s dumb, you should point it out

- After debating then working for Wayne Tang for nearly a decade, I would say my philosophy more closely aligns with him. I love intelligent story telling with good evidence + analysis. 

-That being said, I get put in clash of civilization debates. A lot. A good 70% of my rounds on the 2016-2017 topic were clash of civs. Affirmative teams should be relevant to the topic. 

Disads/Counterplans
I like a good DA+CP and/or case debate. I think defensive arguments can reduce the disad to zero risk or close to it. Impact comparison is obviously important. 

Kritiks
I’m not well versed in the literature. This will definitely require more work on your part in terms of explanation. 

Theory/Framework
Affs should probably have a plan text and negatives should have stable advocacies.

My gut reactions tend to be the following:
Conditionality, pics, multi-plank advantage CPs, international actor fiat = good
Consult, conditions, delay, word PICs = probably bad

Unless persuaded otherwise, theory is usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

1. You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
2. You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
3. You listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
4. You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
5. You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
6. You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
7. You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

Glenbrook North- he/him

If you are visibly sick, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

If the tournament has the tabroom email docshare set up, you must use that. Otherwise, use spipkin at glenbrook225.org. Please set up the chain at least five minutes before start time. I don't check my email very often when I'm not at tournaments.

I won't vote for death good

If you're taking prep before the other teams speech, it needs to be before they send out the doc. For example, if the aff team wants prep between the 2NC and 1NR, it needs to happen before the 1NR doc gets sent out, so I'd recommend saying you're going to do it before cross-x.

1. Flow and explicitly respond to what the other team says in order. I care a lot about debate being a speaking activity and I would rather not judge you if you disagree. I won't open the speech doc during the debate. I won't look at all the cards after the round, only ones that are needed to resolve something being debated out that are explicitly extended throughout the debate. If I don't have your argument written down on my flow, then you don't get credit for it. As an example, if you read a block of perms, I need to be able to distinguish between the perms in the 2AC to give you credit for them. If you are extending a perm in the 2AR I didn't have written down in the 2AC, I won't vote on it, even if the neg doesn't say this was a new argument. The burden is on you to make sure I am able to flow and understand everything you are saying throughout the debate. If you don't flow (and there are a lot of you out there) you should strike me.

2. Things you can do to improve the likelihood of me understanding you:

a. slow down

b. structure your args using numbers and subpoints

c. explicitly signpost what you are answering and extending

d. alternate analytics and cards

e. use microtags for analytics

f. give me time to flip between flows

g. use emphasis and inflection

3. I think the aff has to be topical.

4. I'm not great at judging the kritik. I'm better at judging kritiks that have links about the outcome of the plan but have an alternative that's a fiated alternative that's incompatible with the world of the plan.

5. You can insert one perm text into the debate. You can insert sections of cards that have been read for reference. You can't insert re-highlightings. I'm not reading parts of cards that were not read in the debate.

6. I flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say the plan fiats something in CX, you don't get to say PTIV means something else on T. So for example, if you say "remove judicial exceptions" means the courts, you don't get to say you're not the courts on T. If you say normal means is probably the courts but you're not fiating that, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are Congress for a DA or CP.

8. If your highlighting is incoherent, I'm not going to read unhighlighted parts of the card to figure out what it means.

Updated for ASU 2021

I spent the first half of my debate career reading primarily "policy" arguments and the second half of my career experimenting with critical literature. Most of my 2NRs my senior year consisted of either psychoanalysis, politics (and CP/case), T, or framework. I've debated and coached both sides of the framework debate. I'm currently a lawyer. I have not judged any debates on this topic and have done almost no research on it either.

Contact info: rsrajan93@gmail.com (add me to the email chain)

Big picture:

-Each side should have offense (solvency deficits, DAs, etc.) to the other side's proposed advocacy (1AC, TVAs, CPs, K alts, etc.). In terms of impacts, however, I am comfortable believing that there is such a low risk of something happening that it is not a concern.

-Impact COMPARISONS frame my decision regardless of the genre of debate. Your final speech ought to provide some insight into why the strategy you are going for is a good one.

-While I care a lot about both evidence quality and spin, how you debate your evidence matters the most. Evidence quality will influence speaker points.

-Even...if argumentation is good because you're not likely to win every argument.

-Less is more. Final speeches ought to value breadth over depth. Fewer arguments that are better impacted out have a greater chance winning in front of me than hoping your opponent drops a poorly impacted one.

-I am quite good for impact turns, especially in Policy v. K debates.

-I have to be able to trace any argument that is in the 2AR to the 1AR. I will not reward aff vagueness or any attempt to obfuscate the debate up until the 2AR.

Note: Each debater gets one constructive and one rebuttal. After the 1AC/1NC, I will not evaluate what you say during your partner's speeches. This presumption can only be overcome with a very good and explicit reason.

Specific Arguments:

Framework: I judge this debate the most often. Fairness is far more persuasive as an internal link than it is as an external impact. The two most persuasive negative strategies are either: (a) an explanation of how the negative's conception of the activity promotes certain beneficial skills or a model of research (or engagement with the world) that links to some larger impact that outweighs and is mutually exclusive with the aff OR (b) a reason for why conceiving of debate as more than just a game structured by competitive incentives is bad. Negatives should still play defense to the substance of the aff via case answers, TVAs, state engagement good args, an SSD claim, etc. Such defense should also address aff impact turns to framework.

Affirmatives need a connection to the topic. Affs should also defend doing something and that advocacy should extend beyond the aff debaters. Otherwise, it's very easy for me to find that any impact on framework outweighs the aff. To effectively hedge against procedural fairness offense, affirmatives ought to have a vision of what debate looks like under their interpretation. I've noticed that I've been voting negative more often because affirmatives spend too much time describing the content of the aff and not enough time explaining how they grapple with the competitive structure of debate. Explain how you deal with the fact that debate is a competitive activity and how you would change our relationship to or channel the benefits of competition.

Lastly, I have a hard time completely separating "form" from "content." I am willing, however, to believe that one may be more important than (or control how I evaluate) the other.

Kritiks: Examples matter. While specificity to the aff is not required, specificity does influence how likely I am to believe the thesis of your K.

For the aff, if the negative critiques a methodological underpinning necessary for the aff to be true/function, the burden is on the affirmative to answer that critique. It behooves the aff to have a defense of their epistemology, ontology, representations, etc. or reasons why those considerations should not matter. The aff can and should make arguments about specificity, but needs to contextualize these arguments for the purposes of impact calculus or internal link takeouts.

When answering framework on the K, the aff should defend their model of engaging the resolution. I'm not too persuaded by arguments grounded in predictability or fairness.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability arguments should be phrased as reasons why the negative's interpretation is bad. I also believe that T is about what you justify so potential abuse is a voting issue. I'm not too persuaded by plan text in a vacuum type arguments. For both sides, it's important to contextualize any standards to specific arguments grounded in topic literature.

CPs/Theory: I heavily lean neg on conditionality. I lean aff on theoretical objections to CPs that compete off the certainty of the aff. The negative can obviate a lot of these concerns by having a topic-specific solvency advocate defending the value of discussing the CP. My default is to reject the argument and not the team.

I will kick the CP if I think it's worse than the status quo. A neg team does not have to say judge kick. Affs can make arguments about why judge kick is bad, but I'm a tough sell.

If you have any questions or would like a typed up version of my RFD, please email me.

This is my twenty sixth year as an active member of the policy debate community. After debating in both high school and college I immediately jumped into coaching high school policy debate. I have been an argument coach, full time debate instructor, program director, and argument coach again for Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart in Miami, FL for the past seventeen years.

I become more convinced every year that the switch side nature of policy debate represents one of the most valuable tools to inoculate young people against dogmatism. I also believe the skills developed in policy debate – formulating positions using in depth research that privileges consensus, expertise, and data and the testing of those positions via multiple iterations—enhance students’ ability to think critically.

I am particularly fond of policy debate as the competitive aspect incentivizes students to keep abreast of current events and use that information to formulate opinions regarding how various levels of government should respond to societal needs.

Equipping students with the skills to meaningfully engage political institutions has been incredibly valuable for me. Many of my debate students have been Latina/Latinx. Witnessing them develop an expert ability to navigate institutions, that were by design obfuscated to ensure their exclusion, continues to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and I am constantly grateful for that privilege.

I am deeply concerned by the ongoing trend toward clash avoidance. This practice makes debate seem more trivial each year and continues to denigrate our efforts in the eyes of the academics we depend on for funding and support.

Affirmatives continue to lean into vague plan writing and vague explanations of what they will defend. This makes for late breaking and poorly developed debates. I understand why students engage in these practices (the competitive incentive I lauded above) I wish instructors and coaches understood how much more meaningful their contributions would be if they empowered students to embrace clash over gimmicks.

I will be less persuaded by your delivery if you choose to engage in clash avoidance. Actions such as deleting analytics, refusal to specify plans, cps, and K alts, allowing your wiki to atrophy, and proliferating stale competition style and Intrinsicness arguments will result in my awarding fewer speaker points.

Remember your friends’ hot takes and even your young coaches/lab leaders’ hot takes are just that – they are likely not the debates most of your critics want to adjudicate.

If you are not flowing during the debate, it will be difficult to persuade me that you were the most skilled debater in the room.

Be “on deck.” By that I mean be warmed up and ready for your turn at bat. Have your table tote set up, the email thread ready, you pens/paper/timer out, your laptop charged, go to the restroom before the round, fill up your water bottle, etc. I don’t say all this to sound like a mean teacher – in fact I think it would be incredibly ableist to really harp on these things or refuse to let students use the facilities mid-round – but being ready helps the round proceed on time and keeps you in the zone which helps your ability to project a confident winning persona. It also demonstrates a consideration for me, your opponents, your coaches and teammates and the tournament staffs’ time.

Be kind and generous to everyone.

You can likely deduce most of this from the discussion of clash avoidance and why I value debate above.

I would prefer to see a debate wherein the affirmative defends the USFG should increase security cooperation with the NATO over AI, Biotech, and/or cybersecurity.

I would like to see the negative rejoin with hypothetical disadvantages to enacting the plan as well as introducing competing proposals for resolving the harms outlined by the affirmative.

One of the more depressing impacts to enrolling in graduate school has been the constant reminder that in truth impact d is >>> than impact ev. A few years ago, I was increasingly frustrated by teams only extending a DA and impact defense vs. the case – I thought this was responsible for a trend of fewer and fewer affirmatives with intrinsic advantages. I made a big push for spending at least 50% of the time on each case flow vs the internal link of the advantage. My opinion on this point is changing. Getting good at impact defense is tremendously valuable – you are likely examining peer reviewed highly qualified publications and their debunking of well…less than qualified publications.

I find Climate to be one of the most strategic and persuasive impacts in debate (life really). That said, most mechanisms to resolve climate presented in debates are woefully inadequate.

I am not averse to any genre of argument. Every genre has highs and lows. For example, not all kritiks are generic or have cheating alternatives, not all process counterplans are unrelated to the topic, and not all politics disadvantages are missing fundamental components but sometimes they are and you should work to avoid those deficiencies.

The folks with whom I see debate similarly:

Maggie Berthiaume

Dr. Brett Bricker

Anna Dimitrijevic

David Heidt

Fran Swanson

Kentucky 2017 update:  This is the first year since the Europe topic where I didn't attend the season opener.  So whatever T/competition things the community "collectively figured out" during the first tourney, do not assume that I am in the know re: that info.  I have been reading about healthcare and doing some topic research, so don't over-apply this advice.  I know what single payer means, I know what happened to Graham-Cassidy, I know Price resigned, etc.  My point is more about the *competitive* direction the topic is heading.

Updated Fall 2013: I added a new section on evidence, clarity, and clipping at the end, given its length, but I wanted to mention it up here (in case of TL;DR)

Crotchety old person complaints:  You should flow.  You should go line-by-line unless having a purposeful reason not to.  You should talk about the other team’s evidence.  You should talk about your own evidence.  You should have warrants to back up claims, and examples to contextualize your arguments.  Historical references are great.  Smart analysis > more cards.  I will not read cards after the debate to reconstruct arguments that you failed to communicate yourself during your speech.  I will read cards that are intelligently contested by both teams. Wiki golden rule- put as much intel up as you expect from other people.

Cross-x: is my favorite part of the debate.  I flow it. Being smart in CX can win or lose you the debate.

T debates… things that will help you out: explaining which affs we should be debating and why, which arguments we should be debating and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion, ect.  If the neg’s interpretation is more limiting, but the aff can clearly explain why that definition is not predictable, or the affs that the neg allows are not good affs or exclude critical parts of the literature, ect, the aff will be in a good place.  Limits are not the end all, be all.  Discussion of sources of definitions also important for the aff to win if their counter-interpretation is not going to be more limiting.

Theory debates- happen at a speed where its impossible to get all of the 2ac/2nc/1ar args... if this describes you (and it almost certainly does) and the aff wants theory to be a real potential option for the 2ar, know that you should slow down to around 75% speed.  I lean neg on most counterplan theory questions by default, but its all up for debate.... assuming I can understand what you are saying.

Ks- I am not a judge that you cannot go for the K in front of.  Judges get siloed in some weird ways based on presuppositions about how they think, and philosophies are meant to clear that up.  SO!  I evaluate kritik debates like any other strategy- superior analysis and refutation in the final rebuttals over the key questions will win you the debate.  Negs should focus on why the alternative remedies their link arguments (and solves the aff's 1AC impacts, if you are trying to do so).  If there is no alternative or you posit that your framework is your "alt," you do need to explain why this instance of rejecting the aff/their representiations is alone/taking an ethical standpoint in this debate is sufficient action to avoid the impact that is identified by the K.  The one thing I will say for the neg is that there is some tension in my mind between the common neg claim that "the aff doesn't leave the room, there is no "spill up," the state never hears them, so they can't access their impact turns" with the neg's alternative solvency claim that "rejecting this aff solves our terminal impact which is global extinction from neolib/militarism/antiblackness," etc.  Is there "spill up" to one debate judge's choice or not, and if not for the aff, why is it assumed for the neg?  I think this is best remedied by the neg narrowing your impact framing to the types of things that ARE clearly within the judge's purview-- epistemological choices behind scholarship presentations matter, single ethical choices made by individuals matter, representations even within academia matter, and so on.

Affs will do well by reading as much specific evidence about the neg’s argument as possible... not impressed with the aff that recycles the same 4 cards against every kritik.  Same for the neg- if you mix it up every year with kritiks that are tailored to the topic, I will be a good judge for you.  If you've been doin more or less the same thing for the better part of a decade.. meh, there are better judges for you.  The aff should say what their permutation actually means in the 2ar. I've found most framework debates in policy aff v. neg K debate to be vacuous.  Everyone wants to meet in the middle.  The neg rarely seems to go as far as to say "no aff," and the aff is too afraid to say "no alt," and we all can never get those 120 minutes of our lives back. 

In terms of K affs, though my default is that the aff should discuss the benefits of hypothetical topical action by the USFG, affs should at a minimum demonstrate topic-relevance.  If you are reading an aff that very explicitly ignores the topic, I'm not the best judge for you, though if you do find me in the back of the room, you should be sure to explain fully why departing from the topic is essential to whatever your thang is. Bottom line, my default is the topic, but you should always do what you think will maximize your chance of winning, rather than comporting to what you think my own leanings are.   Debate is hard and you should do what you are best at.  All arguments have a chance of winning if they are well reasoned, and if its clear why I should prefer them compared to your opponents arguments.

Paperless stuff- your prep time ends when you are ready to send the email or give the jump drive to the other team.  The more time you waste, the less decision time I have, so be mindful of that.  

My only request to you when you debate in front of me is to please be civil to your opponents.  In CX's, post rounds... coaches getting in post rounds.  Yuck.  Having your judge cringe at you is never a good thing.  I dislike debaters who visibly or audibly react negatively to the other team's final rebuttal.  You get your last speech and thats it.  I dont need the 2N to be a one-person peanut gallery during the 2AR. Its distracting to me and rude to the other team.  You have now been warned re: your speaker points.  You should be able to tell how I’m feeling if you look up once and a while.

 **New section on evidence and card clipping:

Evidence- this is getting out of control.  First, the ethically problematic and academically lazy practices:

--highlighting to the point of creating new content- if you are making new arrangements that the original author did not intend, that is a problem.  Let’s call “creative highlighting” what it actually is: fabricating evidence.  If your highlighting of evidence is making stuff up and then wrongly attributing it to the author to give it false credibility, that is fabricating evidence.

--ending cards before the end of the author’s original paragraph- I thought this was a universal norm but apparently not. 

Second, these practices are not unethical per se, they just make you worse at debate:

--removing warrants from the tag- its hard to flow evidence where the tag is 2-3 words long.  I do my best to flow the warrants in each card, but its impossible to get everything said at 300 wpm for 9 mins straight.  Debaters should be highlighting the critical parts of evidence in your tags and then deliver them clearly.

--cutting strawperson evidence- lazy research, period.  This wouldn’t fly for academic work, so it shouldn’t for debate research either.

--having things that hurt you in the 2-point font of your card.  Lets be honest, blowing that stuff up is the first thing I do when I see that in a card.  You can expect to find good stuff here usually.  This makes it pretty easy on your opponents.

--"abbrev"s make you sound dumb.  Why are you highlighting "targeted killing" as just T....K...? "Nuclear weapons" as "nuc.........s"?  You are being the characture of policy debate that everyone ridicules.

Clarity- If I cannot understand you, I won’t read your cards after the debate to reconstruct your arguments for you.  Debate is a communication activity, love it or leave it.  Delivery is a big issue here obviously, but so is form.  If your speech is a string of debate “abbrevs”, its pretty hard to flow.  Clarity in content is important.  If you aren’t contextualizing your arguments and giving examples in your final rebuttal, you leave the judge no choice but to have to input their own analysis to resolve the debate.

Cross reading, “clipping cards”, stopping short on evidence or not marking cards and then misrepresenting what you have read in a debate are unethical practices.  If a team suspects another team of doing this, they should stop the debate and present their evidence.  I would be willing to listen to any video or audio recording in the room that is available to me.  For me, the important thing is the actual result (did the audio of the speech as presented include all of the text submitted into the “record” of the debate?), since intentionality is impossible to prove either way.  And I will say this: if a debater’s performance is SO unclear as to look exactly like what cheating looks like, that is still a huge problem.

Joshua Rivera
TL;DR version of my judge philosophy:

UPDATE: Some debaters have asked me if I wanted to be part of an email chain before the debate. My rule is that I will star and look at evidence after the round if I am told to by a debater during the round to do so. So for example if you say, "prefer our evidence assumes theirs" or "their ev doesn't claim X, it's poorly highlighted" or something similar to that. What this means is that I don't need to be part of the email chain, I can just look at evidence after the round.

• As a debater I debated advantage CP's and politics all the way to performance affirmatives. Your focus should be choosing the most strategic option for the debate.
• I tend to err affirmative on theory for the following CP's : Process, Multiple Plank CP's, Delay, Floating Pics.
• I tend to err Neg on theory for the following CP's, Consult, Advantage, Word Pics.
• I default to competing interps on T.
• Speed is a part of our activity, however, accessibility should be as well.
• I never understood the policy v critical divide. My role is to facilitate the educational activity of debate as a judge and vote for who did the better debating.. This means I am willing to vote for the most limiting interpretation of framework and the most fluid as long as you have a good defense of what you choose.
• I'm not very emotive as a judge. If I have a blank face it doesn't mean anything in terms of your performance during the debate.

Experience

• Debating:
  • Policy debate in the Chicago Debate League 3yrs, graduated 2011.
  • NPTE/NPDA parliamentary debate 4yrs at SIU (I didn't know what it was in high school either, like policy, but with rotating topics).
• Judging & Coaching:
  • 4 years of judging primarily at New Trier, GBX, NW RR,
  • Coached various schools in the Chicago Debate League from time to time & camp instructor CDSI.
• Education:
  • Economics/Political Science SIU
  • Master of Public Policy at the Ford School of Public Policy @ University of Michigan
• Career:
• Senior data and policy advisor at Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan

Preferences:

• I see debate as an academic forum that should be driven by the students who are engaged in the activity and that rounds should be won based on the better debating and not on judges individual biases.
• Flowing and Line-By-Line are an integral part of how I understand the activity, if you have another way you think I should judge a debate you must be specific.
• My "default" judge setting is an offense/defense paradigm.

Paperless Rules: (Tip: In the rounds I have judged debaters who flow on paper tend to have a better understanding of the round.)

• You should have a USB drive that works and that is easy to acces for other debaters.
• You send all cards you are reading in a speech
• What happens to the file is dictated by the policy given to you by your coaches or school administrator.
• Jumping files is NOT prep time.
• If you are affirmative, it is a nice thing to have your file on a USB ready 3 minutes before the round is set to start.

Specifics
Speaker points:

• 4 minute overviews are unpersuasive.
• Debaters are best utilizing their time in the 2NR/2AR doing comparative impact analysis, or if you want to clarify the debate a 30 second overview "writing the ballot" Ask yourself, "what arguments do I want the judge to say won this debate?" and execute on that.
• I pay attention to how debaters utilize cross-x - great cross-x's can get me on your side.

Disads:

• Impact calculus and evidence comparison can really get me on your side in a debate.
• Kicking out of a disad entails more than "ext the defense" those three words are not an argument.

Counterplans:

• If you read a plank you should have solvency evidence for it in the 1NC.
• Process CP's tend to bore me but if you make your solvency arguments specific to the plan I can be easily convinced.
• After 3 CP's in the 1NC I tend to err aff on theory.

Kritiks:

• My familiarity with the literature its not relevant - your application of the argument to win the flow is.
• I prefer kritik debates that focus on the specifics of case, getting high speaker points will entail and in-depth knowledge of the application of the K to the arguments of the 1AC.
• I'm not to fond of floating pics but can be convinced if you do well on the representations debate.
• I think affirmatives can defend their representations and usually do well when they defend Positivism,Pragmatism, and be willing to impact turn the K.

Topicality:

• I tend to evaluate the debate through competing interpretations. I'm fine with reasonability but prefer the definition to be more than " our affirmative is reasonable."
• "Topicality is a disad" doesn't mean anything.
• Successful teams have leveraged definitional precision and/or vision of the topic as ways to approach framing the debate.
• Topicality is a gateway/voting issue. In the instance where topicality itself is impact turned the team should defend an alternative means of structuring what we accept as "talking about the topic".

Theory:

• Going for it as a cheap shot not win a ballot in front of me.
• I do enjoy when the 1AR makes a smart decision to go for theory you should articulate a clear impact i.e abuse, potential abuse, with arguments that are specific and that do not solely rely upon random causal claims that are just filled with jargon and not warrants.
• Remember include reason to reject the team or else that flow is going away and I will evaluate the rest of the debate.

Questions? email me at riverajoshua1993@gmail.com

I debated at New Trier and Michigan State. Now, I help out at Niles North.

How to win my ballot

Control the frame and explain why your arguments beat their arguments under that framing. The framing could be anything. Really, the framing could be anything. Frames that have won my ballot: magnitude comes first, only epistemology matters, the judge is a critical intellectual, reasonability dictates T debates. Other ones have won, too!

I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible. Make sure your winning arguments make it onto my flow. Answer the arguments your opponent can win on.

Read the arguments you are best at. I doubt you will be better at debating something totally new that you think I will like than reading something you are familiar with that you think I do not like.

Preferences

Top-level: these are either defaults that your arguments can render meaningless or opinions that probably only matter for speaker points, if they matter at all.

Topical plans>topical advocacies>topical planless speech-acts>not-quite-topical 1ACs of any variety>>>>>affs that ignore the topic

The most entertaining negative strategies are case-specific.

I will evaluate theory and/or T before I evaluate anything else.

Education, fairness, jurisdiction, limits, ground, and their friends are internal links, not impacts. What do I do with the offending arguments? Please tell me. If you do not tell me, I will vote against the team that you win read an untopical aff or ran their neg advocacies conditionally. If a permutation or negative advocacy is shown to be theoretically illegitimate, then I won’t consider it in my decision, unless, of course, you win that I should do something else.

I love DAs.

I view counterplans as opportunity cost DAs. As a default, I will kick them for the neg if they link to the net benefit. Just a default, though.

I tend to view counterplans that compete on the certainty and/or immediacy of the plan or the process of its implementation as uncompetitive but are probably theoretically legitimate.

Critiques tend to win when the other team drops a checklist argument. Sufficiently answer arguments such as X comes first, value to life, X is the root cause of violence, then you will probably beat the critique.

If you have questions or something needs to be clarified, feel free to email me at randy.rossman@gmail.com.

Have fun, make jokes, love debate.

brubaie at gmail -- Please add to email chains, thank you

Updated March 2022 for championship season -- congratulations yall!

1. Just do what you do and do it well.I like every "style" of debate and have been lucky to debate, coach, or judge most over these past two decades. Thank you for being stewards of a beautiful game at a pivotal moment in debate history.

2. Above all. The 2NR/2AR should clearly describe what the most important issue(s) in the debate are, why they're the most important issues, and how voting your way best addresses them. Choose, compare, and dig in on a few A+ arguments over a greater volume of A- arguments.

3. Framework. I judge quite a few framework debates and like them. I don't have a strong "lean," but I do notice some slight trends;

-- For the neg, I often find that leaning on fairness/some procedural impact is best. It's the thing the neg's interp most often clearly solves relative to a counter-interp. I think the TVA + aff doesn't solve combo is an effective strategy. I often find that lots of direct pushback vs. case (even without evidence) is necessary and effective. If you don't win some significant defense to the aff it can complicate most paths to victory.

-- For the aff, it helps to clarify a role for each side and to negate/impact turn the neg's interp from there. If you don't have a description of why debating the aff is good and/or how the other team can engage then it can complicate most paths to victory. I am more moved by "here's what the neg could do" than counter-interpreting "resolved."

4. Evidence quality. It's very important, but the key to activating it in my RFD is rebuttal framing. The way evidence is utilized and framed in the final rebuttals is usually the most important variable in how I assess it. The easiest way to hypothesize which evidence I read is a simple if/then: if I hear a clip/quote/even an author name referenced directly in the last speech then I'll 100% read it. Beyond that I'll read for comprehension but that is less likely to drive the outcome of my RFD than direct framing by debaters.

5. Counterplans/theory. Not the worst judge for a funky counterplan. Most common 2AC theory objections seem like competition concerns remedied by kicking the counterplan. I'm not terrible for conditionality bad, but that's almost always because of tech concerns like a flippant block that doesn't answer the 2AC than truth concerns like any real aversion to conditionality (I generally think it's good).

6. Topicality. I haven't really judged a big T throwdown this year. If you prefer someone with no set preferences I'm great, but if you want someone to adhere to consensus I'm afraid I'm unsure what consensus is and will need more explanation than most. Despite my unfamiliarity with many interps, T has generally been an efficient/low-risk/high reward block option in past rounds I've judged.

7. Critiques. The more a K identifies specific parts of the 1AC/2AC that it disagrees with, the better. The aff should attempt to identify which parts of the aff are offense, why only the aff solves them, and why they outweigh. I generally think the aff gets to weigh the aff and most neg framework arguments just seem like impact calculus.

8. National championships!! Congrats again yall :) March 2022 will mark my first tournament judging in person since February 2020. I am thrilled to see you all again and to celebrate all you've done for debate. I know it's the national championship and it's tough to relax, but try as hard as you can to just have fun and enjoy it. Debate goes by way too fast and is very easy to take for granted. Sending all who read this the best of luck and hope you can lift each other up and give each other some really fun, challenging debates to end the season.

Name Sara Sanchez
Affiliation: NAUDL
School Strikes: Glenbrook South, Lexington
Last Edited: 1/21/2024, Edited for Emory 2024

General Overview: I default to the least interventionist way to evaluate the round possible. I’ve pretty much voted on anything that you can think of, and likely some things that you can’t. I have not been historically inclined to accept/reject any arguments on-face. That said, the following is true:

Impact calculus and comparison is your friend. I cannot stress this enough. I'm routinely surprised by the number of quality rounds I judge where each team is weighing their impacts but no one is weighing their impacts vis a vis the other team. It is not enough to explain your scenario for solving/avoiding war, explain to me why that matters in the context of the other team's genocide impact.

I would like you to be driving questions of impact calculus and framing. I prefer to be reading your evidence through the lens you have set up in round. You should be telling me what your evidence says and why it matters. This means I probably give a little more weight to spin than some judges, you should be calling out bad evidence that is being mischaracterized if you want me to read it. Obviously, I have (and will) read evidence on questions that have not adequately been fleshed out in round when it’s necessary, but now you are held accountable for my understanding of the card, which may, or may not, have been on the flow. So please, weigh those issues for me, and we’ll all be happy.

Clarity & Organization: This section used to be a note about speed. It was a gentle request that you keep in mind that reading 3 word theory arguments at the same rate as the cards you are reading was obviously silly and difficult to flow. I am now substantially more concerned with clarity in general. I can understand a pretty rapid rate of delivery. I want to hear the words you say. All of them. That includes the words in your cards and the sub-points of your theory block. I think we as a community have let clarity get away from us. I was recently pleasantly surprised by a few debaters who were both incredibly fast and crystal clear at all points in their speeches. I was also saddened that they stood out as anomalous in contrast to many of the debate rounds that I judge. In addition to the clarity with which you deliver your speeches I believe this also is a component of organization in the round. It is functionally impossible to follow your arguments and apply them correctly when all of the debaters in the room abandon the structure of the flow/line-by-line. Embedded clash is fine. Flat out ignoring the order/structure of arguments and answers is not. While my speaker points have always reflected things like clarity & organization I am going to use them more heavily in this regard in an effort to encourage good practices among the debaters in my rounds. If you are not clear, I will ask you to be clear once, if you are not clear after that, your partner should probably keep an eye on me to make sure I look like I’m following you, because if it’s not on my flow, it’s not in the round. If I cannot understand large swaths of your speeches and/or you are jumping all over the flow with no attempt to answer arguments in the order they were made, your points will be low (think less than 27.5 range). If, on the other hand, I can understand almost every word of your speech, and you consistently following the line-by-line structure of the round, your points will be high (think 29-29.5 range) to ensure you have a better chance at clearing if points become an issue. If you have questions about this, please ask before the round.

Clipping: I am disturbed that the number of clipping incidents seems to be on the rise and that there appears to be some confusion as to what constitutes clipping. Card clipping, is failing to read sections of the card without marking audibly during the speech and on the speech doc (or on paper, if you are not paperless). It can be definitively determined by recording the speech and playing it back with the speech doc. It is an ethical violation and if proven will result in zero speaker points for the debater(s) who have clipped cards and the loss. If an accusation occurs I will stop the round, ask for proof, and make a determination about the accusation at that point in the round. That decision will determine who wins the round. I will also make a point to talk to your coach after the round to explain what I believe happened and why. I reserve the right to adjust the policy according to circumstances (i.e. accidental clipping in a novice round is different than clipping in a senior varsity debate).

Please be nice to each other and have fun. I’ve yet to have someone upset me to the point where it has lost them the round, but I will not hesitate to punish people for being rude via speaker points. Debate is a wonderful activity, that I care about a lot, and we don’t all give up our weekends, nights, and a decent portion of our social lives to be verbally abused or to witness said abuse. That said, competitive spirit is fine, flat out rudeness is not. If you need clarification on where the line is, feel free to ask.

Speaker points Apparently I needed to bump these to align with point inflation, so I have. Points probably start at a 27.5-28. Anything over 29.5 is rare, it's been years since I gave a 30. If you get below a 25 it's probably because you did something offensive/unethical in the round, and I'll likely tell you about it before I turn in my ballot.

27.5-28 Average
28.1-28.7 Good, but probably will miss on points or go 3-3
28.8-29.2 Good, chance to go 4-2 and clear low
29.2-29.5 I believe you should get a top 20 speaker award at this tournament
29.5-29.8 You were one of the most exceptional speakers I've heard in years, and should be in the top 5 speakers of this tournament.

What’s above is more important than what is below, as I will default to the round that is given me, however I’ll include a couple of notes on specific positions. The below list is not exhaustive, if you have specific questions, ask.

Topicality/Theory: I’m more than open to these debates, I have no problem pulling the trigger on them. I tend to evaluate these debates in a framework of competing interpretations. You should have an interpretation in these debates, and you should be able to articulate reasons (with examples, evidence, and comparative impacts) that your interpretation is preferable to the other team's. You should be explaining why your arguments matter and what the world of your interpretation looks like (case lists, argument ground). You should not assume that the 3-word blippy jargon we all use now is an argument, because I don't tend to think it is one. If you've done the above things, and you want to go for theory or T, you're probably fine. That said...

Counterplans: I personally tend to error negative on a lot of theoretical CP objections when these aren't adequately debated in round (dispo, PICs, condo, etc.) I'm probably more sympathetic to objections to consult counterplans, or procedural counterplans like delay, sunsets, etc. I love specific counterplans and adore specific PICs, so you have a bit more of an uphill battle on the PICs bad debate. That doesn't mean I won't evaluate PICs/Dispo/Condo bad args, feel free to make/go for them, see the interpretations note above. I am more likely to vote on nuanced theory arguments than generic ones. For example, conditional, consult, counterplans bad is more persuassive than just conditionality bad.

Condo - couple of extra notes: I think that having more than one K and one CP in the round is pushing the limit on conditionality. You would still need to do work here to earn my ballot, but it's definitely viable. I also tend to think that uniform 50 state fiat counterplans that counterplan out of all solvency deficits are not good for debate. The reason for this is that I tend to like solvency advocates for counterplans and there isn't one for those types of CPs. These are both cases where, if sufficient analysis was done, I'd be okay rejecting the team. For the record, I have not voted on either of these yet, because no one has made these args in a compelling enough way, but the potential exits.

The K: I don’t have a problem with it generally. I’ll entertain various frameworks and interpretations of debate, but this isn't where I spend most of my research time. I’m also reticent to vote on “framework” in terms of "there should be no Ks in debate ever." I don't think this line of argumentation is necessary or desirable—it seems to me people should just be able to answer the arguments that are leveled against their case. I tend to believe both sides should get to weigh their impacts. I find framework debates generally lack a decent amount of clash, which is incredibly frustrating for me to adjudicate. Framework debates that center on the question of accurate methodology, bias and substantive education are by far more persuasive.

If you’re running a K in front of me on the negative, specific links and a solid articulation of what the alternative does will help you. Let me know what the world looks like post-plan and why that is different post-alt. Similarly if you're running a K aff, you should explain to me how your action truly shifts mindsets, what the role of the ballot is, etc.

The above noted, I find myself focusing more on policy literature than critical literature these days. My undergrad and graduate work is in political science and international relations, not political theory/philosophy. I tend to be much more familiar with some K authors than others. I've read a decent amount of Foucault, I've read almost nothing Lacanian. In addition to Foucault I am substantially more familiar with Ks centered around IR theory, non-psychoanalytic capitalism and questions of gender and identity. I am less to not at all familiar with psychoanalysis, Nietzsche and Heidegger. I personally lean towards believing realism inevitable type arguments and that floating PIKs are bad (reason to reject the alt). While I do everything possible to objectively evaluate the round that happened, this is probably why I’ve noticed a very slight tilt towards the policy side of things in these rounds.

Affs that don't have topical advocacies: I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I feel as though I've been asked to objectively and neutrally evaluate a set of arguments where the people proffering those arguments in no way practice the same neutrality has always created a lot of tension for how I evaluate these arguments. To that end I offer my full disclosure of my connections to, and beliefs about, this activity. If you would like to attempt to change those biases, you are welcome to try, but the bar for such debates will be high, because I am not neutral on this.

I came back to debate 15 years ago after a brief hiatus working in politics and public policy because I firmly believe there is no stronger or more effective pedagogical tool. I have routinely been impressed by the skills and information this co-curricular activity provides for the participants that practice it. I chose a career in debate at the time because I think that teaching young people how to debate a topic while switching sides and researching policy and philosophy is one of the best things our educational system has to offer. I worked hard for my debaters, in class, after school, on weekends, and during summers because I believe this game, even with its imperfections, is good. It will be difficult for you to get my ballot if your goal for the round is to convince me that 15 years of my life and countless hours of work has been a mistake. I also see problems in this activity in terms of equity and access. There are good reasons my work after directing large debate programs focused on education policy, equity, and now urban debate. If your arguments are criticisms of debate you should take all of that into consideration when trying to win my ballot.

Topic Specific Addendum: I currently work for NAUDL, I run our national tournament, write curriculum for our coaches, attend the topic meeting every August and work on our file set each year. I judge substantially fewer rounds than I used to and have fewer conversations with friends about the direction of the topic. You should assume I'm familiar with debate arguments but you should not assume I'm super up to date on the latest topic specific acronyms or fanciness. This means a little explanation on what the NSDOQPC* is will probably be necessary if you'd like me to understand your aff/da/etc.

*(The NSDOQPC, to the best of my knowledge, is not a real thing. It's merely an example of the type of insane acronyms/topic specific jargon that gets routinely bantered about on most topics)

Additionally, while I haven't had a chance to test this yet, I'm reasonably certain my tolerance for the truly inane has lowered substantially. I now spend my days working on debate in a more education focused environment that is centered on building many strong programs rather than the TOC arms race. I also spend a bunch of my spare time working in politics and on policy and advocacy campaigns that have real world implications. I'm not entirely sure what the implication of this are for you, but if it's the pre-round and you have two strategies to choose from, one of which is asinine and one of which is more substantive, I'd bet that the more substantive one is going to work out a lot better for you.

Finally, it's been a few months since I've flowed a top speed round. I'm pretty sure I'm still fine there, but if you could keep that in mind, and ease into your top speed in speeches, it would be appreciated.

If you have a question I haven't answered here, feel free to ask.

Good luck. :)

LD Specific Business

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of how I evaluate substance, impacts, etc. However, since I have judged more LD rounds recently it was time for me to clear some of this stuff up.

I spent most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I did teach two LD classes a year for seven years and I judged a large number of practice debates in class during that time. I tried to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: The way theory is debated in LD makes my head hurt. A LOT. It is rarely impacted, often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win (teeny area of the topic, frameworks and definitions that cross the border from strategic to definitionally impossible to debate, etc) it is NOT every single round. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: I am fine with speed. I am not fine with paragraph after paragraph of a prioris/theory/continental philosophy read at a top speed with zero regard for clarity whatsoever. I will say clear if you are engaging in the practice above, and I will stop flowing if you don't alter your delivery to a rate I can understand after that. I will only vote on what is on my flow. I may call for evidence after the round, however, I will not call for your theory blocks because I didn't understand them. Slow down, be clear, and enunciate on that stuff for the love of all that is holy, or you will have very little chance of winning my ballot. Also see the clarity note at the top of this post. It will apply to LD as well.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Prep Time: 2 Notes. First, I like Cross-Examination. I pay attention to it and think it is strategically valuable. You should use your CX time. If you would like to ask more questions beyond CX in prep, that's cool. But please make use of CX. Second, prep time is the time you use to prep, that includes actions like giving your opponent your case or whatnot if you haven't done this in a timely manner. There are no alternate time outs or whatever. If you are reading a case off a laptop, you need to make that case available to your opponent before you start speaking OR immediately thereafter. There will not be a non-prep-time time outs while you all figure this out. That time will come from one of your prep times. In other words, if the culprit is the aff, who has not made a computerized case available to their opponent in a timely manner, then the AFF loses prep time while they get it ready for the neg, and vice versa.


Good luck, and have fun.

Hi! I’m Zach. I debated for 5 years of NPDA/NPTE parli (4 at Cedarville and 1 at SIU) and this is my 6th year coaching/judging. I've been coaching for McKendree since 2017. Here are some of my many thoughts about debate:

- I will flow the round and make a decision based on my flow. I will skip flowing your speech if you insist but I will not evaluate arguments that I don't flow.

- You won't get a 30 unless you give a perfect speech. My average is 28.1 with a standard deviation of 0.6. 27 is the floor unless you do something offensive.

- I've gone back and forth on this a few times and I've decided the best use of this space is just to tell you what I think I'm a good/bad judge for. Standard caveats apply, you should really just do what you do best, don't read something just because I listed it here, but this is what I've learned about myself to help you pref me. I also keep a Google doc with stats for every round I judge.

- Good judge for: topicality, big-stick affs, topic-specific disads, advantage counterplans, K affs that do the work on the flow, framework teams that do the work on the flow, Nietzsche, antiblackness arguments, conditionality, impact turns, pessimism based arguments, defense, creative interpretations of the topic, fast-paced debates, teams that stake out their ground and defend it

- Medium judge for: politics, process counterplans, soft left affs, Marx, Foucault, D&G/Bataille/most other Eurotrash, Buddhism (unfortunately), counterplan theory, novelty, teams that win by tricking the other team, probably anything else I didn't think to list above or below

- Bad judge for: K aff teams that think I'll autovote for them for ideological reasons, framework teams that think I'll autovote for them for ideological reasons, Lacan/psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, any argument that posits that rocks and/or animals are people, fact or value affs

- It will take a Herculean effort to make me vote for: spec, AFC, any other theory that makes me roll my eyes (e.g. must pass texts at X time), RVIs

- Will not vote for: negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff, any theory if the other team wins a we meet, arguments about something that happened in another round/that I cannot verify

I was a varsity policy and public forum debater in high school, class of 2010, and did not participate in debate in college at Northwestern, class of 2014. Please annunciate your tags very clearly, I will not speak up if I cannot understand you (unless it's really bad). What I don't understand will not be flowed and you should be able to see if I am flowing or not. 

I believe strongly in the affirmitive burden and thus find myself somewhat neg biased. I will vote on dropped arguments if told to do so, and I prefer not to be writing my ballots in constructive speeches. I prefer clean debates with no personal or otherwise deragatory remarks. I hate when debaters attempt to empathize with me through non verbal actions in rounds and this will be reflected in speaker points. I am from Minnesota where everyone is nicer and want a nice, cordial debate.  

I am a very open judge and am open to hearing any argument, as long as it is well done and fully articulated (and I can understand it). I need strong calculus in the rebuttals, especially by the affirmitive. I want to be told how and why I should vote and do not like to do that evaluative work post round. I believe debate is mainly about persuasion and want to be persuaded in round. I also do not like the idea of skilled judges and prefer arguments that are more universally understandable, acknowledging that this is not always the case. I am also open to performance rounds.   

If both teams agree to tag team cross-x I allow it, if it is not unanimous I won't. I strongly prefer all cross-x participants to be looking at me (and not each other) during cross-x. 

I like to see 1AC extensions, I often find that evidence strong and under utilized by the affirmitive throughout the round. I usually weigh on-case less strongly as off-case in my decisions unless I am persuaded by the affirmitive otherwise.  

TL;DR I am slightly neg biased and believe strongly in the affirmitive burden. I also tend to lean off-case. I will vote on arguments if I am persuaded to no matter how ludicrous. Please be Minnesota nice.

Background: I debated at Edina High School in Minnesota and UC Berkeley. While debating, I won the Harvard Costume Contest twice, placed third once, and won the University of Minnesota Debate No Shave November contest while I was still in high school. So yes, I am qualified to judge your debate.

I'll work hard to evaluate the round based only on the arguments presented. Everything below should be considered a bias that can be overridden through good debating.

**update for Fullerton 2017: Before this tournament, I have judged zero debates on the college topic. 

Top level:
- Absolute defense is possible

- I will not default to calling cards - this is a response to a team challenging the quality of evidence or my inability to resolve an argument without looking at them

- status quo > aff > 2NR advocacy is a reason to vote aff

- I default to rejecting the argument on theory questions

- Arguments consist of a claim and a warrant (but clarity determines whether I evaluate them in the first place)

- I will not evaluate arguments that are new in the 2AR

- High school only: I really hate all the time wasting that happens in these debates - please take the time before the debate to set up the email chain, the podium, whatever. As part of this, I have a very strong preference for 8 minutes of prep rather than 10.

Misc. thoughts about different types of arguments: 

Theory/Topicality:
I'm consistently confused by what exactly teams mean by reasonability so if you're going for it please take time to explain. 

Counterplans:
CPs that do the entirety of the aff/result in the entirety of the aff through changing the process (like recommendations CPs) are likely not competitive.

Ks:
I'm not very compelled by role of the ballot claims when distinct from larger framework type arguments.

Advantages/Disadvantages:
These are poorly constructed and I am very compelled by people pointing that out.  

Affs that don't defend the resolution:
I would have a difficult time voting for an affirmative that doesn't defend the resolution if framework were competently extended by the neg.

Misc:
- The one exception to "my biases can be overridden" is being a jerk - please don't be mean!

I debated policy at Illinois State University for 4 years, and coached at ISU for 2 more.  I am now an assistant coach at Homewood Flossmoor.

I am pretty open to most arguments.  I don't have a super strong preference for policy or critical arguments.  I really prefer you do what you are best at.  Debate should be about the debaters, and I don't think you should have to signifcantly change your strategy to make me happy.  A few things to keep in mind:

-make the debate as simple as possible in your last rebutal.  Give me a clear explanation why you win the debate and your opponents lose.  If you give me a clear explanation and your opponents do not, it is very likely that I will vote for you

-I can be convinced the aff doesn't have to defend a plan.  This doesn't mean I won't vote on framework, but I probably am not the best judge for it.  I do think the aff needs to relate to the resolution in some way.

-I will vote on theory, but you need to give me time to write down your arguments.  Going through a 10 point block at full speed is probably a waste of time in front of me.

-I don't have the best flow.  If you are super fast or super unclear, I might not be the best judge for you.  I will ask for your speech docs.  I do this partly to follow along when cards are discussed in cross-x but also as a check against clipping.  I  actually don't read a ton of evidence after the debate.  Unless you specifcally flag a card in the 2nr/2ar I will focus on the arguments you make in the debate

-I like the K and vote on it regularly, but I'm frustrating when debaters don't explain/simplify the argument.  Overreliance on jargon/confusing your opponent is a bad idea in front of me. 

-running prep for jumping is dumb, but it shouldn't take 10 minutes to put a file on jum drive.  Just try and do it as quick as possible and you won't have a problem with me.

-I'm furstrated when arguments about percieved in-round racism/sexism are deployed for strategic reasons.  I'm happy to vote on gendered language, but reading a 30 second argument in the 1nr to further spreadout the 1ar is pointless and devalues the efforts of those who truly try to change hamful practices in debate.  I'm not entirely sure how this alters the way I judge debate, butI think it is worth saying

-please be respectful to your opponents.  Insulting your opponents  will really hurt your speaker points, and in particularly bad cases could result in a loss.  Debate is awesome, and behavior that discourages people from participating is unacceptable

Background

I debated for MBA in high school and debated at Northwestern for 2. I judged at the NU institute over the summer, so I have a basic understanding of the topic. I went for all types of arguments in high school and college.

Short

I think debate's primary value comes from it being a competitive activity, so I will vote on any argument if you clearly articulate why it warrants my ballot. I will do my best to limit my intervention in the round as much as possible, but I would be wrong to say I have no ideological preferences. My preferences, however, shouldn't deter you from going for what you're good at as long as the argument has been explained.

Meta-views

There can be zero-risk of arguments - This doesn't mean I ignore risk assessment completely. I imagine I will evaluate relative risk in most rounds (i.e. risk of the disadvantage v. the advantage), but you have to meet the basic threshold of an argument. For example, if there is no evidence in a politics DA that says "political capital key" and the affirmative points this out, I would be willing to assign zero risk rather than just reduce it.

I default to prioritizing the link over questions of uniqueness

Speed is good, but be clear - In tags and cards. I'll say "clear" once and stop flowing if you're still not clear.

Most theoretical objections are a reason to reject the argument - conditionality being an exception

Evidence is just another part of an argument - I won't evaluate unexplained warrants in an extended card. That being said, if you emphasize evidence as a reason why an argument is more convincing, the card has to actually be good.

Specific Arguments

Topicality - only a reason to vote neg. Impact comparison should come down to how interpretations affect a vision of debate. This usually leads to an evaluation of limits even if they're called something else. I can be convinced that the aff can win that topicality is not a reason to vote neg because the counter-interpretation provides reasonable limits on the topic

Counterplans- Issues of competition are up for debate, but I sympathize with the aff when counterplan competition is derived from further specification of the plan text. Competition is more convincing for counterplans that result in the plan when there is supporting literature. I think it's logical when evaluating policy decisions to assume a singular agent. In other words, I may be easier to convince than others that non-USFG counterplans are theoretically illegitimate and not an opportunity cost of the plan.

Kritiks - They're fine. Negs who make intelligent framework presses can influence how I evaluate aff impacts. I don't think there are many convincing arguments on the aff that kritiks should be rejected from debate. Explain critical terms if you expect them to matter in your final rebuttal. 

Not Defending the Rez - I haven't judged much of these debates, but I'll evaluate these arguments like any other.

Put me on the email chain (WayneTang@aol.com). (my debaters made me do this, I generally don't read evidence in round)

General Background:
Former HS debater in the stone ages (1980s) HS coach for over many years at Maine East (1992-2016) and now at Northside College Prep (2016 to present). I coach on the north shore of Chicago. I typically attend and judge around 15-18 tournaments a season and generally see a decent percentage of high level debates. However, I am not a professional teacher/debate coach, I am a patent attorney in my real (non-debate) life and thus do not learn anything about the topic (other than institutes are overpriced) over the summer. I like to think I make up for that by being a quick study and through coaching and judging past topics, knowing many recycled arguments.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
Intelligent story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). It is a hard road, but I think it is possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it based on defensive arguments.

TOPICALITY
I vote on T relatively frequently over the years. I believe it is the negative burden to establish the plan is not topical. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. I have found that the limits/predictability/ground debate has been more persuasive to me, although I will consider other standards debates. Obviously, it is also important how such standards operate once a team convinces me of their standard. I will also look at why T should be voting issue. I will not automatically vote negative if there is no counter-interpretation extended, although usually this is a pretty deep hole for the aff. to dig out of. For example, if the aff. has no counter-interpretation but the neg interpretation is proven to be unworkable i.e. no cases are topical then I would probably vote aff. As with most issues, in depth analysis and explanation on a few arguments will outweigh many 3 word tag lines.

COUNTERPLANS
Case specific CPs are preferable that integrate well (i.e., do not flatly contradict) with other negative positions. Clever wording of CPs to solve the Aff and use Aff solvency sources are also something I give the neg. credit for. It is an uphill battle for the Aff on theory unless the CP/strategy centered around the CP does something really abusive. The aff has the burden of telling me how a permutation proves the CP non-competitive.

KRITIKS
Not a fan, but I have voted on them numerous times (despite what many in the high school community may believe). I will never be better than mediocre at evaluating these arguments because unlike law, politics, history and trashy novels, I don’t read philosophy for entertainment nor have any interest in it. Further (sorry to my past assistants who have chosen this as their academic career), I consider most of the writers in this field to be sorely needing a dose of the real world (I was an engineer in undergrad, I guess I have been brainwashed in techno-strategic discourse/liking solutions that actually accomplish something). In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique Disad in the policy realm. As such it will probably receive very little weight if challenged by the aff. You must be able to distill long boring philosophical cards read at hyperspeed to an explanation that I can comprehend. I have no fear of saying I don’t understand what the heck you are saying and I will absolutely not vote for issues I don’t understand. (I don’t have to impress anyone with my intelligence or lack thereof and in any case am probably incapable of it) If you make me read said cards with no explanation, I will almost guarantee that I will not understand the five syllable (often foreign) philosophical words in the card and you will go down in flames. I do appreciate, if not require specific analysis on the link and impact to either the aff. plan, rhetoric, evidence or assumptions depending on what floats your boat. In other words, if you can make specific applications (in contrast to they use the state vote negative), or better yet, read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you.

PERFORMANCE BASED ARGUMENTS
Also not a fan, but I have voted on these arguments in the past. I am generally not highly preferred by teams that run such arguments, so I don't see enough of these types of debates to be an expert. However, for whatever reason, I get to judge some high level performance teams each year and have some background in such arguments from these rounds. I will try to evaluate the arguments in such rounds and will not hesitate to vote against framework if the team advocating non-traditional debate wins sufficient warrants why I should reject the policy/topic framework. However, if a team engages the non-traditional positions, the team advocating such positions need to answer any such arguments in order to win. In other words, I will evaluate these debates like I try to evaluate any other issues, I will see what arguments clash and evaluate that clash, rewarding a team that can frame issues, compare and explain impacts. I have spent 20 plus years coaching a relatively resource deprived school trying to compete against very well resourced debate schools, so I am not unsympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debates. On the other hand I have also spent 20 plus years involved in non-debate activities and am not entirely convinced that the strategies urged by non-traditional debates work. Take both points for whatever you think they are worth in such debates.

POINTS

In varsity debate, I believe you have to minimally be able to clash with the other teams arguments, if you can’t do this, you won’t get over a 27.5. Anything between 28.8 and 29.2 means you are probably among the top 5% of debaters I have seen. I will check my points periodically against tournament averages and have adjusted upward in the past to stay within community norms. I think that if you are in the middle my points are pretty consistent. Unfortunately for those who are consistently in the top 5% of many tournaments, I have judged a lot of the best high school debaters over the years and it is difficult to impress me (e.g., above a 29). Michael Klinger, Stephen Weil, Ellis Allen, Matt Fisher and Stephanie Spies didn’t get 30s from me (and they were among my favorites of all time), so don’t feel bad if you don’t either.

OTHER STUFF
I dislike evaluating theory debates but if you make me I will do it and complain a lot about it later. No real predispositions on theory other than I would prefer to avoid dealing with it.

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.

I do not count general tech screw ups as prep time and quite frankly am not really a fascist about this kind of thing as some other judges, just don’t abuse my leniency on this.

Speed is fine (this is of course a danger sign because no one would admit that they can’t handle speed). If you are going too fast or are unclear, I will let you know. Ignore such warnings at your own peril, like with Kritiks, I am singularly unafraid to admit I didn’t get an answer and therefore will not vote on it.

I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I probably won’t call for it and assume it says X. However, in the unfortunate (but fairly frequent) occurrence where both teams just read cards, I will call for cards and use my arbitrary and capricious analytical skills to piece together what I, in my paranoid delusional (and probably medicated) state, perceive is going on.

I generally will vote on anything that is set forth on the round. Don’t be deterred from going for an argument because I am laughing at it, reading the newspaper, checking espn.com on my laptop, throwing something at you etc. Debate is a game and judges must often vote for arguments they find ludicrous, however, I can and will still make fun of the argument. I will, and have, voted on many arguments I think are squarely in the realm of lunacy i.e. [INSERT LETTER] spec, rights malthus, Sun-Ra, the quotations and acronyms counterplan (OK I didn’t vote on either, even I have my limits), scaler collapse (twice), world government etc. (the likelihood of winning such arguments, however, is a separate matter). I will not hesitate to vote against teams for socially unacceptable behavior i.e. evidence fabrication, racist or sexist slurs etc., thankfully I have had to do that less than double digits time in my 35+ years of judging.

After a decade, I’ve now finally decided to update my philosophy. I’ve found that nothing I could say about each of the main argument categories would be particularly relevant because of one simple fact - my ultimate preference is to evaluate the round in whatever way you tell me to. I’m not saying you can call me a “tabula rasa” judge, if people even use that phrase anymore…I’m saying that my goal is to intervene as little as possible in the debate.

-I find myself evaluating every argument in a debate as a disad. This is obvious for actual disadvantages, counterplans, etc but for me, it's also true of theory, framework, and topicality. Did you read framework against a critical race aff? Then you likely have a predictability disad and a fairness disad against the aff’s framing of how debate should be. Did the neg read a conditional CP, K alternative, and insist the SQ is an option? You probably have ground and fairness disads to the CP/K. In those instances, you HAVE to make an impact argument that makes sense. Exclude the aff, reject the CP, reject the team…whatever. I will compare those impacts to the impacts the other side has (flexibility, education, etc.). It’d be a lot better if you did the comparison for me. If you don't, I will read into everything and make a decision for myself.

-Otherwise, debate like you want to debate. I no longer find myself voting against framework all of the time or voting for the K vs policy affs that are going for framework against the alt. I probably have voted the opposite way more often in the last year.

-Lastly, I flow but I also want to be on the email chain (cturoff@headroyce.org). I'm actually trying to model what you are supposed to be doing...flowing the speech and looking at the evidence the team is reading once I've written down what they said ALOUD. If you do this, guaranteed 28.9 or better (which is high for me). If you actually flow AND you are funny and/or efficient at line-by-line and/or making a ton of smart arguments while covering everything, guaranteed 29.5 or better (which is outrageous for me).

------------------------------Online Debate Update------------------------------

My computer setup is way better in my house than on the road. I have incredibly fast internet and multiple screens. But it's not enough to be able to flow full speed debates over Zoom without issues. Please keep that in mind. A few things will help, if you so choose - send out your full speech doc, not just your cards so I can follow along (I'm still going to flow what you say out loud but will cut you a bit of slack in the form of looking at your speech doc to fill in holes) and slow down on theory and analytics (I'm flowing on computer and not paper at home which is both faster in some respects and slower in others).

Please make sense of your arguments and ask for a ballot. I want to do the least work possible as a judge to determine an rfd.

10+ years as a judge. Debate is a game among other things. At this point, I'm pretty soulless and I don't know what more to say than that. The rounds that I enjoy the most are well organized and the debaters attempt to inform clear decisions on how the game should be won.

Fine with all kinds of debate and arguments

The Kinkaid School (2014)
University of Texas – Austin (2011)
Mercedes High School (2007)

I probably approach debate with a little more interest in how you are communicating ideas to me than simply the ideas you are communicating. I tend to place a stronger emphasis on persuasion, clarity and depth of analysis than debate “strategery,” i.e. reading as many cards as possible as quickly as possible without much analysis beyond that. This isn’t to say I’ve never voted quantity over quality, but it doesn’t happen often.

You’ll find that I will follow, flow and like your debates better if these things occur:
- You are organized and signpost well.
- You slow down on tag lines and, at the very least, pretend to care about the arguments you are reading
- You don’t rush through one-line hyper-technical arguments like theory 
- You frame the debate clearly, by telling me what arguments matter and why
- You are responsible with your arguments and kind to your opponents

I like debates the best when there is a clear explanation of what it is I’m supposed to do. Tell me what to do. Tell me how to vote. Tell me why you want me to vote that way. Absent those kinds of instructions, I’m likely to defer to however it is I defer in any given debate round, and this could frustrate you. So, tell me how you want me to view and understand things. I’m not telling you to read framework, but I am telling you to frame the debate. Do that kind of meta-analysis that explains how arguments interact and how they should lead up to a decision in your favor and you’ll make me as happy as a clam. As a result, you’ll rarely hear me complain about an overview in the 2NR/2AR. 

I despise debates without clash because I’m ultimately left debating the issues myself and that annoys me greatly. 

While I’m likely to prefer a good “K” round over a good “policy” round, I would prefer a good “policy” round over a generic/bad/confusing “K” round. At the end of the day, I want you to be smart, avoid cheap shots and make good arguments. 99% of the rounds I debated involved “K” arguments, so I tend to approach debate with that kind of background.

I imagine this philosophy may leave something to be desired, so you should feel free to ask atsydney.vanberg@gmail.com and I’ll adjust my philosophy as need be.

Jon Voss

Johns Creek

I've been around for a long time. Debate is not my full-time job anymore – I mostly sell vintage Pokemon cards – so with the unique exception of literature related to the Tiffany decision and the intricacies of running a small business on eBay/Mercari/Whatnot, my topic knowledge is limited to what I know about IPR from coursework completed earning my MBA and the years I spent in debate. I don't cut a ton of cards, I'm not really up on what teams are reading, I don't know what topicality norms were established over the summer, and I certainly don't know who is supposed to be good. I can still flow just as well as I used to, which is to say "barely."

Yes email chain: consult.australia at gmail. Please CC your coach if you are contacting me for feedback about a debate or something. Please also consider contacting someone with a better grasp on contemporary debate trends; my takes were last hot during the Obama years if they were ever hot at all.

> 95% of high school debates are not so close that my argument preferences would matter a whole lot. Your ability to identify the argument made by your opponent in the order they made the argument and respond to it in the next speech in the order the argument was presented ("tech") is the only thing that matters except at the margins and maybe not even then. The better team will win most rounds regardless of the judge, the arguments selected, etc. There are a handful of things that may matter to you though, especially if you are reading this anticipating that the debate I'm about to hear is going to be relatively evenly matched or otherwise fly off the rails.

-- I don't read along during the debate, ever. I won't even open the doc unless I think you're clipping. I want the doc so that I can begin my decision-making process immediately after the debate ends. This is important for how you debate -- using the speech doc instead of your flow as a guide is to your detriment.

-- I won't vote on arguments that call students' character into question based on behaviors outside of the specific debate I am judging. That includes introducing evidence that undermines a person's character as an argument during the debate itself. Judges who feel differently should grow tf up. Adults who coach students to leverage screenshots and personal attacks to win debates should leave the activity. Things said or done inside of a debate I'm judging are different: you can certainly make an argument that, for example, a team should lose the debate because they used gendered language. I'll stop the debate myself and let my esteemed colleagues in the tabroom handle it if it's egregious...I've had to do it twice, ever, against ~1500 rounds judged, but I'm not afraid.

-- Limited decision times and time wasting norms from the COVID years makes it more important than ever that the 2XR prioritize the easiest path to victory. I don't want to have to resolve any more issues than I absolutely have to. You want the same thing - left to my own devices, my reading comprehension and argument resolution skills will shock and dismay some of you.

-- If I can understand > 90% of the words you say (including the text of your evidence), the floor for speaker points is 29. If I cannot understand > 50% of the words you say (including the text of your evidence), the ceiling for speaker points is a 27 and you're almost certain to lose because I missed at least half of your arguments. If you debate close to conversationally and win the debate while demonstrating exemplary command of the relevant issues, I might even start throwing some 30s around. Just speak more slowly and clearly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.

-- a note on plan texts: say what you mean, mean what you say, and have an advocate that supports it. If the AFF's plan is resolutional word salad, will be unapologetically rooting for NEG exploitation in the way of cplan competition, DA links, and/or presumption-style takeouts. I guess the flip side of this is that I have never heard a persuasive explanation of a way to evaluate topicality arguments outside of the words in the plan text, so as long as the AFF goes for some sort of "we meet" argument, I'm basically unwilling to vote NEG on T assuming reasonable 2AR execution. "The plan text says most or all of the resolution (and another word or three) but their solvency evidence describes something very different," is an extremely persuasive line of argument, but I think it's a solvency argument.

-- Rehighlighting - you've gotta read it and explain what you believe to be the implication of whatever portion of their evidence you read. I'm somewhat sympathetic to allowing insertion as a check against (aggressively) declining evidence quality in debate, but debate is first and foremost a communicative activity.

-- In favor of fewer, better-developed 1NC arguments. I don't have a specific number that I think is best: I've seen 1NC's that include three totally unwinnable offcase arguments and 1NC's that include six or seven viable ones. But generally I think the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Burden of proof is a precondition of the requirement that the affirmative answer the argument, and less ev/fewer highlighted words in the name of more offcase positions seems to make it less likely that the neg will fulfill the aforementioned burden of proof.

-- Highlighting, or lack thereof, has completely jumped the shark. Read more words.

-- I am generally bad for broad-strokes “framing” arguments that ask the judge to presume that the risk of <> is especially low. Indicts of mini-max risk assessment make sense in the abstract, but it is the affirmative’s responsibility to apply these broad theories to whatever objections the negative has advanced. “The aff said each link exponentially reduces the probability of the DA, and the DA has links, so you lose” is a weak ballot and one that I am unexcited to write.

-- I am often way less interested in "impact defense" than "link defense." This is equally true of my thoughts toward negative disadvantages and affirmative advantages. For example, if the aff wins with certainty that they stop a US-China war, I'm highly unlikely to vote neg and place my faith in our ability to the big red telephone at the White House to dampen the conflict. Similarly, if the neg wins that your plan absolutely crashes the economy by disrupting the market or causing some agenda item to fail, I will mostly be unconcerned that there are some other historical explanations for great power wars than "resource scarcity." The higher up the link "chain" you can indict your opponent's argument, the better.

-- Don't clip cards. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction. If you advance any sort of ethics challenge, the debate ends and is decided on the grounds of that ethics challenge alone.

-- Yes judge kick unless one team explicitly makes an argument that convinces me to conceive differently of presumption. Speaking of, presumption is "least amount of change" no matter what. This could mean that presumption *still* lies with the neg even if the aff wins the status quo is no longer something the judge can endorse (but only if the CP is less change than the plan).

-- Fairly liberal with the appropriate scope of negative fiat as it relates to counterplans. Fairly aff-leaning regarding counterplan competition, at least in theory -- but evidence matters more than general pleas to protect affirmative competitive equity. I could be convinced otherwise, but my default has always been that the neg advocate must be as good as whatever the aff is working with. This could mean that an “advocate-less” counterplan that presses an internal link is fair game if the aff is unable to prove that they…uh…have an internal link.

-- T-USFG: Debate is no longer my full-time job, so I think I have a little less skin in the game on this issue. But I'm probably at best a risky bet for affirmatives hoping to beat a solid 2NR on T-USFG. If you do have me in this type of debate:

**Affirmative teams should probably just impact turn everything the neg says and hope the 2N hasn't had their coffee yet. I am likely to be persuaded by the stock negative responses to those impact turns, but at least then it's just an impact comparison debate. And while that road to victory is still treacherous with me, "where there is a link there is a way."

**Affirmatives would be well served to prioritize the link between defending a particular state action and broader observations about the flaws of the state.

**Procedural fairness is most important. The ballot can rectify fairness violations much more effectively than it can change anything else, and I am interested in endorsing a vision of debate that is procedurally fair. This is both the single strongest internal link to every other thing debate can do for a student and a standalone impact. I am worse for the “portable skills” impacts about information processing, decision-making, etc.

**It is helpful, but not imperative, that the negative prove that the affirmative's literature could have been introduced in support of a topical advocacy and/or when debating as the negative team.

This is moved to the bottom because it was written during the 23-24 topic, but it's still instructive about how you might approach a deep impact/impact-turn debate if I'm judging:

-- Broadly, unless you can't avoid it, don't. This isn't an argument preference or literature thing; I just very authentically (and, I think, correctly) believe I am much worse at judging these debates than those that involve more external interactions between arguments. I'll give it my best shot no matter what...but you've been warned.

-- Almost every debate I've seen so far this year has collapsed into a very-hard-to-resolve "growth good"/"degrowth good" debate. These have been late-breaking and I spent the bulk of my decision time wading through ev that didn't get me any closer to an answer I found satisfactory. In each instance, I was unhappy with amount of intervention and lack of depth involved in my decision. In that regard:

*if there's a winning final rebuttal that does not require you to wade into these waters, give that speech instead. I am willing (and maybe even eager) to grab onto something external and use that as a cudgel to decide that the growth debate was difficult to resolve and vote on . I think I would be receptive, too, to arguments about how I should react in a debate that you think might be difficult to resolve, but this is just a hunch.

*you would almost certainly be better-served debating evidence that's already been read instead of reading more cards. This is especially true if the 1ac/1nc/both included a bunch of evidence on this issue...your fourth, "yes mindset shift" card is unlikely to win you the debate (or even the specific argument in question) but debating the issue in greater detail than the other team might.

*debated equally, I'm meaningfully better for the standard defenses of growth, especially as it relates to successfully achieving the changes that would be necessary to create a sustainable model of degrowth.

Patrick Waldinger 

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School 

10+ years judging 

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I, as the judge, have the option to kick the CP for them. You may think this is a mere semantic difference. That’s fine – but I DON’T. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it post-round (3NR?).

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area.  The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree. 

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for. 

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making. 

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.

Update: 2020

Hello, I would like to preface this paradigm with "I have been out of the activity since 2018" and I'm coming back to judge. Since leaving the activity, I have started my PhD in communication studies and performance studies at LSU. For policy debaters, I have been still in the critical theory literature, but I'm still adjusting back to the activity. If there is one thing I remember from judging: Impact framing!!! Every debate I've judged since coming back ends up coming down to both sides comparing why their "worlds" or "positions" are better.

Lastly, please be nice. My biggest frustration is teams that are mean and unnecessarily hostile on issues that do no matter to the debate. I understand being loud and proud on key issues in the debate, but being indigent about micro level things = lower speaks.

This was my first year of judging college debate, and I’ve learned a lot about myself as a judge, hence this addendum to my current judging philosophy. I know that for many seniors, this is your last tournament, and it’s only right that I let you know so you can decide where you want me (if at all) in your prefs. As a judge and a competitor, I’ve always tried to embody the mantra of ‘You do you, ’ and this sentiment is still true. However, there are ‘little truths’ that I will not negotiate as a judge.

1. I will flow in a linear and straight down manner regardless of any team’s request. First, flowing is important because it forces me to pay attention and process your argument better. Second, I don’t have the ability to remember a debate, especially the particular framing of the arguments without my flow.

2. Debate is an activity with set speech times. If both teams do not agree to alternative rules of engagement, then the default must be 9-minute constructive speeches, 3-minuete cross-examination, 6-minute rebuttal speeches. During each constructive or rebuttal, only one team may speak. The other team must respect that rule. Under no circumstance is that up for debate (unless agreed upon before the 1AC begins). I’m not a good judge for debate innovators that seek to question or change the form (i.e. speech times), but I’m a good critic for teams that criticize the content and style of debate (i.e. the resolution and the norms established by the constraint of the form). If you interrupt an opponent while speaking, and they ask to you stop, but you don’t stop, then that will reflect in your speaker points.

3. Tech over truth, with obvious caveats. Personally, the flow matters to me. It’s primarily, with the exception of speech docs, what I use to evaluate the debate. Not all dropped arguments are true, but dropped arguments, impact framing, claims, and so on become the easiest way for me to make a decision without intervening. I’ve been told by some ‘very’ left and non-traditional teams that I’m often too technical for them. For example, I’m more than willing to pull the trigger on procedural fairness and truth testing, which means you don’t get the 1AC if it means I don’t intervene.

4. Embedded clash – based on my previous point, I want to clarify distinction between a dropped argument and embedded clash, but first I would like to express my views on embedded clash. I often judge many debates where the 2NR/2AR will speak, with presumed embedded clash, and just talk about what they want to talk about straight down with little reference to the previous speech. Let me clear, I’m not asking for a technical line by line, but rather I want teams to use embedded clash and cross apply it where it’s necessary. I.e. cross apply the link debate on the perm. In my philosophy proper, I explain a lot about my love framing, which you should read if I’m judging you, and I will often go rogue and not connect the dots the way you understand the debate.

5. Dropped arguments – I’m not technical to the extent where, if you drop something blippy, then you auto lose. Obviously, winning smaller arguments makes it harder to win larger claims, but the 1AR should be able to explain to me why the 2AC didn’t drop ‘x’ arg because of ‘y’ argument/card.

5. I will not vote on arguments with a metathesis that I do not understand. There’s a difference between methods, such as a praxis that allows for particular groups to communication between one and other in a manner that cannot be understood by the hegemonic majority, and poorly explained high theory or philosophy. Often, I judge debates where the 2NC clearly pivots from the 1NC and will apply a different theory to existing pieces of evidence. This kind of strategy is not a good move if you’re going for my ballet because I will often default to cards and speech docs as a means to understand the debate. In other words, I use evidence to trace the debate if I cannot trace it via of the flow.

6. When in doubt, assume I have never been in your lit or that I understand all of ‘your big words.' I’m smart enough to follow along and if you can teach me. I’ve judged many debates where students will say, “they dropped the libidinal economy,” and why didn’t I auto-win. Yes, there are meta-levels claims, if dropped, make the debate over, but you need to explain to me why that is the case. Impact out why dropped arguments and buzzwords matter. In other words, frame your arguments as “if we win “x”, then that mean “y” and that means the aff can’t win for “z”.

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

Hello, my name is Andrew Wirth. I debated for three years in high school at Forest Hills Central, and for four years at Wayne State University. I have 9+ years of debate experience at the college and high school level.

Preface (General):

When I started the activity in 2007 (wow, that seems so long ago), I debated in the traditional manner (plan text/USFG action good) and transitioned to critical debate, more specifically queer theory and disabilities studies, my senior year of college. As a coach, I found myself coaching an assemblage of different types of teams ranging from policy to performance. When describing myself, I don't consider myself a "tab judge", a critical hack (whatever that means), or a traditional policy judge. The only way I can describe myself as a judge would is by quoting famous philosopher Hannah Montana:

You get the best of both worlds

Mix it all together and you know that it's the best of both worlds

I know what you're thinking, "is this guy really quoting Hannah Montana?" If you think that's a reason to strike me, then go for it, I wouldn't blame you tbh.

As a judge, I feel like you get the best of a judge who's been trained in policy debate and analysis. I'm interested in debates that centered around methodological questions about if the state is a good actor, even redeemable, or maybe that doesn't even matter. You tell me. [If you're thinking to yourself, "it sounds like this guy judges a lot of clash of the civ debates," then you're totally right].

However, Hannah Montana didn't state that when you get the best of both worlds, you often get the worst of both worlds too. In this case, I will confess that I have major short comings in policy and critical debate. For example, I'm the worst judge for intense counterplan competition debate. Seriously, that's one thing that never really carried over from my policy debate training. [Note, I know actor CP (ie, xo, congress, courts) aren't, or maybe are competitive]. In regards to critical debate, I'm still somewhat new to all the literature. I often find myself judging debates where both teams are screaming buzzwords that I have no idea what they mean. Just to be safe, assume that I'm an idiot.

Also, I almost forgot, I'm a huge fan of ghost stories, paranormal activity, and spectators. If you have an aff that deals with the spookies, then I'm your ordinal 1.

Now back to the regularly scheduled program.

Top Level:

1) Personally, I’ve debated every style of debate; I’ve read everything from one advantage heg affs to performance. I think every different style of debate has a unique pedagogical benefit, and you shouldn’t feel obligated to adapt to what I think a good debate looks like. You do you and I'll come along for the ride.

2) Personally, I believe arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. Any argument that has these three things is fair game for my ballot, regardless if it’s carded.

3) A dropped argument is a true argument, however, if it doesn’t have a claim, warrant, or an impact, then I don’t think its true. I tend to give leeway to teams answering dropped arguments if the other team presents new warrants and impacts to those claims.

Framing questions:

So I've been judging for about 8 years and my biggest pet peeve is that I don't think that many 2NRs or 2ARs give very good impact framing. Personally, I find it difficult when the final two speeches of the debate spew out a bunch links and impacts and don't tell me how to intpret or weigh them. I think that we've all come to the conclusion that judge intervention is the worst, and we hate it when our fates are arbitrarily decided by a judge.

Framework:

My final year of college debate, I decided to read affirmatives that did not endorse USFG action. Typically, many framework teams believe this makes me incredibility bias towards the affirmative. However, I find myself voting on framework more often than not. This may sound weird, but I'm most comfortable judging a framework debate.

I find framework to be more persuasive when it’s framed as critique of method because it directly clashes with the method of the 1AC.

My only aff side bias is that I tend to have a higher threshold for topical version of the aff.

Topicality:

I will first confess that I don't like judging T debates. At the high school level, debaters are often going way to fast for me and it's difficult to keep up T debates at full spreading speeds. Another issue I find is that high schoolers do not know how to transition between arguments, and that makes T debates only more difficult for me to judge.

Spoiler: I hate judging T debates tbh.

Theory debates:

I tend to default on reject the argument not the team in most theory debates. I think it’s up to the 2NR/2AR to present a reason why I should vote down the other team. I think winning theory gives you access to strategic benefits in the debate, like leeway on perms for cheating counter plans.

Condo is pretty sweet in my opinion, well at least in moderation. I find it difficult for a team to persuade me that one CP and K ,two CPs, or two Ks is impossible for the 2AC to handle.

Consult/Delay/Process CP: This is my inner 2A coming out here, and if the counter plan results in the plan, then I’m pretty sick to my stomach. Unless the counter plans contain specific evidence about the affirmative. I don’t think they are a reason to reject the team, but justify abusive permutations. Did I mention that I'm horrible at judging counter plan competition debates?

Perm theory: Reject the arg not the team because any other standard is silly. Even if the other team drops severance is a reason to reject the team, I think that doesn’t have a real warrant….

Counter Plans:

I love a good counter plan debate, however, I'm not really the best judge for CP debates that compete on immediacy or really intricate texts that makes the CP uniquely different from the plan. Based on the nature of debate tournaments, I have very little time to make a decision and I would ideally love an hour to sit down and hash out these kinds of debates. Please, don't make me judge a counter plan competition debate.

Critiques:

Critiques are fine by me. I must confess, there might be a high chance or probability that I may have not read your literature, which means I find it very important for the negative to define particular terms. I mean, I know what epistemology, ontology, methodology, and so on are, and however, I have yet to read the entirety of feminism studies or various other disciplines.

I think the aff needs to defend the method of the 1AC, and these are often the most beautiful debates to watch and judge.

I think it’s hard to win the perm because the negative team will often always win a risk of a link, however, I think winning the impact and alternative level of the debate is the best way to go for winning my ballot. However, I've started to realize that teams aren't reading links these days, and by that I mean the neg is just reading generic links no about the aff, so maybe the perm is an option.

Have fun, don't be mean, and make me laugh.

1/20/22

I'm returning to the activity after a few years, so I'll do my best to update this throughout the rest of the season.

If it's helpful to you, I debated for Westminster in Atlanta from 2008-2012 and Northwestern University in Evanston from 2012-2015 and was a pretty straightforward policy debater.

I'm willing to vote on anything provided that it's explained/argued well. I hold no deep attachments to how I debated or the things that I went for. With that being said, I am more well versed in in DA/case or DA/CP style debates. Those are the things I went & prepared for. But again, if you explain your positions clearly and your 2AR/2NR gives me a clear RFD, I am perfectly happy voting for whatever's in front of me.

I'll still getting familiar with this year's topic. Don't let that prevent you from going for whatever you like, but don't assume I'll know different acronyms or be able to fill in sketches of things for you.

Please be clear. I'll tell you once or twice during your speech for the sake of my flow. But after that, it is what it is. And I'll only vote for what's on my flow.

The only substantive note I'll leave you with is this: write my ballot for me. I enjoy final rebuttals that zoom out/understand the bigger picture. And I always want the impacts to arguments to be spelled out. If you feel your winning some impact, tell me why it matters. If they've dropped an argument, spell out why I should care.

As competitors, your main goal is probably winning. As a judge/coach, I enjoy watching y'all grow. Please don't hesitate to talk to me after the debate, & you can always email me at worku.robel@gmail.com with any questions.

Lastly, have fun y'all!