2018 NPDA National Champion

I can judge pretty much anything. Just be clear and have fun.

For additional speaker points, consult the below recipe.

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

***Before you strike me, ask your DoF how many times I beat the teams they coached. Now, rethink your strike and pref me higher.***

Ingredients:

• 1⁄2 cup butter
• 2 tablespoons cream cheese
• 1 pint heavy cream
• 1 teaspoon garlic powder
• salt
• black pepper
• 2⁄3 cup grated parmesan cheese (preferably fresh)
• 1 lb fettuccine, prepared as directed

Directions:

1. In a medium saucepan, melt butter.
2. When butter is melted, add cream cheese.
3. When the cream cheese is softened, add heavy cream.
4. Season with garlic powder, salt, and pepper.
5. Simmer for 15-20 minutes over low heat, stirring constantly.
6. Remove from heat and stir in parmesan.
7. Serve over hot fettuccine noodles.

Hi there! I am the Assistant Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine. My partner and I were 3rd at NPDA my senior year.

NPDA:

Kriticisms: I read a lot of Kriticisms as a competitor, but just because I might understand some of your lit base, does not mean I will do the work for you when it comes to evaluating the flow. Also, I might not understand your specific K, so please explain it and what it does in the alt and solvency clearly. I am not voting on arguments I do not understand. I also really like specific links on neg K's, as I think they can function as independent offense on the aff if done correctly. In regards to non-topical affirmatives, I would like to see some justification for rejecting the topic to show that your aff actually does something or sets a norm in the debate space.

Theory: I am not so sure how I feel about frivolous theory, as I feel that it literally defeats the entire point of theory in the first place, which is to preserve fairness and education in debate. Examples of frivolous theory I would most likely not vote on are (but not limited to): must pass texts in the speech (just do it after your speech or in flex) and disclosure (I don't know how that even works in parli). Otherwise, I enjoy a good theory debate! MG theory is cool, again, don't make it frivolous.I default to competing interps over reasonability if no voters tell me otherwise. Please be specific and give me a bright line if you would like me to evaluate a theory sheet using reasonability.

Case: Case debate is always fun. If this is what you are the most comfortable defending, go for it!

Speed: I am personally okay with speed. Please be clear. Please read important tags like all advocacies, ROB's, and interps twice or slow down so I make sure I have them flowed correctly. I will audibly slow or clear you if I cannot keep up. I would encourage you to do the same if you cannot keep up with your opponents and vise versa.

Impact calculus: Without impact calc, I feel that the round is infinitely harder for me to weigh. Please do this in the rebuttals, even if you collapse to theory. I will most likely default to valuing the highest magnitude impact if not told to weigh the round otherwise.

Lastly, please do not make morally reprehensible arguments.

LD:

I have no preferences other than I really would like to not have to evaluate disclosure theory (on the aff or neg). Otherwise, most of my parli paradigm can be applied here.

IPDA only:

My ballot will mainly be decided on the way arguments interact with each other rather than how well of a speaker the competitors are. I will not flow cross-ex, so if you want me to flow an argument, please make it in your speech. I think the definitions debate is the highest layer in the round, and I will evaluate that before I look to the other arguments. I enjoy strong impact calculus. So if the round permits, please tell me why your impacts matter the most and why I should care. I think sometimes burdens in IPDA become unclear. I think the aff should defend the topic, even if it is in some fun and creative way that I was not expecting. I think the neg's burden is to disprove the aff or offer reasons as to why the aff causes something bad to happen, don't just negate the topic alone.

Lastly, I think debate is a game and we can all gain something from every round. I want to encourage you all to be kind to one another and have fun with the event. Feel free to ask me any other questions in person! Good luck and have fun! :)

TLDR: This is your round - do what you want, tell me how I should vote, and don't be mean.

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of intervention on my part. That means a couple of things:

You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I don't care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that criteria, make sure the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other. That framework is what I will follow, so please don't set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.

I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene. There are no specific arguments that I prefer over others. I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything.

I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want to be attached to the currency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to. If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out. This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run.

I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don't have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.

Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I don't have to abandon objectivity altogether.

Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement (like, go to the DA) is fine. Making an argument, and then having it repeated is not.

Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn't mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.

Speed is not a problem if it is clear, but never be used to exclude others from the round.

Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is really just you saying think you should have won on that argument.

Because I don't want to intervene, I don't appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn't vote on new arguments. I won't. If you feel particularly abused in the round and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.

I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA and NFA-LD formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.

Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu

I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you don’t have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I don’t have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.

TLDR

My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that debaters have. I do not expect debaters to adapt to me. Instead, I want you to do what you want to do. I try to be a judge that debaters can use as a sounding board for new arguments or different arguments. I feel capable judging pretty much any kind of debate and I’ll always do my best to render a fair decision that is representative of the arguments I’ve seen in the round. If I am on a panel, feel free to adapt to other judges. I understand that you need to win the majority, not just me, and I’m never going to punish you for that. Do what wins the panel and I’ll come along for the ride.

I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.

The quick hits of things I believe that you might want to know before the round:

1. Specificity wins. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.

2. I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.

3. I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.

4. I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesn’t appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.

5. I don’t exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.

6. I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.

7. I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.

8. Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.

9. Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.

10. In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.

11. All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesn’t come up, but it can. Don’t say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly.

General

This philosophy is very expansive. That is because I want you to be able to adapt to me as much as you want to adapt. To be totally honest, you can probably just debate how you want and it will be fine – I really do want you to do you in rounds. But I also want you to know who I am and how I think about debate so that you can convince me.

Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophy’s guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).

I flow on a laptop most of the time now. Flowing on paper hurts my hand in faster rounds. If I’m flowing on paper for some reason, I might ask you to slow down so that I can flow the debate more accurately. If I don’t ask you to slow down, you’re fine – don’t worry about it. I don’t number arguments as I flow, so don’t expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.

One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the “pages” of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, “MAD checks” on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.

In theory debates, I’ve noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a “no condo” interp. Basically, if the aff says “you can’t do that because it is bad” and the neg says “it is not bad and, in fact, is good” I do not think the neg should have to say “yes, I can do that” (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think “some condo” interps instead of “all condo”).

I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But don’t use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.

I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.

A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if you’re neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.

NPDA

I’m going to start with the biggest change in my NPDA philosophy. Debates need to slow down. I still think speed is good. If all the debaters are fine with speed, I still like fast debate and want to see throwdowns at top speed. However, analytics with no speech docs are brutal to flow. Too many warrants get dropped. While we have laundry lists of arguments, they are often not dealt with in depth because they’re just hard to keep track of and account for. Our best NPDA debaters could debate at about 80% of their top speeds and maintain argumentative depth through improved efficiency and increased focus on the core issues of rounds, while still making the complex and nuanced arguments we want and getting more of them on each other’s flows and into each other’s speeches. Seek out clash!

NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that author’s position or the argument you’ve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that you’re leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an “even if” argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call and I’ll do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesn’t win evidence debates – the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.

Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds we’re in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We don’t just rely on someone else saying it – we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, let’s do that!

Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if you’ve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution.

Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs don’t always do that. I think “risk of solvency” only applies if I know what I’m risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff does on my ballot to run that “risk” on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain “that’s a presumption trigger because…”.

I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I don’t see that contextualized well and is often just a “risk of solvency” type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.

*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a ‘we meet’ – so ‘aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive)’ is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesn’t work, read spec.

Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesn’t necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably don’t try to get me to judge kick, honestly.

I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between. At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that you can't be untopical, it just means you need good answers. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).

NFA-LD

I tend to think disclosure of affs (once you’ve read them) is good and almost necessary and that disclosure of negs is very kind, but not necessary. The more generic a neg position is, the more likely I am to want it disclosed, but I’ll never expect it to be disclosed. I won’t take a strong position on any of this – disclose what you want to disclose (or don’t disclose at all) and defend that practice if necessary.

Affirmatives should stake out specific ground in the 1AC and defend it throughout the round. I don’t care how you do this, whether it is a plan, an advocacy, a performance is up to you. I think that topical plan debate is often the easiest to access, but I don’t believe that makes it the only accessible form of debate or the only good form of debate. So, read the aff you want to read, but be prepared to defend it. Affirmative debaters can (and sometimes should) kick their advantage offense to go for offense on a neg position. I don’t see this enough and I really wish it was more common in plan debates, especially.

Negatives should answer the aff. How you answer the aff is your business, but I like specific links for negative arguments. On case, I love a good impact turn, but I’ll settle for any offense. In terms of DA choice, I think you benefit from reading high magnitude impacts most of the time, because the aff likely outweighs systemic DAs or has systemic impacts of its own.

For criticisms, I just want to understand what is happening. Most of the time that’s not a problem, but don’t assume I’ve read your lit or understand the jargon. I would prefer if you can articulate your criticism in accessible language in CX. I tend to prefer a K with a material impact, but I can vote for impacts that are less material if they’re explained well and interact with the aff impact in a meaningful way.

Negative procedurals should be limited to topicality if possible. T isn’t a voting issue because of “rules”. It’s a voting issue because of how it impacts debates. I default to competing interps and don’t usually hear a good justification (or even definition) for reasonability. I will still weigh based on reasonability if it is explained and won.

Spec, speed bad, and norm-setting arguments (like disclosure) generally don’t appeal to me. I understand their importance in some strategies and sometimes they are required. If someone refuses to slow down, I understand the need to say speed is bad. But I don’t care about rules, I care about how people are being treated – so make speed debates be about that. Spec and norm-setting arguments should be about the impact on research practices, education, and fairness in rounds.

2AC/1AR theory is not my favorite. I want debates to be about the aff case and when the affirmative debater decides to introduce additional issues, that often takes away from discussion of the aff itself. I know sometimes people go too far, and you have to read condo or delay bad or whatever. That’s fine. But use your best judgement to avoid reading theory in unnecessary situations and when you do have to read theory, keep the debate about the aff if possible.

I expect clear interpretations and voting issues for theory shells. I’ve noticed that this is not always the case in the NFA-LD theory debates I’ve seen, and teams would benefit from a specific statement of what should and/or should not be allowed.

Negative debaters should prioritize impact framing and delineate a path to the ballot for themselves. I have seen quite a few debates where the NR gets bogged down in the line-by-line and the aff wins by virtue of contextualizing arguments just a bit. In your NRs and 2ARs, I’d like to see more comparative analysis and focus on what my ballot should say, rather than exclusively line-by-line. You still need to answer and account for arguments in the line-by-line, but absent a clear “mission statement” for your speech paired with necessary analysis, it is hard to vote for you. Aff debaters can’t go all big picture in the 2AR. You have to deal with the line-by-line. I can’t ignore the NR and let you give a 3-minute overview. Get short and sweet with your overview. Clarify your path to ballot and then execute that strategy on the flow.

NSDA General

I’ve heard many things referred to as “cards” that are not cards. A card needs to be a direct quotation, read in part (marked by underlining and highlighting) with a citation and a tagline that explains that argument. Present it in this order: Tagline, Author/Year, Evidence. Referencing a study or article is not a “card.”

You should be reading cards in debates. And you should be prepared to share those cards with your opponents. If you’d like help learning how to cut evidence into cards and how to share those cards quickly with your opponents and judges, I’ll gladly walk you through the process – but there are many resources available to you outside of me so seek them out.

Seek out clash. Don’t say “my partner will present that later” or dodge questions. Find the debate and go to it. We’re here to answer each other’s arguments and learn from the process, so let’s do that.

Time yourselves and each other – you should keep track of your prep time and your opponent’s prep time and time every speech in the debate. This is a good habit that you need to build.

NSDA-LD

Values and value criterions are a weighing mechanism for evaluation of arguments. Winning the value debate matters because it changes how I view impacts in the round and prioritize them. I understand the idea of “upholding a value” as the end goal of an LD round, and I can buy into that as a way to win a round, too. However, if that’s what you do, I probably won’t vote for impacts outside of that framework. You should choose between (1) upholding a value as a virtue or good in itself or (2) winning impacts that you will frame using your value/criterion. Both are valid, but I am inclined toward the impact style (option 2) by default.

I tend to think of LD debates in four parts: Definitions, Value, Aff Contentions, and Neg Contentions. I think it makes sense to flow LD on three sheets: One for definitions and values, one for aff contentions, and one for neg contentions. That makes the clash in definitions and aff/neg value easier to isolate and prevents a lot of strange and usually unnecessary cross-applications. Thinking of negative values as “Counter Values” that answer the aff value makes a lot more sense to me. You don’t have to do this in your round or on your flow, but it should help you conceptualize how I think about these debates.

I have not judged many plan-focused rounds in NSDA-LD, but I’m open to that if that is your style or you want to experiment. If you do this, I’ll flow top of aff, advantages, and neg positions on separate sheets like I would in a policy debate, and you can ignore the stuff about values above.

I am open to the less traditional arguments available to you. I love to see the unique ways you can affirm or negate using different literature bases than just the core social contract and ethics grab-bag.

Public Forum

I don’t have a ton of specific notes for PF. Check out the general section for NSDA and feel free to ask questions.

I like when the aff team speaks first. It makes debates cleaner and encourages negative responsiveness to the aff. You don’t have to choose first if you’re aff and like speaking second. But keep it in mind and do what you will with that information.

I don’t flow crossfires. I pay attention, but you need to bring up relevant crossfire moments in your speech and explain why they matter for me vote for them or include them in my decisions.

I've done Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, and IPDA debate for three years competitively. I've read all manner of kritiks, theory, and case debate, so anything you read in front of me goes as far as kinds of debate are concerned. While I read a lot of kritiks around Settler Colonialism during my Sophomore year, that doesn't mean I want to hear them over and over if the arguments aren't going to be good. I'll highlight the most important no-nos.

THIS IS UPDATED FOR NPDA NATIONALS 2024. UNDERLINED PORTIONS ARE NEW/CHANGED AS OF 03/13/2024

In General-

• Pessimistic Kritiks:
  
  

• See kritik section, but with specifically pessimistic kritiks. I'm more prone towards voting for actions that build systems or have alternative systems of power rather than just tear them down. I am more prone to vote for optimistic kritiks than pessimistic ones; usually because I've rarely seen a pess kritik where tearing down systems doesn't make things worse for the groups it's trying to protect
  
  

• Speed:
  
  

• I debated fast and against fast debaters. Once you start exceeding 400+ words a minute I won't write down every single minor argument made.
  
  

• If the other team shouts "slow," "clear," or "loud" please do so. Maximize accessibility for everyone. I am receptive to theory if the other team doesn't take reasonable steps to ensure accessibility.

• Theory

• Theory is more than a bunch of taglines, the taglines need explanations to matter. Don't just state a voter or a priori, state why it matters.

• • I default to theory as a priori and weigh on the basis of competing interps unless otherwise told.

• Case Debate
  
  

• • Love it. Its my favorite kind of debate by far, it's the whole reason I started debate was to argue about politics around the world

  • Quoting Alex Li: Theory is often a copout. If you are winning case and theory, I prefer case, but do whatever is strategic.

  • From monetary policy to Congressional bureaucratic minutiae to the environment, I love all kinds of advantages and disadvantages. I'm not a person predisposed to hating the United States or capitalism

  • If you’re going to say a person or policy is bad, you can't just call it right-wing, Republican, or conservative you have to actually explain why it's wrong or the material action a group takes to harm others. Terminalize your impacts.

  • When it comes to case debates, I need warrants, and more often than not I'm constantly asking for people to specify/quantify in any way their impacts

• Kritiks:
  
  

• • Nothing makes me more excited on the kritik than to see links and impacts very contextual to the round/resolution.

  • If your alt has no impact, is not competitive, is generic, or is conditional; it makes me much less likely to vote for you on the basis of a kritik.

  • Many kritikal alternatives I hear very easily can be argued to have no solvency or have solvency which actively makes the world worse; dont be afraid to argue against kritikal solvency.

  • There are very good reasons to reasons to reject some topics, but usually I default to affirmatives upholding the resolution. You have to have good links to the topic, claiming that you need to run your affirmative kritik just because there is a structural problem with debate itself usually doesnt balance out against topicality theory in front of me.

• Conditionality and PICs:
  
  

• • I voted for conditional advocacies and for PICs, and voted against them. There are theoretical reasons for and against both.

  • If you collapse to a conditional kritik, your solvency and the necessity of your advocacy are undermined by the fact you are willing to kick it.

If you need to reach out, my email is hunterparrish460@gmail.com. The order is going to be high school CX, college parli, high school LD, and high school PF. As I judge more things, the list will get longer. I did CX for four years in high school and parli for three years in college. In CX, my highest achievement was octafinalist at UIL state and in parli, my highest achievement is second in the nation.

High School CX

1. I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make. It is your round and I am simply here to see how good you did.
2. Tech over truth.
3. I like to see teams that can collapse to their winning arguments. You should not be reading everything from the first constructive in the last constructive.
4. Please don't reread cards. I heard you the first time.
5. Framework is not negotiable. I need to know how you want me to vote. I need to know what impacts are the biggest. I need to know what to do, they did not tell me in tab room.
6. I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments with what I think about them.

A. Policy affs - 5/5 - The bread and butter of being aff. I don't have too many notes on what I want or expect. At its core, I think you should be identifying a problem and how you fix it. Some framing about why your problem is really bad never hurts. Remember, as the aff, this is your only offense, and therefore, you should be protecting it like the precious baby it is.

B. K affs - 5/5 - Sometimes the topic is problematic and you don't want to be associated with the state. That's OK, you can be untopical. My only prerequisite question is why are you untopical? If you have a good answer for that, then your k aff is welcome and will be evaluated fairly. This doesn't mean I won't vote on T, so make sure you are ready to defend that answer to that previous question.

C. Disads - 3/5 - I have nothing against the disad, but it can't win alone. You either need to prove the aff can't solve, outweigh the aff, or solve the aff through a CP. The disad alone is like a ship in the night, and guess what, it is passing other ships. With that, I don't think any negative policy strat is complete without it, it is truly a filler for the ages.

D. CP - 4/5 - I don't have anything against the CP, but I never really read it. I went straight from defending the squo in high school to being a radical k reader in college. With that, I am willing to vote on the CP and have no hesitation doing so if it is competitive, solves the aff, and avoids net benefit offense. With that, net benefits can be a form of competition. In regard to all CP theory, check out what I have to say about theory.

E. Theory - 5/5 - I love theory debates because they alleviate crucial burnout by giving debaters and judges the ability to hear something other than the topic again. With that, however, a theory argument is like any other argument in the sense that it has parts that can't be ignored or neglected. Too many debaters think it's ok to simply say "this is abusive" and think they deserve the round. I need you to create an interpretation, show a violation, give standards to defend your interpretation and give voters for me to care. Without this, you're just wasting time you could use to read more disads.

F. Topicality - 4/5 - It's just a theory. I'm voting it lower, not because I'm less likely to vote on it, or even that it is bad. I simply see too many teams decide that they don't have to do the work of voters, and that being untopical is simply enough. It is not. If the affirmative is hypothetically solving all poverty, I don't care if they cheated in a debate round. I need you to make me care, by saying why education and fairness are actually super cool.

G. Kritik - 4/5 - I like the kritik. I think more people should read the kritik. With that, you have to know how to run a kritik and what your kritik is about. If you don't know the four parts AND you don't know at least the basic level of your kritik literature, don't do it. Otherwise, I'm really cool with the kritik.

College Parli

1. I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make, but warrant analysis is where these arguments should really be weighed.

2. Tech over truth.

3. Framework and collapsing to a win condition is not an option. I need to know how to vote and I need to know what a vote for either side actually means, not options for what it means.

4. I think I'm ok with speed. 7 or 8 out of 10.

5. I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments and what I think about them.

A. Policy affs 5/5 - I think policy affs are good. I don't have a lot of notes on them. Usually, framing in the PMC, be it impact framing or round framing, helps me know what the aff is supposed to be doing for me.

B. K affs 4/5 - Slight preference for policy, but I'll vote on them no doubt. I read them more than policy affs myself. I just think that in a world with a new topic each round, you have to have a good reason to read your k aff. If you don't have strong topic links or links to standard debate, then that TVA is going to be fire against you.

C. Disads 2/5 - I don't hate disads, but they are useless on their own. Case defense, impact framing, or a counterplan is required to make them work. I need to know the aff doesn't solve, your impacts are larger, or that you can solve the aff, otherwise I just have to pick the impacts I like.

D. Counterplans 5/5 - Really cool way to create advocacies with direct competition to the policy aff. Needs a net benefit.

E. Kritik 5/5 - Negative kritik is a great way to question the aff.

F. Theory 5/5 - Meta debate is fun and I feel comfortable analyzing it. Frivolous theories aren't great, but the staples (condo, be topical, multi-actor fiat, spec, etc.) make great debate when done right. Make sure you have standards and voters, they are not the same.

G. Topicality 3/5 - I don't dislike it, but in an event where only half the community reads the topic, someone who is getting there deserves some leeway.

6. Based on what I've been told in round, I will paradigmatically vote against any white debater who reads afropessimism. - Thanks Arjun!

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

--

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

If you're reading this, that's already a good start. You should continue to do so until there are no words left. I competed in parli for ~5 years at McKendree University, and did 4 years of high school LD before that. My partner and I won the 2020 NPDA. I've coached both NPDA and IPDA at McKendree University, San Diego State University, and currently coach at Mercer University and Denison University. All of these things mostly tell you nothing about my thoughts on debate, but they should tell you that I have quite a lot of them. I'll do my best to keep it brief here.

My thoughts on debate have changed a lot since my time as a competitor and my paradigm is the best way to find that out - your coaches/fellow teammates/others who knew me as a debater are likely not going to give you an accurate run down of who I am as a judge, so it's good that you're reading this.

I really do try to be as tabula rasa as possible when I judge. I don't have a preference for any type of argument and feel that I am a good judge for almost any strategy. I'm actually a sucker for a big stick aff vs a wide LOC. T, K, DA/CP LOCs with a clean MO collapse are my favorite debates to watch. I like K debate - but I like case debate even more to be honest. I'm highly critical of most K teams because I'm not generally moved by Ks that frankenstein literature together and aren't grounded in actual scholarly work. To me, this is what makes the K effective because it acts as a bridge between debate and the larger academic scholarship that it exists within. I also don't think that the K is some special form of argument that on face goes against "technical" forms of debate. I think the K is the most technical form of debate and I evaluate it as such, so it is likely harder to win a K debate in front of me. I just have a really high standard when it comes to these arguments.

Some specifics you might want to know:

NPDA

1. I think Condo is good, so Condo Bad debates would have to be very technically deep and well-executed for me to vote most of the time. I haven't seen one of these debates go well in a while (although I would love to). I also think reading a one-off unconditional strat in the LOC is pretty baller, too.
2. You can't win on the aff without going for the aff. I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but it does implicate how I evaluate RVIs on theory or independent voters in the PMR. Most of the time, arguments that are reasons to vote aff that don't consist of actually going for the aff are probably things that shouldn't be happening in-round anyway, and you can trust me as a judge to punish teams accordingly without having to hail mary your entire round on them. This also means I vote neg on presumption - and I have been known to do this even if the negative doesn't tell me to. It's the one job the aff has and it is usually pretty clear on the flow when the aff hasn't done that. It also brings me joy to vote neg on presumption, so don't be afraid to throw the ol presumption block into your neg speeches. And no, presumption never flows aff and no one ever has or likely ever will be able to explain this argument to me in a way that makes any sense.
3. Topicality is a question of the words in the plan text, not the solvency of the aff. Idk man, I think we all have forgotten how T works. If you're gonna collapse to topicality in the MO please make sure the aff actually violates your interpretation on a textual level. I don't know what "the spirit of the interp" means and I don't think you all do, either.
4. I like theory debates. I like good theory debates more. Nothing wrong with reading it in the LOC and kicking out of it in the MO - but if the debate is gonna come down to theory just know this is a highly technical collapse to pull off as far as I'm concerned.
5. I take my role as a judge and arbiter in this activity very seriously, and the privilege that comes with that position means not putting the onus on the debaters to call out problematic behavior before I vote for it. I just think that's my responsibility and I don't really care about discourse claiming that my only job as a judge is to vote for the arguments in round. If you do or say something messed up, I feel pretty alright about using the ballot to show my distaste for that, even if you otherwise won the technical flow of the debate. If you wanna be able to get away with problematic behavior, please strike me accordingly I guess.
6. I like jokes and debates that are fun. You can still have fun while going for things like Anti-Blackness - I did. If you have a silly or whacky argument you've always wanted to read I'm the judge to do it in front of. I don't like feeling like the weight of the world rests on my decision cause everyone came in all intense. I'm literally just a little guy .-.
7. I don't give away free speaker points and if you ask for them don't go to tab about that 25 I gave you instead. I think it's disrespectful to all the national champion speakers in this activity to suggest that you deserve a 30 for no reason other than you wrote it into your shell as an argument. Speaker awards should be coveted and difficult to achieve in my opinion.
8. As far as speaker points, my average is somewhere around a 28.2 - I consider a 27.7 a "bare-minimum you did the thing" speech and a 27 is my floor. If I give you below a 27 you did something pretty bad/mean/not okay and the points I give you is indicative of my disapproval. I almost never give anything higher than a 29.7 unless it is well deserved. I don't think I have ever given a 30 - and if I have I know exactly who I gave it to (and they are a national champion speaker).
9. MG theory is fine, but the more sheets of paper you add into the debate the more grumpy I will be. I also think the only legitimate MG theory is condo bad, CP theory, and speed (sometimes. I have an incredibly high threshold for this argument and "they went faster than I wanted them to" does not meet that threshold).
10. My flow is not as tight as it used to be. This might be me being hard on myself or maybe its transitioning from paper to a laptop but please pause before sheets of paper so I don't lose you. This is a mark of a good speaker to me anyway - if you can't afford to pause for 5 seconds between positions then you need to read less/shorter arguments or you need to get faster. Either way, don't punish the rest of us.
11. I'll give a lot of feedback because I think that's my value as a judge. I don't care if the tournament is behind, no one benefits from a 10-second RFD. If it's that serious and I really don't have time to share my thoughts please come see me after because I will remember your debate and I will be happy to give feedback.
12. I like really deep and complex warrants and warrant comparison. An argument consists of both a claim and a warrant - so we should probably address those throughout the debate. A heg debate where the whole thing is "heg is good, I promise" v "heg is bad, we all know this" do not spark joy.
13. Telling me to extend a conceded argument is not enough and I will not do that work for you. To properly extend an argument it should be re-articulated in the larger context of the debate at the point of the extension. For instance, extending a climate change impact probably also means explaining why that matters in the context of the neg strat, even if there wasn't an explicit response to the impact from the neg. If you extend an argument that I still think is implicated by some other argument on another sheet of paper then that will factor into my decision.
14. I don't lean one way or another automatically when it comes to K Affs v Framework. I like K affs that do the work to explain why you get to reject the topic/defend your advocacy/etc. "The topic is vaguely bad/unethical/etc." is not enough - topics are normative statements and nothing more and it's possible to have a good defense of a bad topic. I like framework debates that engage with the K Aff in a meaningful way and are technically deep. I don't like debaters that run away from what makes them uncomfortable. I won a lot of debates going for K Affs. I won a lot of debates going for framework, too. So don't count on my ideological support to make a decision in your favor.

Not sure I have anything else. I'd add a recipe or poem or something here but I actually think my paradigm should be useful so I'll spare you. I really really like debate - when I said "burn it down" all those times I really did mean it heuristically (despite what others who have not actually read a single piece of afropessimist literature in their life might tell you). So, get out of this activity what you want - it's not my job to tell you what arguments to read. Just make it fun for me by doing whatever it is you do well.

IPDA

I didn't compete in IPDA, but I think it's a super cool format. That said, if you know I'm gonna be in the back of your room you might be advantaged by choosing one of the policy topics. That's just the debate that I will be best at evaluating. That said, I did compete in LD and I do coach IPDA so I feel comfortable evaluating other types of topics - but I will still see things similarly to parli on a technical level.

1. If you're gonna take the time to offer definitions then make them useful and strategic. Words can and do mean a lot of different things in a lot of different contexts so this portion of the debate can end up being really meaningful.
2. Case construction is really important and I think this is where most debates are lacking for me in this format. I need a highly warranted argument that builds on itself and culminates in an impact that I can vote on. A bunch of unrelated claims with shaky warrants make it harder to make a decision.
3. I don't mind speed at all in this format and will evaluate speed debates exactly as I do in NPDA. "They went faster than I wanted them to" is not enough. Maybe you went slower than they wanted you to. The debate has to be far more in depth than this to sway me in one direction or the other.
4. I mostly evaluate IPDA similarly to NPDA so it might be beneficial to read my paradigm for that as well. Ks are cool. Case debate is slightly more cool most of the time, unless you're really good at the K. I don't like excessive MG theory and if you don't collapse as the negative I will be very upset. Any other specifics you might want to ask me about before the round.

Hi all,

I am an old Rice alumnus who competed in Parli for four years and managed to make it to Octa-finals my senior year. That being said, that was 6 years ago and I am definitely out of practice. Any new trends or acronyms will go over my head unless you take time to clarify but otherwise feel free to run any argument or strategy you want. As far as my judging philosophy goes, I vote according to how you tell me. That means if you want me to decide on competing policies I will and shall judge who has established a better plan, but if you want to make the round into a competing theories round then I'll evaluate off that. In case of competing standards of how to evaluate the round during the debate then you need to establish why your method is superior than your opponents. If you fail to do that, then I'll make a judgement call but both sides should acknowledge the burden of clash and acknowledge and argue the issues raised by opponents.

Other than that, my only other concerns in round are to make sure round doesn't devolve into ad hominem attacks and to be wary of using cross examination as tool to browbeat the other seat. Use your best judgement as far as that goes and I will not decide round off any of those issues unless the teams make it about that but will be reflected in speaker points.

The allegory of the cornbread:

Debate is like a delicately constructed thanksgiving dinner. Often, if you take time to make sure you don’t serve anyone anything they’re allergic to, we can all grit it and bear it even if we really didn’t want to have marshmallows on our sweet potatoes. Mashed potatoes and gravy are just as good as cranberry relish if you make it right. Remember, If you’ve been invited to a thanksgiving dinner you should show up unconditionally unless you have a damn good excuse or your grandma got hit by a reindeer because we’re here to eat around a point of commonality unless your great uncle happens to be super racist. Then don’t go to thanksgiving. I’ll eat anything as long as you’re willing to tell me what’s in it and how to cook it. Remember, you don’t prepare stuffing by making stuffing, that’s not a recipe that’s a tautology. I eat a lot, I’m good at eating, and I’d love to help you learn how to eat and cook too.


PS: And why thanksgiving? Because you’re other options are Christmas featuring a man way too old to be doing that job asking if you’ve been naughty or nice at the hotel lobby, the Easter bunny which is just a man way older than you’d think he is in a suite offering kids his definitely-not-sketchy candy (who maybe aren’t really even old enough to be eating all that candy), or Labor Day where everyone realizes they can’t wear their hoods and be fashionable at the same time.

Tab, do whatever you do best. I do not have any categorical prohibitions on any types of arguments. While debating I mostly read the K (Cap, Psychoanalysis, Queerness, Schmitt, Heidegger, Biopolitics, etc.) with T and heg as secondary strategies.

Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Debate is a game of world comparison, for instance if the debate comes down to an aff vs a disad, I will ask myself if the world of the aff or the world of the status quo is net beneficial. This is what it means to weigh impacts. My default impact framing mechanism is Util. If you present an alternative impact framing mechanism tell me how it impacts my evaluation.

Interps must be textually competitive, there is no spirit of the T. For instance, if your interp is "the aff must spec their agent of action." I will vote on a we meet if the aff specs it at some point in the round. So, a better interp would be "the aff must spec their agent of action in the pmc."

T and theory require explicit interps,

If you are going for a non-extinction death impact under a util framing (which is my default if you dont present me with an alternative) please quantify your impacts.

I have very ambivalent feelings about MG theory. The absences of backside rebuttals makes it structurally abusive but on the other hand without it there is not way to check back for neg abuse. My attitude can be summarized thusly: "lets not!"

Speed is not an issue

I see to minimize judge intervention. Many debate that I judge often miss the forest for the trees, the entire debate becomes a show line by line tit for tat responses without either team pulling across a warrant that is predictive of the opponents arguments nor taking a step back and establishing the stakes of these line by line attacks as it relates to the substance of the debate. Please do predictive comparisons.

Theory defaults to common issues: Condo good, don't need to spec, speed good, cx is binding, presumption goes neg.

Fiat is required for any negative argument that does not defend the status quo.

I did policy debate in High School and was the 2018 4A CX state champion. I did parli at UT Tyler and was a two time NPTE finalist and a one time NPDA finalist. I currently coach parli at William Jewell College.
masonaremaley@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Jacob. I was the NPDA national champion in 2022 at Rice. By the end of my career, I mostly went straight up on the aff and went for K or theory on the neg.

---

PARLI PARADIGM

This has a lot of opinions but I think it's worth articulating that I will vote for anything you win in front of me, even if I don't super like it. We'll just both be happier if you go for something I do like!

1. AFF

A. Straight Up Aff

Collapse to as few links and impacts as possible and we will all be happy !!!!

I am most amenable to small, probable, and violence mitigating/reducing affirmatives. Also, econ. Please, econ? I think that impacts happening right now are more probable and more resolvable. I also think that status quo violence gives you very good sequencing and net benefits to the perm.

I think I'm pretty forgiving of on-case shadow extensions in the PMR but this is mostly at the warrant level. Tags should be extended in the MG.

B. Kritical Aff

I read a fair degree of these in my career and I understand both their strategic and personal value. Some of the best positions I've ever seen in parli have been K affs. That said, some of the worst and most vapid positions have also been K affs.

Personally, I think too many K Affs spend too long on why the resolution is bad and not enough explaining what they actually advocate for or what framework they operate under. Let the "res bad" args chill until the neg reads a viable TVA.

In terms of T, I think that the limited prep and non-disclosure elements of parli make T incredibly convincing in parli. I also think that many K Affs approach truisms which is problematic from a debate standpoint. On the other hand, I think T often does a poor job of exposing brightlines for things like truth testing, procedural fairness, and limits. This is where good K Affs can win. I am less amenable to general impact turns to T (unless the T is honest to god policing) but will vote on them if the Aff wins them.

I think the meat of this debate happens at the TVA, followed by the voters, and then by the standards. Usually, whoever is winning the TVA and method testing will likely win my ballot.

FWIW, in a world where every perfect argument is made by both sides, I think I go 60-40 for T.

C. MG Theory

MG theory is simultaneously highly abusive and totally necessary. I think it works best the stronger the actual abuse it's checking is. This begs the question of what I think "actual abuse" is. I think that PICs, delay CPs, and object fiat are abusive. I think that un-specced alts, actor CPs, and reading a negative framework are not abusive. I'm okay with Condo, especially if it's just one condo advocacy.

In general, I think a really clear MG shell with two or three standards is the best strategy for my ballot. The PMR should collapse to one voter and justify its existence. For the neg, I think you should go hard for one voter and weigh it in the LOR. I also am far more amenable to RVIs on MG theory than anything else since I think MG theory does require some chilling.

To this note, I am actually much more supportive of PMC theory. Read AFC or No Neg Fiat or any insane theory arg in the PMC and you get a better debate--I'll also give you more leeway on the PMR since the neg had two speeches to answer it.

D. Misc Aff

I think affirmatives can be conditional but I don't think it's fair for the PMR to kick the aff if prior aff speeches haven't established aff conditionality. Basically, the MG should say "we're condo" or don't kick the aff in front of me.

Aff tricks are funny, go for it.

2. NEG

A. Straight Up Neg

I did not go for this a ton. But I like to think I'm well informed and capable of evaluating it. I'm particularly fond of Econ DAs. I just love Econ tbh and believe it can be weighed supper convincingly. Outside of that, I think hyper-specific, small DAs are more convincing than general big stick ones. Like, yes, give me South African Agriculture DA or Space Junk DA.

Not super hot on general Tix but if you're listing specific senators and bills, I get a lot more compelled.

B. Kritik

I loved kritiks as a debater. I like them as a judge. In my time in debate, I read Edelman, Cap, Lacan, Deleuze, and Baudrillard. I consider myself familiar with most lit bases but that doesn't mean I'll backfill whatever the hell a microtexture is for you. "This makes no sense" is a voting issue.

I find "do both" perms very convincing. This is why a good kritik either needs to win that it has substantial, specific links to the affirmative (material or rhetorical, depends on what framing you use) which are DAs to the perm or that the kritik can solve the aff (not just the root cause of the aff).

However - and I think this might be controversial - I do not find sequencing perms convincing at all. I'm not even sure if they're really perms! I think they have little to no K solvency and might be abusive at a meta-debate level.

I think that framework is necessary but often a wash in rounds. Most generalized "ontology first" or "serial policy failure" warrants won't get you a frameout. However, frameworks can either spike the aff framework or the perm or weigh the impacts of the K higher.

Alts should be explained through solvency. I think that affs currently fail to contest alt solvency for the K and Ks get away with inane or nonexistent solvency. It seems that teams read DAs that are external offense but not actual solvency presses which allows the K to weigh its impacts against the DAs.

C. Topicality/Theory

I love topicality and theory on the neg. In my time, I wrote bidirectional interps, I ran spec, I ran must pass texts. I think that theory is nuanced, complicated, and really a question of what we want debate to be.

I think collapsing to a couple standards as outweighing or internal linking every other standard is the best path for the block. The same goes for collapsing to a single voter and weighing it against everything. I think MGs often read a bunch of standards but don't link them to voters so negatives can leverage that.

I paradigmatically evaluate We Meets as terminal defense. I think they functionally probably aren't but I think it's bad for debate if I don't treat them as terminal defense. That said, I don't know how I evaluate standards level offense against a We Meet. I think I err towards having to a-priori resolve the violation.

I think textuality always comes first on interpretations. If we are creating a norm, that text is our only stasis point. Poorly written interpretations should lose.

I have no idea what reasonability means. I think it's an upward battle to win anything other than counter-interpretations in front of me. When interpreations are "noncompetitive," I think the negative needs to be winning why an interp perm resolves for the standards of the counterinterpretations because I think it often doesn't. Absent this, I grant the aff implicit competition through the inclusion of the aff.

I'll vote for an RVI if it's warranted but I'm not sympathetic to narratives of "this theory is frivolous."

I have always been open to the idea of weighing a topical aff against theory or topicality but I'm not sure what this would require.

3. MISC

A. Auto-Drops

If you are non-black, you should not read afropess. And if you read this and think "aw damn, now I can't run pess," reevaluate please.

I think I am less afraid to drop people for actively being dicks to novices. I'll tank speaks first but don't test me.

B. Norms and Behaviors

Be nice. Operate in good faith and assume others are too, it makes life better.

Passing texts ASAP even when not asked is a good norm for everyone involved.

I will likely not vote on out-of-round behavior, especially if it is non-verifiable. This applies to "call out" Ks but also arguments like disclosure theory.

Cowardice is not a voting issue.

Please, I beg, read the things I write here. I didn't write it for no reason.

I'm Fiker (pronounced like sticker). She/her/hers. I debated a bit in high school which is mostly unimportant, and then did four years (2015-2019) at Texas Tech University. I (and my partner) won the NRR and I won all 3 national top speaker awards in 2019. I judged and graduate-assistant coached for TTU in my masters (graduated 2021) and was acting Director for a year. I then spent a year as the Director of Debate at Grapevine High School. I now am the Associate Director of Debate at Mercer University. So it goes.

I generally think debate is a game, but a useful and important one. It may not be "fiat" but it does influence the real world by how we exist inside of it. Let's not forget we're human beings. Read what you want, I certainly did. However, I do not intend on imposing my own ideals onto debaters, so please have whatever round you want so long as we respect one another as humans. Speed isn't usually an issue but if we're blazing, let me know so I can use paper and not my laptop. 90% of debaters lose rounds in front of me because they have not read the specifics of my paradigm and how I tend to come down on questions of evaluation, so don’t let that be you, too. I don’t understand presumption most likely. Not something you want to stake your round.

Things to keep in mind: My favorite arguments are well warranted critical arguments that I can actually learn and grow from; also, Japan re-arm. I like to do as little work as possible when it comes to making decisions on the flow so please be incredibly explicit when making claims as I will not fill in arguments not being made in the round. Impact calculus is essential. However many warrants you have, double it. Condo is good, but don't test the decently sturdy limits. I don't really get presumption and may not be in your best interest to stake the round on it. Thought experiments aren't real. Jokes are fun. 9/10 the MG theory is not worth it. I will only evaluate what you tell me to. If I have not been given a way to evaluate arguments, everything becomes flow centric. This will not work out for you if things become a long chain of arguments as I will just default to whatever the most convincing and well-fleshed out argument is otherwise with no other weighing mechanism. Saying words is NOT the same thing as making an argument. I need to know either 1) what that means for the sake of the round/impact of the round, 2) how this helps me to evaluate/interpret other arguments or, 3) needs to be explicit enough to do all that in the nature of saying the argument. Cool you said it, but what am I supposed to do with it now?

Affs: Read them and be very well warranted within them. Pull from the aff throughout the debate as I feel this is one of the least utilized forms of offense in the round. K affs are fine (I'm a big fan) just make sure the things you say make sense and do something. I think because I have read a lot of Ks in my time that people think I will vote them up regardless, which is not true. I like offense and warrants and I like not doing work so whoever allows the most of that will be in the better spot regardless. Read case against the aff. Be clear and read texts twice.

DA/CP: Also read these. They need to be complete and fleshed out with good warrants and net benefits where they need to be. Warrant explicitness are your best friend. CPs should come with written texts, imo. I would say I have a slightly higher than average threshold for CP theory but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate it if it is read and defended well (just remember MG theory isn't always worth it if you can just win the substantive).

Theory: I like this and my threshold is pretty equal to substance if run well, but I needneedneed good structure. Interpretations are key, please slow down and repeat them. Now, I don't need several sheets of theory, MG theory, overly high-level theory, and certainly not MO and later theory. Keep it at home. Have voters. Defend them. Competing interpretations is based on the way that the interpretations are being upheld through the resolution of the standards but standards alone do not win without a competitive interpretation. Theory is one shot kill to say both please don’t go hard for the substantive as a backup just go for theory or don’t and don’t go for theory if there’s no proven abuse or if you’re not explaining the abuse in clear detail. In other words, what is the violation AND why is that violation bad?

Ks: I love them, but I don't vote on nothing. Framework needs to be strong or it needs to not bog down the real parts of the argument. Links need to link..... please (generics won't save you)......Alt needs to make sense, repeat them twice for me, and if they're long, I'd like to be told in flex or given a copy. Even if I know your literature, I am not debating. Please do the work for me in round. Identity arguments are fine, do as you please just don't be offensive or overly satirical about real violence. You must still win the actual debate and make the actual arguments for me to vote. This runs both ways, so anyone reading the K should do so if you want but if this is your winning strategy then make sure I know why and am not filling anything in for you where you believe I should be able to. “Use of the state” is a link of omission at best. Not offense alone. You need external reason and if your “use of the state specifically” is just repetition of all the things the state either has done or could do is not enough of a link to prove in the context of the round. How is the METHOD uniquely causing this issue?

Any other questions about my paradigm or my opinions/feelings about debate can be directed to me by email at fikertesfaye15@gmail.com

Have your debate. Live your life. Yee, and dare I say it, haw.

Background:

· High School Debate: 4 years of Texas UIL Lincoln Douglass debate and TFA Extemporaneous Speaking

· College Debate: 4 years of NPDA debate for the Rice University Debate team. David Worth and Shannon Labove were my coaches, and Jason Barton was my debate partner for my junior and senior year. They helped me learn everything I know about debate, and I am super thankful for them <3

· She/they/ella/elle

o My number one priority as a judge is helping debaters make every debate round the safest, most constructive, accessible, and equitable space it can possibly be for them. This means you should NOT be: racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-misogynist, ableist, or generally discursively violent. If you are reading potentially triggering arguments (esp. related to sexual assault), please read a trigger warning, consider disclosing your advocacy (unless you provide an in-round defense for not doing so) and consider how your arguments will affect (read: potentially trigger) the people in the room (including judges in the back).

o General philosophy: Debate can be a revolutionary space that can provide both escape from the material restrictions of our daily lives and a place to develop scholarship.

Overview:

·  As a judge, I am learning with you. Please be patient as I develop my judging method and philosophy.

o This applies to other judges and coaches (especially aggressive cis men) who use their size, voice, and/or stature in the community to aggressively question judging decisions after round. I will not tolerate bullies, especially in a world that already hyper-targets young/POC/Latin@/womxm, so please communicate this to your coaches who like to intervene after round.

· Barring extenuating circumstances (ie rhetorical violence), I will do my best to be as non-interventionist as possible. This means you can read anything you would like in front of me, because I will exclusively make decisions off my flow.

o Only exception to voting on the flow: if both teams decide to do something else during the allotted time during the round (other than business-as-usual debate), I would be happy to facilitate that break from the norms. Just make sure my role as an adjudicator is clearly articulated and agreed to by both teams.

· I will general evaluate and vote for arguments in this order: 1) conceded arguments with in-round framing and weighing 2) contested arguments with superior warrants, in-round framing, and weighing, and lastly 3) conceded arguments with minimal weighing or clash. Basically, I care extensively about framing (critical, policy, performance, doesn’t matter), and I will start all of my decisions at that layer of the debate.

· Quality over quantity. If deciding whether to read three blippy DAs/T shells or one DA/T shell with a more coherent link story, please choose the latter.

· I do not mind debates with a lot of theory, but some of these debates end up with many unorganized pieces of paper and little to no weighing. I find that I am more prone to miss things in a debate with a lot of positions whose interactions are never explained to me. In general, the less pieces of paper you read in front of me, the happier you will be with my judging.

o If you need to clear or slow an opponent, please feel comfortable to do that in front of me. I will clear and slow them if I feel like they are not listening to you. Also, if there are accommodations I can provide regarding speed (or anything else), and if you feel comfortable self-disclosing to me, just let me know how I can facilitate that. As an able-bodied person, I am constantly learning and looking for ways to make debate a less ableist space.

· I would prefer a written text of all advocacies (critical aff advocacies, CP texts, theory interps, etc) that are read. If I read a judging decision you disagree with because I “misinterpreted” an interpretation, and you did not provide me with a text (or provided it at the end of the round) …. you were warned.

· Call important points of order in rebuttals speeches, but mostly you should feel comfortable knowing I will do my best to protect. More than four points of order is a little excessive in most rounds. Your speaks will be affected if I pick up on the fact you are just trying to intimidate or bully other debaters into losing their train of thought.

· Partner interactions: I was the younger, more novice, less technically skilled and/or slower partner in my partnerships. Unlike other judges, I do not mind if you help your partner a lot, because that is how learning happens. Please be nice to your partner, and try to minimize rude/curt statements made out of frustration (speaks will definitely be affected by this).

· I have not decided on the systematic way I will decide on speaker points. I have included some things I know will play into my decision generally below, but TBD on numerical breakdown!

PMC:

· I love a well-framed aff case (no preference on policy or critical).

· If you read a performance, please read topic-specific links or MANY justifications for rejecting the topic. I have a lower threshold for accepting theory impact turns than most, especially if Aff framing is leveraged, so I encourage you to read some of your blocks earlier rather than later.

· I default to fiat being durable.

LOC:

· Theory: I don’t mind “frivolous theory,” but my understanding of a round gets worse the more sheets of paper there are in it (combined with high speed and poor warranting of arguments). This is not to dissuade you from debating however you would like, but understand the risk you are taking when you introduce multiple blippy advocacies is me potentially missing arguments you deem key.

o I will hold you to the text and original articulation of your interpretation.

o I have a higher threshold for voting on theory shells that do not include proven and/or potential abuse.

o I find the voter level of theory fascinating, but often teams under-warrant analysis here. Please explain what you mean by “education” and “fairness” (what education? fairness for whom?).

· DAs: Please have a coherent uniqueness, link, and impact scenario. I prefer substantial and round-specific DA to generic ones. The more generic and blippy a DA is, the lower my threshold for the MG to provide well-warranted offense to DAs is.

· CPs: I prefer competition through net benefits, and think it is important to provide analysis on competition in the LOC if you want to have a chance against perms.

o I think perms are tests of competition unless told otherwise.

o I don’t have an opinion on conditionality good or bad. I do seem to have a different understanding of conditionality than other people (I have been told what I call conditionality is actually “dispositionality”). I say that to say: you should define what you mean by conditionality in your interpretation if you want to make sure I evaluate the debate in a way that is beneficial for you. In general, it is a good practice to NOT be exclusionary and assume everyone has had the same access to learn debate jargon (myself included).

o I have a high threshold for voting against a perm merely because it is intrinsic or severance absent substantial warranting/framing/weighing.

o If you read theory on the CP, make sure you define the key terms in your interpretation.

· Ks: Don’t skimp on framework. The less you explain your literature base, the higher my threshold to accept your alternative “uniquely” solving. The less round-specific links you read, the lower my threshold for accepting an MG’s no link arguments (even if poorly warranted). The less I understand the alternative from the LOC reading, the more I will allow new-ish characterizations of MG arguments in the PMR. The more generic alternative solvency you read, the lower my threshold for voting on perms (even if poorly warranted).

o If reading both “a priori” on theory and “prior questions” arguments on the K, please tell me which actually comes first, and how these two pieces of paper interact with each other.

MG/MO:

· Please collapse early and strategically.

· Theory: Again, I don’t mind “frivolous theory,” but my understanding of a round gets worse the more sheets of paper there are (combined with high speed and poor warranting of arguments). This is not to dissuade you from debating however you would like but understand the risk you are taking when you introduce multiple blippy advocacies is me missing arguments you deem important.

o Always read a “counter-interp” and a “we meet”. Please warrant these arguments. Counter-interps should have counter-standards (or offense on why you meet neg’s standards better). Optimally, there should be some weighing introduced between interps starting in the MG.

o I probably have a lower threshold to “reverse voting issues” (RVIs) than most people, especially if they are very well-warranted. If run well, I think they are just a different way of impact turning theory.

· MG specific: If a neg team runs both theory and Ks, I love hearing well-warranted and impacted out performative contradictions as indictments to the negative’s methods (either theory or the K).

Rebuttals:

· LOR: This speech is to finalize framing questions, preempt PMR arguments, and provide clear voters. Feel comfortable making general extensions and focus more on weighing.

o In the rare occasion you feel it is strategic to not give an LOR because you are collapsing to theory, please provide a brief strategic justification (so that I can evaluate speaker points).

· PMR: Favorite speech in all of Parli – have fun :) You can’t answer everything; focus on framing and providing voters.

o I have a very high threshold for voting on PMR theory. The violation and actions of the MO/LOR must be aggressively egregious for me to vote on it. I do not consider theory-related arguments aggressively egregious. If you read PMR theory, please weigh against other critical and framing arguments the negative collapsed to.

Background:

· High School Debate: 4 years of Texas UIL Lincoln Douglass debate and TFA Extemporaneous Speaking

· College Debate: 4 years of NPDA debate for the Rice University Debate team. David Worth and Shannon Labove were my coaches, and Jason Barton was my debate partner for my junior and senior year. They helped me learn everything I know about debate, and I am super thankful for them <3

· She/they/ella/elle

o My number one priority as a judge is helping debaters make every debate round the safest, most constructive, accessible, and equitable space it can possibly be for them. This means you should NOT be: racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-misogynist, ableist, or generally discursively violent. If you are reading potentially triggering arguments (esp. related to sexual assault), please read a trigger warning, consider disclosing your advocacy (unless you provide an in-round defense for not doing so) and consider how your arguments will affect (read: potentially trigger) the people in the room (including judges in the back).

o General philosophy: Debate can be a revolutionary space that can provide both escape from the material restrictions of our daily lives and a place to develop scholarship.

Overview:

·  As a judge, I am learning with you. Please be patient as I develop my judging method and philosophy.

o This applies to other judges and coaches (especially aggressive cis men) who use their size, voice, and/or stature in the community to aggressively question judging decisions after round. I will not tolerate bullies, especially in a world that already hyper-targets young/POC/Latin@/womxm, so please communicate this to your coaches who like to intervene after round.

· Barring extenuating circumstances (ie rhetorical violence), I will do my best to be as non-interventionist as possible. This means you can read anything you would like in front of me, because I will exclusively make decisions off my flow.

o Only exception to voting on the flow: if both teams decide to do something else during the allotted time during the round (other than business-as-usual debate), I would be happy to facilitate that break from the norms. Just make sure my role as an adjudicator is clearly articulated and agreed to by both teams.

· I will general evaluate and vote for arguments in this order: 1) conceded arguments with in-round framing and weighing 2) contested arguments with superior warrants, in-round framing, and weighing, and lastly 3) conceded arguments with minimal weighing or clash. Basically, I care extensively about framing (critical, policy, performance, doesn’t matter), and I will start all of my decisions at that layer of the debate.

· Quality over quantity. If deciding whether to read three blippy DAs/T shells or one DA/T shell with a more coherent link story, please choose the latter.

· I do not mind debates with a lot of theory, but some of these debates end up with many unorganized pieces of paper and little to no weighing. I find that I am more prone to miss things in a debate with a lot of positions whose interactions are never explained to me. In general, the less pieces of paper you read in front of me, the happier you will be with my judging.

o If you need to clear or slow an opponent, please feel comfortable to do that in front of me. I will clear and slow them if I feel like they are not listening to you. Also, if there are accommodations I can provide regarding speed (or anything else), and if you feel comfortable self-disclosing to me, just let me know how I can facilitate that. As an able-bodied person, I am constantly learning and looking for ways to make debate a less ableist space.

· I would prefer a written text of all advocacies (critical aff advocacies, CP texts, theory interps, etc) that are read. If I read a judging decision you disagree with because I “misinterpreted” an interpretation, and you did not provide me with a text (or provided it at the end of the round) …. you were warned.

· Call important points of order in rebuttals speeches, but mostly you should feel comfortable knowing I will do my best to protect. More than four points of order is a little excessive in most rounds. Your speaks will be affected if I pick up on the fact you are just trying to intimidate or bully other debaters into losing their train of thought.

· Partner interactions: I was the younger, more novice, less technically skilled and/or slower partner in my partnerships. Unlike other judges, I do not mind if you help your partner a lot, because that is how learning happens. Please be nice to your partner, and try to minimize rude/curt statements made out of frustration (speaks will definitely be affected by this).

· I have not decided on the systematic way I will decide on speaker points. I have included some things I know will play into my decision generally below, but TBD on numerical breakdown!

PMC:

· I love a well-framed aff case (no preference on policy or critical).

· If you read a performance, please read topic-specific links or MANY justifications for rejecting the topic. I have a lower threshold for accepting theory impact turns than most, especially if Aff framing is leveraged, so I encourage you to read some of your blocks earlier rather than later.

· I default to fiat being durable.

LOC:

· Theory: I don’t mind “frivolous theory,” but my understanding of a round gets worse the more sheets of paper there are in it (combined with high speed and poor warranting of arguments). This is not to dissuade you from debating however you would like, but understand the risk you are taking when you introduce multiple blippy advocacies is me potentially missing arguments you deem key.

o I will hold you to the text and original articulation of your interpretation.

o I have a higher threshold for voting on theory shells that do not include proven and/or potential abuse.

o I find the voter level of theory fascinating, but often teams under-warrant analysis here. Please explain what you mean by “education” and “fairness” (what education? fairness for whom?).

· DAs: Please have a coherent uniqueness, link, and impact scenario. I prefer substantial and round-specific DA to generic ones. The more generic and blippy a DA is, the lower my threshold for the MG to provide well-warranted offense to DAs is.

· CPs: I prefer competition through net benefits, and think it is important to provide analysis on competition in the LOC if you want to have a chance against perms.

o I think perms are tests of competition unless told otherwise.

o I don’t have an opinion on conditionality good or bad. I do seem to have a different understanding of conditionality than other people (I have been told what I call conditionality is actually “dispositionality”). I say that to say: you should define what you mean by conditionality in your interpretation if you want to make sure I evaluate the debate in a way that is beneficial for you. In general, it is a good practice to NOT be exclusionary and assume everyone has had the same access to learn debate jargon (myself included).

o I have a high threshold for voting against a perm merely because it is intrinsic or severance absent substantial warranting/framing/weighing.

o If you read theory on the CP, make sure you define the key terms in your interpretation.

· Ks: Don’t skimp on framework. The less you explain your literature base, the higher my threshold to accept your alternative “uniquely” solving. The less round-specific links you read, the lower my threshold for accepting an MG’s no link arguments (even if poorly warranted). The less I understand the alternative from the LOC reading, the more I will allow new-ish characterizations of MG arguments in the PMR. The more generic alternative solvency you read, the lower my threshold for voting on perms (even if poorly warranted).

o If reading both “a priori” on theory and “prior questions” arguments on the K, please tell me which actually comes first, and how these two pieces of paper interact with each other.

MG/MO:

· Please collapse early and strategically.

· Theory: Again, I don’t mind “frivolous theory,” but my understanding of a round gets worse the more sheets of paper there are (combined with high speed and poor warranting of arguments). This is not to dissuade you from debating however you would like but understand the risk you are taking when you introduce multiple blippy advocacies is me missing arguments you deem important.

o Always read a “counter-interp” and a “we meet”. Please warrant these arguments. Counter-interps should have counter-standards (or offense on why you meet neg’s standards better). Optimally, there should be some weighing introduced between interps starting in the MG.

o I probably have a lower threshold to “reverse voting issues” (RVIs) than most people, especially if they are very well-warranted. If run well, I think they are just a different way of impact turning theory.

· MG specific: If a neg team runs both theory and Ks, I love hearing well-warranted and impacted out performative contradictions as indictments to the negative’s methods (either theory or the K).

Rebuttals:

· LOR: This speech is to finalize framing questions, preempt PMR arguments, and provide clear voters. Feel comfortable making general extensions and focus more on weighing.

o In the rare occasion you feel it is strategic to not give an LOR because you are collapsing to theory, please provide a brief strategic justification (so that I can evaluate speaker points).

· PMR: Favorite speech in all of Parli – have fun :) You can’t answer everything; focus on framing and providing voters.

o I have a very high threshold for voting on PMR theory. The violation and actions of the MO/LOR must be aggressively egregious for me to vote on it. I do not consider theory-related arguments aggressively egregious. If you read PMR theory, please weigh against other critical and framing arguments the negative collapsed to.

I am of the position that it is your debate, and you should do with it what you want. I do not automatically reject arguments based on the type of argument. There are a couple of things that are important to me as a critic that you should know...

DON'T use speed to exclude your opponent. No one (including me) should have to ask you to slow or clear multiple times. In general, I'm not a fan of speeches that spread the entire time. Just talk to me and make arguments... it's better for both of us.

DON'T be rude.

DON'T assume that I will fill in holes for you. It is your job to give me complete arguments with reasons why they win the round.

DO provide impacts and weigh them.

DO be clear on how you would like me to evaluate the round.

DO give me proven abuse on T. I like T, but not if it is incomplete.

DO affirm the topic in ***some*** way. If you are rejecting, I need you to be EXTREMELY clear on why that is fair to your opponent (it probably isn't, especially in LD). There are many ways to affirm, and I am interested in all ways.

Take what you will from the comments below, and don’t hesitate to ask for clarification.

Pronouns:

He/Him/They/Them

Positions:

Procedurals/Theory: I am a big fan T/Specs/Theory type arguments, but rarely see teams collapsing to these positions (which I think is a necessary strategic decision to win these types of arguments in front of me). As for types of specs I’m less/more sympathetic to: I don’t find over-spec or under-spec particularly compelling arguments (point of clarification: by under/over spec I mean blanket spec positions not the individual specs that would fall under these categories such as aspec fspec espec etc.) although I am willing to listen/vote on over/under spec. I do really like topicality (as long as you aren’t running 5 of them and simply just cross-applying the standards and voters without new articulation of how those standards/voters function in conjunction with your different interpretations). I also think that conditionality is a great/true argument, but only in particular scenarios. I am far more sympathetic to conditionality arguments if there are multiple advocacies that cause the affirmative to double-turn themselves (meaning don’t run condo just to run condo, run it because you think there is actually a strategic advantage being leveraged by the other team). I prefer articulated abuse, although I will vote on potential abuse, and I default competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Kritik: I am fine with critical debate on either side of the resolution, although I prefer the K Aff to be rooted in the substance of the resolutions, that being said, I will listen to any justification as to why you should have access to non-topical versions of the affirmative. The framework should be informed by your methodology (meaning your framework should not just function as a way of excluding other positions, but actually inform how to evaluate your advocacy), your links contextualized to your indictments (some generics are fine, but it should include a breakdown of how the other teams position/mindset perpetuates the system), and an alternative that can actually resolve the harms of the K (meaning there needs to be very clear solvency that articulates how the alternative solves/functions in the real world). I don’t think rejection alts get us anywhere in the debate space, unless it is rejection on word choice/language (in which case I think those grievances are better articulated in the form of a procedural) or you clearly explain what that rejection looks like (in which case you should probably just use that explanation as your alternative in the first place). Permutation of the K alternative is perfectly fine, but I think on critical debates I need substantially more work on how the perm functions (especially in a world where the links haven’t been resolved). I am rather familiar with most of the K literature bases, but still think it is important for debaters to do the work of explaining the method/functionality of the K, and not rely on my previous knowledge of the literature base.

Disadvantages: I like a good DA/CP strategy, with a couple of caveats. The first is that the disadvantage needs to have specific links to the affirmative (generics just don’t do it for me), I am far more likely to vote on a unique disadvantage with smaller impacts, than a generic disadvantage with high magnitude impacts (although I will obviously weigh high magnitude impacts if you are winning probability). I have a rather high threshold for politics disadvantages, but if you can tell me which senator/representative will vote for which policy and why, I am far more likely to buy into the scenario (specifics are your friend on ptix).

Counter-Plans: I am fine with almost all types of counterplans (+1, pics, timeframe, etc.) but think they often need to be accompanied by theory arguments justifying their strategic legitimacy. I also think that mutual exclusivity competitiveness should always be preferred over simply having a net benefit/disadvantage that makes the position functionally competitive. I am fine with all types of permutations with justification (again often needs to be accompanied by theory). My threshold on perms are sometimes low, but I think that is because they are often under-covered, so knowing that you should be spending a great deal of time answering/going for the permutation if you want to win/not lose there.

General Notes:

1. Status of arguments: It is your responsibility to ask, and for the other team to answer (don’t give them the run-around, and if you aren’t sure just say dispo).

2. ALL “Text/ROB/Thesis” should be read twice, and made available for the other team.

3. The order you give at the beginning of your speech is actually important. I flow exclusively on paper, so switching between sheets/having them in the correct order helps me follow along. I completely understand that you have to switch up the flow mid speech sometimes, but you need to clearly signpost where you are (especially if you deviate from the order given).

- Additional Note: It causes me a great deal of physical pain to flow numerous consecutive high speed debates. Swings and tournaments that occur directly after one another (like NPDA/NPTE) are difficult for me. While I will still flow everything you say (regardless of speed) I have a very strong preference for debates to happen at a more moderate rate of speech. Which leads nicely into:

4. Speed: You can go as fast as you want in front of me, that being said, I’m not sure if going fast for the sake of going fast is always the best strategic choice, as your word count probably isn’t much higher even if you think you sound faster. I will "clear" and "slow" debaters, within reason, but competitors are ultimately responsible for making necessary adaptations.

5. I will listen to literally any argument (heady, aliens, personal narrative of a farmer from Wisconsin), doesn’t really matter to me, but please don’t put me in a situation in which I have to evaluate/endorse advocacies or authors that promote/have caused the mass death of people. Also, as far as identity politics go (this maybe should have gone in the K section) I think that debate is a great platform to talk about your own person experiences, but I think it’s important to note that oppression is often intersectional and is articulated/experienced in different ways. I think forced disclosure of experience/identity in order to interact with your position can be potentially harmful to others, and “trigger warnings” only work if you give people time to exit the room/are willing to punt the position.

6. DO NOT BE MEAN, I will tank speaks. Totally fine to being witty, and slightly confrontational, but avoid personal attacks, I would much rather listen to you actually debate. Overall I believe debate is a creative space, so feel free to run literally anything you want.

Experience:

4 years policy debate in Kansas, 4 years parliamentary debate at Louisiana Tech University, and Arkansas State University. 2 years Assistant Debate Coach at Arkansas State University. 4 years Assistant Director of Debate at Whitman College. Currently the Director of Debate & Forensics at Whitman College.

I competed in parliamentary debate with Rice from 2018-2022 and did policy in high school. I am comfortable with any speed, but I have been off the circuit for two years and may not be familiar with some of taglines for the new arguments floating around. If I can't hear or understand you, I'll tell you to slow or clear. If I can't understand your argument, I am not writing it on my flow or evaluating it in round.

I am good with kritiks, non-topical affirmatives, and procedurals, and I've heard/run a variety of critical arguments. In some form, a kritik needs solvency, even if it's not labeled as such. I will not vote for something without solvency. Do not run anything abusive or offensive; I will vote you down. I have a high threshold for voting on frivolous (!!) theory. Typically, I prefer to have proven abuse when voting on theory, but I can be convinced otherwise. I will easily vote for topicality, especially if the affirmative is blatantly non-topical. Reverse Voting Issues, especially on frivolous theory shells, are also very convincing to me. Non-topical affs are fine, but give me a salient reason to reject the topic.

If you are a jerk to me or your opponents, I will dock your speaker points. If you are a massive jerk, I will vote you down, even if you win on the flow. Please be respectful to each other.

David Worth – Rice

D.O.F., Rice University

Parli Judging Philosophy

Note: If you read nothing else in this, read the last paragraph.

I’ll judge based on given criteria/framework. I can think in more than one way. This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I’m concerned. My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round but I will intervene if the round demands it. There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if someone is lying). In these cases, I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.

I prefer debates that are related to the topic.

I will not vote for an argument that I don’t understand. If I can’t figure it out from what you’ve said in the round, I can’t vote on it.

I will admit that I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles. I am tired of moving symbols around on paper. Alts and plan texts that are empty phrases don’t do it for me anymore. The novelty of postmodern critique that verges on--or actually takes the leap into--nihilism has worn off. I don’t think there’s much value anymore in affirming what we all know: That things can be deconstructed and that they contain contradictory concepts. It is time for us to move beyond this recognition into something else. Debate can be a game with meaning.

Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don’t at least have some warrant behind them. You can’t say “algae blooms,” and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don’t get to just say that some counter-intuitive thing will happen. You need a reason that that lovely regionally based sustainable market will just magically appear after the conveniently bloodless collapse of capitalism. I’m not saying I won’t vote for that. I’m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an "Independent Voting Issue" that isn't an implication of a longer argument, procedural, or somehow otherwise developed. Just throwing something in as a “voter” will not get the ballot. I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won't vote on it.

Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it simply means that just saying, “oh that’s just defense,” won’t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There’s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.

You need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well. It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas. In a bind, I will vote for what’s easier to believe and/or more intuitive.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. There are days when I need you to slow down a tad. I have battled carpal/cubital tunnel off and on for a few years and sometimes my hand just does not work quite as well. I’ll tell you if you need to clear up and/or slow down, but not more than a couple of times. After that, it’s on you.

Please slow down for the alt texts, plans, advocacies, etc., and give me a copy too. If I don’t have it, I can’t vote for it.

Strong Viewpoints: I haven’t yet found "the" issue that I can’t try to see all sides of.

Points of Order: Call them—but judiciously. I’ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new. Also, if you’re clearly winning bigtime don’t call a ridiculous number of them. Just let the other team get out of the round with some dignity. If you don’t, your speaker points will suffer. It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.

If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team then be nice. I will lower your speaker points if you aren’t respectful or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it. If it’s egregious enough, you might even lose the debate.

You don’t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you’re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.

Theory: I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the day. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. I’m not going to tell you what to do. Debate is always in flux. Actually, I’ve learned or at least been encouraged to think differently about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn’t have learned, so it’s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I’d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations, but, again, I can think in more than one way.

My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.

Finally, I ask that you consider that everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some respect for that. I am serious about this and it has come to occupy a significant portion of my thinking about debate these days. In fact, I think it’s time for the in-round bullying to stop. I see too many rounds where one team’s strategy is simply to intimidate the other team. I find it strange that an activity that talks so much about the violence of language often does so in such a needlessly aggressive and violent manner. In some rounds every interaction is barbed. Flex/CX is often just needlessly aggressive and sometimes even useless (when, for example, someone simply refuses to answer questions or just keeps purposely avoiding the question when it’s obvious that they understand the question, opting instead for aggression sometimes verging on ad hominem). I see too many other rounds where everyone is just awful to each other, including the judges afterward. You can be intense and competitive without this. We are now a smaller circuit. It’s strange that we would choose to spend so much time together yet be so horrible to each other.