Evan Baines (he/they) 1/2022

please include me in email chains bainesevan1227@gmail.com

about me:

-judged high school policy debate at central high school from 2017-2021 on the topics of education, immigration reform, arms sales, and criminal justice reform.

-ran soft-left affs and k affs throughout most of hs. i am familiar with most k lit, but that doesn't mean you get to be lazy. please thoroughly explain your arguments on each flow.

general:

i am not picky about specific arguments. run what you're comfortable with and what you can win a debate with.

truth > tech. you will not win arguments such as "climate change isn't real" no matter how badly the other team drops that ball. i cannot in good faith endorse a such arguments, and i believe they are harmful to debate. that being said, you can still win that climate change doesn't cause extinction, etc.

i tend to default to the framing that debate is primarily an educational activity if no other framing arguments are read.

i like to see lots of clash on the flow! your evidence and warrants are vert important particularly on the solvency flow and disads

t:

i am not a huge fan of t arguments, but will certainly still vote for them. because i view debate as primarily an educational activity, the aff should tell me why even if their plan is untopical they should still be able to read it because of how it accesses education. the neg should be able to tell me why everything else in the round is moot because of the untopicality. if you would rather defer to a different framing on t by all means go ahead! i am not a fan of arguments like "the aff is untopical which is unfair because we weren't able to prep" particularly when y'all go on to read blocked out answers to their 2AC on the case.

k:

alt explanation and solvency is key to winning the k flow for me. if you don't have adequate solvency or explanation, i am left to a non-unique da to the case which makes it hard for me to vote on the k flow. i would still vote on presumption if the k impact and links are adequately explained.

in-round decorum:

please refrain from personal attacks on the other team, talking over each other, or other rude behavior. please remember that the people you are debating against are human beings and treat them with kindness and respect :)

Hi, I'm Pepper Berry, and my pronouns are they/them.

My email if you need it: pberry@seattleu.edu

I've been a debater for five years and I am currently a debater at Seattle University doing British parliamentary.

I have done four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate, about a year of Policy debate, and a tiny bit of public forum. as well as Informative, Impromptu, and Poetry slam.

I am okay with speed within speeches, but you need to be clear. If you are not clear, I cannot flow it. I would much prefer the quality of arguments over quantity, especially for complex arguments.

I will vote on pretty much anything if you are persuasive enough. I am okay with K's, counter plans, framework, theory, etc. as long as they are explained well.

Add me to the chain: zbpolicydebate@gmail.com and smdebatedocs@gmail.com

Top Level: I debated for St. Mark's from 2019-2022. I am a current student at Georgetown.

Tech/Truth, but that doesn't mean abandon all truth--I'll listen to each "if they drop x then we win the debate" argument and be as fair as possible, but I will try my very best to give the benefit of the doubt to well thought out arguments rather than silly shots for the ballot.

I really value impact analysis, you should draw the impacts of the debate out and tell me what I should value more.

I'll love it if you do good case debating, and reward you with high speaks. Prioritize case in the block, it goes a long way.

K's: I am probably not the best judge to pref if you are a high-theory K team. With regards to security, set col, and cap k, I know my way around, so you should be fine. If you run a K-aff, I do buy into T-USFG a little more, but I can be swayed, as with anything ig.

DA: Impact framing is important. I do not want to judge intervene on whether great power war is more important than nuclear terrorism.
I will lean towards 1% chance of the DA. You have to have a very solid, airtight plan if you want to win 0% risk (i.e. DA already happened/impact is impossible)

CP: Counterplans rarely solve 100% of case, but too often AFFs let it happen. Compare solvency deficit impacts with the DA, do not leave that work up to me please. Please EXPLAIN sufficiency framing, don't just say it otherwise I will assume any argument in the 2AR for why CP doesn't solve disproves sufficiency framing.

T: Resolutional debating is hard and confusing, but I will reward teams that do it really well with good speaks. Love watching good T debates, but make sure to have solid understanding of your interps and how they relate to the topic vision.

Closing thoughts: I am pretty open to most arguments. Debate better than the other team and you will win.

he/him Lewis and Clark '21 Western Washington 25' (taking time off right now but I've debated CX for 6yrs in high school and college)

General

Please title email chains with this information: "[Tournament][Round #][Your Team Code and School] (aff) vs [Opponent Team Code and School]"

jonathan.dodge.crowley@gmail.com

I have some old fashioned tendencies: I flow on paper, I think lots of theory violations are good reasons to vote, judge kick needs to be in the neg block, and you could probably get a presumption ballot out of me if you have evidence and explain why that kind of ballot is good.

I have the most experience with guerilla debate tactics like process counterplans, complex topicality debates, and kritiks from high-theory and political science perspectives. I am disproportionately good (on both sides) for debates about capitalism, morals, the value of life, and information-based persuasion/politics.

Framework is a good choice in more types of debates than you may think (like against the politics DA) but you need reasons to prefer your concept of fairness and education. Ultimately it's a question of what debate can do and why that's valuable.

I am serious about equity and inclusion in education. I want debaters to take the time to consider the way they promote positive learning experiences for themselves and their competitors. I'm not a good judge for strategic vitriol. I will not adjudicate out-of-round behavior but I will absolutely be your advocate with tabroom and other institutions if anyone is putting you in dangerous/harmful situations.

That's what I have to say. I like debate and care deeply about debaters. I don't want to over-promise or get too specific because the debate belongs to you and I'm reserving the right to change my mind and grow. That being said, I am always flattered to answer your questions :^)!

Yay debate!

LD

I've competed in most events but never LD for some reason. I respect the format a lot and I'm excited to hear your arguments. My CX experience means I'll likely be more comfortable with progressive debate. That said, I think values debates are honorable and I'm not necessarily a utilitarian or even a consequentialist. I would recommend taking extra time to explain how the value debate filters how I evaluate (especially the other debater's) arguments.

This format pressures 1ARs like no other and I willingly vote for aff theory in other formats already. Still, I find it hard to respect "reverse voting issues." Try not to go for these arguments. If you must, lay it on thick and prove that it made this 1AR impossible. Even when you're desperate, Conditionality vs T is a much cooler debate.

WI have debated 4 years of HS and on my third in college at Gonzaga. I love the 'sport,' and what it does to the community. I give praise to everyone who debates, because it takes a lot of strength to get up there and speak your opinions. I’m a 2n/1a

Updated -- Summer ‘23

Chain? Yes. dawsonnick02 AT gmail DOT com

Please refrain from suicide reps, thanks. If you have questions, ask.

Top level notes is that I was generally a k debater in HS, that being said I am more versed in some areas than others. In college I’ve been a flex team reading both K and policy affs. I think that both some of my favorite arguments and debates are one off k's or one off strats that give args the most amount of clash, shifting the debate in the most fair way(being a small school sucks sometimes). That being said, I try to be a mainly tabu la rasa judge.

The 10 analytics you spread in 2 seconds on theory or otherwise shotgun out is super hard to flow, disperse analytics or actually communicate your argument and we'll be all good. In every other instance speed is not that much of a conern. Please signpost and either say 'and' or 'next' between cards. Strictly flowing off the doc leads to worse debates.

What you probably shouldn't run:

Double win/loss / other rule breaking

Defending suicide alternatives/advocacies(ligotti, schope, others like these are ok) at least give trigger warnings

If you have concerns just don't read the arg.

Theory

T and condo are always voters, and almost never reverse voters. If you drop it you'll lose. Almost every other interpretation is solved by rejecting the argument.

K's

I have a pretty good knowledge on most k lit. That being said, if you have specific questions, you can ask me before round. I'm down to hear whatever you got. Creative K's are epic.

For the Aff specifically. I will judge the aff how to tell me to judge it, and will vote on anything(unless earlier referenced).

We went for a sick werewolves k aff at the NDT in 2023.

Etc.

Rehighlighting need to be read unless it's a single word or similar.

Anything other than policy debate

I'm a blank slate judge that tries to leave all prior knowledge of the topic outside of the room.

I prefer it if debaters spentway more time on comparing the (framework/resolutional analysis/etc) to the other teams. This is, in my opinion the most important part of debate that can shield in or out different teams' offense.

Impact calculus in the later speeches isnecessary to define the most important parts of the round, and if you win it, it should mostly define what my ballot should be solving for.

any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com

he/him

About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.

Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

1. I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.

2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.

3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.

CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.

DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.

T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.

K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.

FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.

Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.

Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.

Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.

Debate Biography

I debated at Lakeville HS (MN) in LD shortly after the turn of the millennium. In effect, I only debated on the national LD circuit for one year. I was a freelance LD coach and judge for numerous schools in the mid-to-late aughts and early 2010s as an undergraduate and graduate student. I was instructor at the National Symposium for Debate for a number of years. In various ways, I was exposed to Policy Debate and am conversant in its requirements, conventions, etc.

Notes on Approach to Judging

I'm generally open to the debate that the debaters want to have. I view debate as a fairly open-ended activity where the participants have an unusual degree of power over the rules and conventions. That said, it may be helpful to know some ground rules I'll default to and dispositions I'll divulge.

1) My understanding of Policy Debate theory and practice probably isn't terribly cutting edge. You'll have to carefully fashion a flotation device for me if you want to wade too deep into the troubled sea of debate theory. While I have no problem voting on such theory in principle, please know that I prefer debates involving a significant element of something besides a metadebate. If I vote on theory when the violation wasn't really, well, harmful, the speaker points may reflect as much.

2) Given my general approach, planless ACs are fine, provided the aff explains how their position, if defended, affirms the resolution.

3) I have an appointment in a Philosophy department, which may indicate something about my default thinking.

4) I'll only vote on something if a debater gives me something I can recognize as a reason to do so. If A makes some argument that wasn't comprehensible to me the first time A made it (or, really, isn't comprehensible after the relevant doc is shared), B drops it, and A extends it as a voter, sorry---can't take it into account.

5) I presume Aff because affirming is harder. But I'm willing to hear debates about which way presumption ought to go (however...aesthetically unappealing those almost always are).

Happy to answer questions, however much of my own ignorance they may reveal.

Benjamin Hamburger 10/2022

Sure, you can add me to an email chain. benjamin dot hamburger at gmail. So you know, I probably will NOT follow along on your speech doc, though.
For Wisconsin legal purposes, you should consider me tabula rasa. don't make me talk about it too much though because there's no such thing as that.

Information about me:
*I have judged and coached in what would be considered "national-circuit" style Midwestern high school debate since about 1998 as a card-cutting coach, as the primary policy coach, as a head coach, and now as a head coach at Central High School in La Crosse, Wisconsin. I am also a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse in the History Department. I am now getting old in debate terms--42 at the time of writing--which means I have old ideas and am grumpy about certain things.

*A Debate History:
1993-1998 Policy debater at Hastings High School, Hastings, NE
1998-1999 Judge/minor card cutter, Hastings Senior High School
1999-2005 Assistant Coach for Policy Debate at Fremont High School, Fremont, NE
2005-2007 Director of Forensics, Iowa City High School, Iowa City, IA
2007-2016 Assistant Varsity Coach, Cedar Rapids Washington High School, Cedar Rapids, IA
2016-Present Director of Debate, La Crosse Central High School, La Crosse, WI

*Academic Info that Might Be Relevant:
B.A. in Political Science (emphases in international relations and political theory) and History, a minor in Women’s Studies from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
M.A. in Secondary Social Studies Education and History from the University of Iowa.

Argument choice issues:
*Choose your arguments. I try to avoid evaluating rounds based on what I like to hear. Even if I don’t like your argument, it doesn’t mean you’ve lost it, etc. My self-estimation is that I am fairly even on the K vs. Policy question. I believe that both are very interesting and useful styles of debate. Most of the time framework debates aren’t particularly productive, the aff will win that they get to weigh the case, the neg will win that they get some form of an alternative, etc. (hint: if you are serious about winning framework, don’t waste your time on the rest of the debate—prove that you’re serious about it and go for it.)

Disad thoughts:
*One of the areas I am slightly old school. Left to my own devices, I am more likely than many judges to evaluate the risk of a disad as zero if there is a step which has been substantially defeated. I do not particularly prefer offense-defense paradigms, it is my feeling that it is necessary to win your arguments to get a DA. Similarly, I think you need to win a link to generate offense, so without justification I do not default to a uniqueness-focused decision-making process. In spite of these warnings, a justified argument can change those decision-making processes. Generally, though, a good politics debate with developed turns-case analysis is a thing of beauty. Quality of evidence comparison/warrants will always beat number of cards.

*I have increasingly found myself somewhat lost in fast debates about security policy which include multiple interacting internal links--not because I am incapable of understanding them, but because I am not as familiar with these arguments as you all are. On occasion debaters need to slow down and explain some arguments.

K Thoughts:
*My favorite negative strategies are about criticisms that isolate and condemn social injustice or reveal power relations and debate epistemology smartly. I have no problem with generic criticisms like security and the cap k, but to win them or to get decent points requires specific discussion of the 1ac—isolating the links and their implications for evaluating the aff is what makes it awesome. Affs lose lots of K debates largely because they pile up cards rather than planning what the 2ar endgame looks like. Often affs are better served defending their own assumptions than reading argument-specific cards that are not part of a specific strategy. To wit, affs regularly go for permutations or no link arguments when they claim an advantage which impact turns the k while conceding a utopian alternative. Because I am a sucker for well-developed analysis about epistemology/ontology, I don't think as a rule the 2nr needs to go for external case defense, at least if you can give examples of how aff authors have specific problems or biases. Wisconsin teams have proven to think that mindless tech can win you a permutation, this is not generally true--most neg args against one permutation work against all of them.

*I consider myself generally well-read on critical arguments, but that reading maybe stopped being so robust in like 2007 or 2008, and so I'm not as up-to-date on the more recent turns in that literature. I can observe some additional relevant tendencies: I often find myself frustrated in rounds that involve a lot of psychoanalytic arguments (I get the cap bad part of Zizek. That may be about it). I dislike the Nietzsche alternative viscerally. In each of these cases, if this is your only game, I am probably not a good judge for you. I will also explicitly note some critical arguments with which I am well acquainted: I’m fairly well read in Foucault, Heidegger, lots of feminisms, critical international relations business, cap bad, etc. Lots of experience now with Afro-pessimism, Orientalism, at least some entré into queer theory args. I still need someone to convince me that Bataille and Baudrilliard are more smart than confusing.

*I’m probably a decent judge for a T debate. Most of the theoretical issues are up in the air—competing interpretations vs. abuse as a standard, etc. If you concede a competing interpretations arg, though, be aware that you’ll need offense on your interp.

*I can enjoy a good theory debate, but if you actually want to win it you probably need to convince me early on in a debate that you are going to do something other than just read your block at full speed. i have a natural dislike towards theory debates that i see as unnecessary. I'm not the ideal judge if you *plan* on going for theory a lot, but again, i try to evaluate those debates fairly. I will note that I do not have a neg side bias when it comes to counterplan debates--be it issues of conditionality, fiat, or competition issues. Some people see that fact in and of itself as an aff side bias on those theoretical issues, but what it means is that i am more than willing to vote aff because a counterplan is cheating, if you win that debate.
*I have found that I am getting older and more dinosaur-like on counterplan theory: I think I have an aff bias on these issues: multiple counterplans, consult counterplans, and conditionality.

*Non-traditional affs: it seems that I am going to judge my share of clash-of-civs rounds, which is fine. I generally think that negative teams do not work hard enough to generate smart arguments against non-traditional affs, so I start with a slight lean against framework arguments, but a sophisticated execution of those debates are often successful. I will also say that aff teams that make efforts to meet some standard of topicality also will find me more forgiving than teams that do not; I think negs do deserve some degree of a starting point.

Decision-making Process:
*I believe my job as a critic is to evaluate a debate as it occurred, rather than retroactively applying my standards of what debate should look like to your round. I try as hard as I can to stay to this standard, but some intervention is inevitable. Read below in the “self-observed biases” section. I try to remain agnostic about the various frameworks for evaluating debates, so that means that if there is a difference in the round as to how I should evaluate it, you should propose your framework explicitly and defend it. My presumption is that debate should be an educational activity, and it would be hard to shake me of that idea, as I am an educator by trade. However, I am open to debates about what kinds of education debate should bring, and how it does so.

*My decisions are nearly always decided by a close review of the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR, with references to the negative block as necessary. I am not, however, a perfect flow, and you should be aware of that and flag important arguments as such. I believe a part of persuasion is correct emphasis.

*It is fairly uncommon for me to read evidence after a debate--use the evidence yourself, refer to warrants, etc. If you think you have good evidence, you need to show it off. The "in" thing to say is that I reward a team for good research, but the most important part of good research is understanding why your evidence is good, and exercising your ability to explain and use the evidence. I do not plan to do evidence comparison for anyone.

*As regards "offense/defense" distinctions: I understand the importance of offense, but I do not discount the art of defensive argumentation. The fact that the other team does not have a turn does not mean you are winning. I have probably evaluated the risk of a disad or other impact as zero (or close enough to not matter) more than the average judge.

*I generally speaking will not seriously consider any independent issue that is not in your final rebuttal for at least 2 minutes--I do not reward a refusal to put all eggs in one basket. This is particularly true for theory arguments. If you feel that a theoretical issue is strong enough to justify a vote, plan to spend the better part of your final rebuttal on it, or don't expect my ballot on it.

In Round Decorum:
*Not much here--but I absolutely cannot stand when debaters talk audibly during an opponent's speech. Increasingly it is hard for me to follow what a fast speaker is saying anyhow--when you're talking too, I am liable to get angry at you.
*I think most of the time you will tend to get better speaker points if you stand up when you speak. Also, pay attention to where your opponent is and where you are when you cross-ex--it is a speech. Cross-ex's where all the debaters are sitting across the room from one another and staring at their computers is not a good persuasive strategy.
*I will also likely get grumpy at you about your paperless crap, especially when it makes a debate round last 20 minutes longer than it should. Don't worry about that too much. Unless it gets out of hand. If you don't know the difference, watch me, and you'll be able to tell.

check Adarsh Hiremath's paradigm as a basis.

I will also write a short paradigm for NSDA as per my last paradigm was very long.

Flexes:

--2x TOC Qualifier

--4x Policy Bids Total

--2x WA Policy State Qualifier

--1x WA Speech Qualifier

--1X NSDA Nationals Qualifier

• I flow on my laptop. Yes Cameras on at all times.
• I need to see faces to gage all your reactions, I make reactions too.
• Please spread in the CX or LD division at the NSDA for me. Otherwise, Pufo is not to be spreading

CP:

• The uniqueness and link debate determine the threshold at which we evaluate the CP
• Sufficiency Framing is good in all instances unless you ask me to judge kick the counterplan
• Flash perm text blocks

DA:

• Good to write DA, especially PTX-based DA's with the uniqueness flipping either way, aff or neg, which makes good debates. However
• That being said, given the current state of tensions, the DA most likely flips Trump is elected now. 2024 would be a landslide.
• Don't flash blocks for DA debating lol.
• DA internal links are always solid but make sure they mesh well with big stick cards such as Starr

T:

• Based on competing interpretations and visions of debate
• This includes T-USFG debating
• Reasonability debating is a tie-breaker to determine the threshold at which we evaluate competing interpretations

Aff:

• Most affs have good Internal links on this topic, but same logic with the DA, I want to see a clear vision towards big stick impacts
• Soft-left affs are beneficial, but make sure you spin framing a long with counter plan debating really well
• Big stick impact aff's don't need their own framing contention lol. Spend your aff resources on more internal links that you can
• SPin out of lol incase you need to go for one of your internal links

• Add me to the chain : sandyp21212121@gmail.com

Email: aarinj@gmail.com

Jesuit '22(2a/1n, 2n/1a(Junior Year)), Georgia Tech '26(Not Debating)

He/Him

Don't call me judge, I have a name(pronounced Are-in)

Quick Notes Before the Round:

I am fine with essentially every argument. If you want to go for ASPEC, I'll begrudgingly listen to it. I'll reward better arguments with better speaker points, but not vice versa. The more niche your argument is, the more you have to explain it for it to make sense to me, but I assure you I will try my best to understand based on what is presented in the round. I have not read anything related to the topic, so keep that in mind when you use acronyms and words of art.

That said, I will not vote for anything I do not understand. If the 2ar/2nr does not give me a coherent reason to vote for them, I will probably vote for the other team. If neither give me a coherent reason, then I will do the work to figure out who won, but I really don't want to do that.

Make the debate as easy as you can for me. Trust me, it will greatly award you in terms of the outcome of the debate and speaker points.

Preferably, both you and I will keep track of time for speeches/prep. If our times differ significantly, I'll intervene, otherwise, I'll leave it up to you.

Don't take excessive time setting up the email chain. It should be set up and sent right at start time. I will dock speaker points if its taking too long for you to send the email.

Theory debates are good. Affs should go for them more, don't be afraid to read and go for theory, especially on CP competition.

If you have a cool sticker for me to add to my computer, I will be eternally grateful.

Topicality:

Topicality debates are very very complex thus reading your 2nc/2ac blocks slower will help a ton for me to actually catch every warrant you want me to. Since a lot of topicality is based on analytical arguments, spacing/numbering of arguments will keep the flow clear and help me keep up. If you choose to go 100% speed through your block, don't get angry at me when I miss a warrant.

Topicality is about setting limits to the topic, so I instinctively compare both the affirmatives and negatives interpretation of how limits should be set. Giving me a clear topic list under both interps will help me compare both. Also making your standards comparative will go a long way. If you couldn't guess, comparing is a really good idea for topicality.

I default to competing interpretations, but I can be easily persuaded to default to reasonability if the aff claims and supports that they are a core of the topic aff.

Disadvantages:

The more specific your link, the more likely I am going to vote for you. If your evidence is cherry-picked, poorly highlighted to get a link, then I will have a very high threshold to vote for you. I think the best thing either side can do is be comparative about why the link story is wrong/right. Affirmatives should always be skeptical of the negative link evidence. Use your 1ac to answer disadvantage, the 1ac should pre-empt common disadvantages against your aff.

Counter Plans:

Affirmative--please read theory. Negatives read too many nonsensical counterplans. Read and go for theory, I will probably vote for you more often than not if there is clear abuse. Also, please use your 1ac evidence, you read 8 minutes of evidence that should help to prove your solvency claims.

Negative--I like smart counterplans. The more specific the better, especially if the solvency advocate is fire. I am fine with most counterplans. Process counterplans are fine, but you need to prove an opportunity cost to the aff, not a reason why the CP is better than the aff. I also think negs need more of a defense of their strategy. Don't just throw out 5 counterplans with bad highlighting. Think about which ones are actually strategic.

Kritiks:

I have gone for these the most. I like Kritiks. They are fun to read and fun to judge. Framework esque kritiks are fine, but you need to slow down on the nitty gritty so I can flow. Other types of Ks are what they are. Make sure to give examples of links and contextualize them to the aff. Show me why the aff is bad and feeds into a violent system. I'm fine with any of the common Ks, but if it is more niche, I need a longer explanation in the 2nc/2nr.

Affirmative--Tell me why your aff is good and why you should get to weigh it. A lot of negative f/ws are kinda limiting and I think affs can win that they get to at least weigh their aff in which case outweighs is your friend. I also think that slowing down on the link debate is to your benefit because then I can more easily understand your warrants and will probably subconsciously do a lot of the work for you.

Negative--It is essentially the first paragraph, but recognize when FW is two ships sailing at night. Ditch it if you don't need it. Don't go for it if it doesn't tie into the alt. Speaking of alts, paint a picture of the alt. Tell me what I am voting for and I will be a little more lenient on the link debate.

K affs: I don't think that fairness is an impact. At best, it is an internal link to things like advocacy skills. I don't think "core generics" is a good argument because the negative saying is that they are forced to read generics when half their 1ncs are the PTX DA and some random camp DA is equally as bad. Aff teams should push more on education being a terminal impact.

Clearly define your model of debate and the relevant terms. I will view FW debates through a comparison of models so the more comparative you are the more you are likely to win. I think that K affs are important for policy debate, so you are highly unlikely to convince me that the aff is cheating. Instead, the negative should be making arguments about why there needs to be a connection to either the topic or governmental action. This is absent a clear TVA where the aff could easily be done through policy action. Making demands on the state doesn't require USfg action. I will vote for the negative, but I think that a. you have to get off your blocks and b. you got to actually respond to what the aff is saying. I think that a lot of judges are very neg biased and I will NOT be.

Go for presumption or case against K-Affs, most of K-Affs don't actually do anything besides ask for the ballot. I am in the camp that reading K-Affs are good and should be read, NOT in the camp that they actually spill out. A good case push or a presumption ballot is very good imo.

Speaker Points

I start at 28.5 and go up or down based on what you do in the debate that either helps you or makes the debate harder for you or for me.

Don't be rude to your opponent or me

Don't say problematic things in the debate

If you are a novice and you got this far, show me your flows at the end of the debate and I will give you +0.5 points, also tell me your favorite TV show and I will give you another +0.5 points if I haven't seen it.

PF/LD

I have no experience with either or what is expected. I will judge these rounds like Policy. I do not keep up with the topics for these events so please explain well otherwise I will be lost.

Hebron HS '20, UT Dallas '24, 2A for one year, 2N for three, qualified to the TOC, debated for one year in college

Pronouns - He, him, his

Put me on the email chain - rahulk1325 AT gmail DOT com and Mavsdebate AT gmail DOT com

I prefer K v Policy>= K v K > Policy v Policy but will judge anything

Name the email chain: [TOURNAMENT NAME] - [AFF TEAM] vs [NEG TEAM] Round X

Stuff:

- Clarity > speed

- Tech > Truth in most instances

- Don't be violent (racism, sexism, genocide good)

- Clipping is bad (L and 0 speaks for the team who does it)

- Reject the arg > reject the team

- I flow on a computer

- Being funny is good - debates can get quite boring sometimes. Just don't be stupid about it.

- I have invested most of my career into exploring critical literature bases and as such am more adept at judging Policy v K rounds and K v K rounds. But I will evaluate anything present in front of me.

- I've judged so many policy rounds that I'm probably good for anything. I just need a clear and concise explanation. Explaining your acronyms is probably a good idea too.

Specific stuff:

Kritiks:

- Enjoy these debates.

- I don't care how long your overview is, but technical line-by-line is preferable and very important.

- More specific the link/analysis, the better.

- Familiar with a litany of theory basis, but when making specific analysis, make sure your explanation starts broadly.

- My evaluation begins with the framework portion of the debate - make sure you have a clear articulation of your model of debate and why it is preferable.

- If you read a kritik against a K aff, I will reward specific engagement by holding affirmative teams to a higher standard for permutation explanation.

Topicality:

- I can be convinced to vote for anything in regards to reasonability/competing interps.

- Impact comparison is pretty important.

- Good counter interp ev is very important and will be rewarded.

Counterplans:

- Smart, creative counterplans are appreciated if executed well.

- I lean neg for most counterplan theory except for consult, condo, solvency advocate.

- I need instruction for judge kick.

Disadvantages:

- Good impact comparison makes me happy.

- DA turns case arguments when executed correctly are strategic and beneficial for negative teams.

Misc. Stuff:

Debate is an unique experience - don't take it/yourself too seriously and make sure to have fun.

Be nice! Debate is rapidly losing participation - don't be the reason debaters quit.

Emory '25

I debated in high school at McQueen for 4 years, and I qualified to the TOC several times. I debated a little bit at Emory, but am more interested in teaching debate than competing. Don't be rude in cx.

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

I do not have a lot of knowledge about the college personhood topic. That said, I have done a lot of debate, so feel free to do whatever you want.

In terms of argument preference, don't make me vote on theory, I am probably better for K v K or K v policy. I don't love complicated process counterplans.

T/FW - I enjoy framework and T debates. I do think fairness is an impact. I have a lower tolerance for K affs that just summarize or describe a theory without any sort of normative approach. K affs are better when they can explain/solve something larger than just “framework bad.”

Hello! My name is Yuqiong - I'm a new judge, so please speak clearly, concisely, and at a slightly slower pace. I will judge tech > truth, and vote for the team with strong reasoning, better arguments, and can better advocate for their case. Try to speak professionally and not do excessive movements during speeches. As always, have fun, and enjoy the round!

Assistant Director of Debate -- UTD... YOU SHOULD COME DEBATE FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE SCHOLARSHIPS AVAILABLE

So I really dont want to judge but if you must pref me here's some things you should know.

Arguments I wont vote on ever

Pref Sheets args

Things outside the debate round

Death is good

General thoughts

Tl:Dr- do you just dont violate the things i'll never vote on and do not pref me that'd be great.

Line by Line is important.

I generally give quick RFDs this isnt a insult to anyone but I've spent the entire debate thinking about the round and generally have a good idea where its going by the end.

Clarity over speed (ESP IN THIS ONLINE ENVIRONMENT) if I dont understand you it isnt a argument.

****NEW THOUGHTS FOR THE NDT**** I generally dont think process CPs that result in the aff are competitive -- I'm more likely to vote on perm do both or the PDCP if push comes to shove... could I vote on it sure but I generally lean aff on these cps.

Online edit -- go slower speed and most of your audio setups arent great. (See what I did there)

Only the debaters debating can give speeches.

I catch you clipping I will drop you. So suggest you dont and be clear mumbling after i've said clear risk me pulling the trigger.

ecmathis AT gmail for email chains... but PLEASE DONT PREF ME

Longer thoughts

Can you beat T-USFG in front of me if your not a traditional team.... yes... can you lose it also yes. Procedural fairness is a impact for me. K teams need to give me a reason why I should ignore T if they want to win it. Saying warrantless claims impacted by the 1AC probably isnt good enough.

Aff's that say "Affirm me because it makes me feel better or it helps me" probably not the best in front of me. I just kinda dont believe it.

Reading cards-

I dislike reading cards because I do not fell like reconstructing the debate for one side over another. I will read cards dont get me wrong but rarely will I read cards on args that were not explained or extended well.

K-There fine I like em except the death good ones.

In round behavior- Aggressive is great being a jerk is not. This can and will kill your speaks. Treat your opponents with respect and if they dont you can win a ballot off me saying what they've done in round is problematic. That said if someone says you're arg is (sexist, racist, etc) that isnt the same as (a debater cursing you out because you ran FW or T or a debater telling you to get out of my activity) instant 0 and a loss. i'm not about that life.

Especially for online debate, slow down a little, particularly from the 2NC on.

Please include Ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com for the email chain. Please use subject lines that make clear what round it is.

I wrote a veritable novel below. I think its mostly useless. I'm largely fine with whatever you want to do.

Top level:

• I am older (36) and this definitely influences how I judge debates.
• Yes, I did policy debate in high school and college. I was mediocre at it.
• Normal nat circuit norms apply to me. Speed is fine, offense/defense calc reigns, some condo is probably good but infinite condo is probably bad, etc.
• I have a harder time keeping up with very dense/confusing debates than a lot of judges. Simplifying things with me is always your best bet.

Areas where I diverge from some nat circuit judges:

• I am more likely to call "nonsense" on your bewildering process CP or Franken K. If the arg doesn't make any sense, you should just tell me that.
• Aff vagueness (and in effect, conditionality) is out of control in modern debate. I will vote on procedural arguments to rectify this trend.
• Bad process CPs are bad and shouldn't be a substitute for cutting cards or developing a real strategy. Obviously, I'll vote on them, but the 2AR that marries perm + theory into a comprehensive model for debate is usually a winner.
• I'm less likely to "rep" out teams or schools. I don't keep track of bid leaders and what not. Related: I forget about most rounds 20 minutes after I turn in my ballot.

Stats:

• Overall Aff win rate: 48.7%
• Elim aff win rate: 42.3%
• I have sat 6 times in 53 elims

Core controversies - I'm pretty open so take these with a grain of salt.

• Unlimited condo | -----X-------- | 2-worlds, maybe
• Affs should be T | ---X----------- | T isn't a voter
• Judge kick | ----X--------- | No judge kick
• "Meme" arguments | --------X- | You better be amazing at "meme" debate
• Research = better speaks | --X--------- | Tech = better speaks
• Speed | -------X---- | Slow down a little
• Inherency is case D | -X--------- | Inherency is a DA thumper

My Knowledge:

• I went for politics DA a lot. Its the only debate thing I'm a genuine expert in, at least in debate terms.
• I do not "get" the topic (inequality) yet. I did not go to camp. Debate like this is Mich finals at your own peril.
• I have some familiarity with the following K lit - cap, Foucault/Agamben, Lacan/psychoanalysis, security, nuclear rhetoric, nihilism, non-violence, and gendered language.
• I'm basically clueless RE: set col / Afropess / Baudrillard / Bataille. I have voted on all of them, though, in the past..

K affs

I prefer topical affs, and I like plan-focused debates. I'm neg-leaning on T-framework in the sense that I think reality leans neg if you actually play out the rationale behind most K affs that are being run in modern debate. But I vote aff about 50% of the time in those debates, so if that's your thing, go for it.

T/cap K/ ballot PIK and the like are boring to me, though. I think that unless the K aff is pure intellectual cowardice, and refuses to take a stand on anything debatable, there are usually better approaches for the neg to take.

I'm a great judge for impact turning K affs - e.g., cap good, state reform good.

Word PIKs are a good way to turn the aff's rejection of T/theory against them.

Or, you could simply, you know, engage the aff's lit base and cut some solvency turns / make a strong presumption argument that engages with the aff's method.

Some other advice:

• "Bad things are bad" is not a very interesting argument. You should have a solvency mechanism.
• Affs should have a "debate key" warrant. That warrant can involve changing the nature of debate, but you should have some reason you are presenting your argument in the context of a debate round.
• I think fairness matters, but its obviously possible to win that other things matter more depending on the circumstances.
• Traditional approaches to T-FW is best with me - very complicated 5th-level args on T are less persuasive to me than a simple and unabashed defense of topicality + switch-side debate = fairness + education. "We can't debate you, and that makes this activity pointless" is usually a win condition for the neg, in my book. St. Marks teams always do a really good job on this in front of me, so idk, emulate them I guess, or steal their blocks.

Topicality against policy affs

I have not read enough into this topic's literature to have a strong opinion on the core controversies.

I think I tend to lean into bigger topics than most modern judges do. That a topic might have dozens of viable affs is not a sign of a bad topic, so long as it incents good scholarship and the neg has ways to win debates if they put in the work.

Speaker points

When deciding speaks, I tend to reward research over technical prowess.

If you are clobbering the other team, slow down and make the debate accessible to them. Running up the score will run down your speaks.

I frequently check my speaker points post-tournament to make sure I'm not an outlier. I am not, as near as I can tell. I probably have a smaller range than average. It takes a LOT to get a 29.3 or above from me, but it also takes a lot for me to go below 28.2 or so.

Ethical violations

I am pretty hands off and usually not paying close enough attention to catch clipping unless it is blatant.

Prep stealing largely comes out of your speaks, unless the other team makes an appeal.

________________________________________________________________________

Paradigm from 2017 through February 2024.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put both emails on the chain.

codymorrowtx1@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

Speaker Points

I attempted to resist the point inflation that seems to happen everywhere these days, but I decided that was not fair to the teams/debaters that performed impressively in front of me.

27.7 to 28.2 - Average

28.3 to 28.6 - Good job

28.7 to 29.2 - Well above average

29.3 to 29.7 - Great job/ impressive job

29.8 to 29.9 - Outstanding performance, better than I have seen in a long time. Zero mistakes and you excelled in every facet of the debate.

30 - I have not given a 30 in years and years, true perfection.

I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourself. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Please, don't steal prep time. I do not consider e-mailing evidence as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

I enjoy substantive debates as well as debates of a critical tint. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.

Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!

LD June 13, 2022

A few clarifications... As long as you are clear you can debate at any pace you choose. Any style is fine, although if you are both advancing different approaches then it is incumbent upon each of you to compare and contrast the two approaches and demonstrate why I should prioritize/default to your approach. If you only read cards without some explanation and application, do not expect me to read your evidence and apply the arguments in the evidence for you. Be nice to each other. I pay attention during cx. I will not say clearer so that I don't influence or bother the other judge. If you are unclear, you can look at me and you will be able to see that there is an issue. I might not have my pen in my hand or look annoyed. I keep a comprehensive flow and my flow will play a key role in my decision. With that being said, being the fastest in the round in no way means that you will win my ballot. Concise well explained arguments will surely impact the way I resolve who wins, an argument advanced in one place on the flow can surely apply to other arguments, however the debater should at least reference where those arguments are relevant. CONGRATULATIONS & GOOD LUCK!!!

LD Paradigm from May 1, 2022
I will update this more by May 22, 2022

I am not going to dictate the way in which you debate. I hope this will serve as a guide for the type of arguments and presentation related issues that I tend to hear and vote on. I competed in LD in the early 1990's and was somewhat successful. From 1995 until present I have primarily coached policy debate and judged CX rounds, but please don't assume that I prefer policy based arguments or prefer/accept CX presentation styles. I expect to hear clearly every single word you say during speeches. This does not mean that you have to go slow but it does mean incomprehensibility is unacceptable. If you are unclear I will reduce your speaker points accordingly. Going faster is fine, but remember this is LD Debate.

Despite coaching and judging policy debate the majority of time every year I still judge 50+ LD rounds and 30+ extemp. rounds. I have judged 35+ LD rounds on the 2022 spring UIL LD Topic so I am very familiar with the arguments and positions related to the topic.

I am very comfortable judging and evaluating value/criteria focused debates. I have also judged many LD rounds that are more focused on evidence and impacts in the round including arguments such as DA's/CP's/K's. I am not here to dictate how you choose to debate, but it is very important that each of you compare and contrast the arguments you are advancing and the related arguments that your opponent is advancing. It is important that each of you respond to your opponents arguments as well as extend your own positions. If someone drops an argument it does not mean you have won debate. If an argument is dropped then you still need to extend the conceded argument and elucidate why that argument/position means you should win the round. In most debates both sides will be ahead on different arguments and it is your responsibility to explain why the arguments you are ahead on come first/turns/disproves/outweighs the argument(s) your opponent is ahead on or extending. Please be nice to each other. Flowing is very important so that you ensure you understand your opponents arguments and organizationally see where and in what order arguments occur or are presented. Flowing will ensure that you don't drop arguments or forget where you have made your own arguments. I do for the most part evaluate arguments from the perspective that tech comes before truth (dropped arguments are true arguments), however in LD that is not always true. It is possible that your arguments might outweigh or come before the dropped argument or that you can articulate why arguments on other parts of the flow answer the conceded argument. I pay attention to cross-examinations so please take them seriously. CONGRATULATIONS for making it to state!!! Each of you should be proud of yourselves! Please, be nice in debates and treat everyone with respect just as I promise to be nice to each of you and do my absolute best to be predictable and fair in my decision making. GOOD LUCK!

ctrl + f "Planless Affs v. T", “Policy Aff v. T”, "Policy Aff v. CP/DA", "Policy Aff v. K", or "K v. K" for relevant sections

Cambridge '20

Georgia '23 (https://comm.uga.edu/debate/recrutiment or email jstupek8@gmail.com) Go Debate Dawgs!

they/them. ask your opponents what pronouns they prefer before the round and stick to them. pls call me jack or big dawg not judge

jackmdebate@gmail.com - please have the 1ac sent by the round start time.

mc hammer reads philosophy, you should too

i am autistic, don't read into my facial expressions as a reliable predictor of the ballot. apologies in advance for any confusion

IF YOU READ GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF VIOLENCE, INCLUDE A TRIGGER WARNING AND HAVE A VERSION OF THE CARDS OMITTING THE GRAPHIC DETAILS READY IF SOMEONE INDICATES IT'S AN ISSUE. I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO HAVE TRAUMATIC FLASHBACKS BECAUSE YOU WERE TOO LAZY TO TYPE OUT A SENTENCE ON THE WIKI/AT THE TOP OF THE DOC.

*i have hearing difficulties, please either send the doc you're reading from or SLOW DOWN. i.e. you probably don't need to send your T-USfg 2NC analytics but make sure you're reading them at a speed that people that don't have the exact blocks you're looking at in front of them can still understand

**LD/PF - i only competed in policy and i'm unfortunately unfamiliar with the particular nuances of LD/PF debate so i am more likely to vote for substantive arguments than procedurals that rely on an understanding of LD/PF debate norms.

Top Level

- debate is too serious. i enjoy fun rounds, i greatly appreciate jokes. kindness is underrated - opponents are (most likely) not your enemy but rather fellow participants in an extracurricular activity who have decided to spend their weekend debating with you instead of doing literally anything else. please treat them that way.

- you get three perms per arg. new 1AR articulation of the perm warrants new 2NR responses.

- i am uncomfortable with being asked to adjudicate things that occurred outside of the round. (note: i consider the round to start when the pairing comes out, so disclosure theory etc. are still fair game i just have the same institutional (lack of) capability to handle things like Title IX violations as you). i take ethics violations very seriously. if you believe your opponents have behaved in a manner inconsistent with ethical participation in this activity, let me know and i'll contact tab instead of starting the round.

- racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anything that makes the round unsafe is a quick way to earn an instant L and zero speaker points. i will not hesitate to intervene.

- speaker points: my range is generally high-27s to mid-29s. i would probably be considered a point fairy but occasionally it goes the opposite way so warning you in advance. making and executing strategic decisions in rebuttals is the best way to get higher speaks in front of me. i reward taking risks. while i try to hold the line on new args, most judges are inherently suckers for a lying 2A. contextualizing your arguments to the other side’s will earn you more points than just spreading through a K or CP explanation written by coaches four years ago devoid of context or specificity. i.e. "CP solves advantage 1 because [warrant], solves advantage 2 because [warrant]" as opposed to "CP solves entire topic because [warrant]" or "K solves our links and case because [warrant]" and not "THEY DROPPED THE ALT (they probably didn't if we're being honest), WE WIN BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT'S JUST HOW DEBATE WORKS I GUESS".

Scale based on my immediate reaction after the speeches:

30 - Perfect. I do not want anyone I coach to hit you in elim rounds because it's gg.

29.9-29.5 - Woah. You're almost done! The summit is near and you'll be there with a few more practice speeches.

29.4-29 - Yo that was fire. Y'all did your thing and executed well. Good job!

28.9-28.5 - Nice!

28.4-28 - Pretty Good.

27.9-27.5 - Needs some work.

<27.5 - If I've given you this, you know what you did.

- the roughly two hours that i am in the room are your time. if you want to post-round me, go for it (although once i submit the ballot there's nothing i can do to change the decision) but please be courteous regarding your opponents' desires and make sure any more immediate concerns they may have have been resolved before we get into it

- read whatever you want. although i personally lean in certain directions on common debate args, i try to check as many biases as possible at the door and base my decisions on the actual debating done. i want to limit judge intervention as much as possible so comparison and telling me how i should resolve the debate is very important. if i don't have judge instruction coming out of the 2XR, i intervene to resolve the round the best i can. condo is probably the arg you are least likely to win in front of me but i'll vote for it if it's mishandled

- the status quo is always a logical option unless you tell me it isn't

- 2xr should start with: "[Our arg] outweighs [their arg] because"

- dropped args are true, it's up to you to make that matter though

- rather than tell you what i think about specific issues, i think it may be more helpful to disclose how i come to decisions. in the absence of a clear dub for either team, i evaluate the flow. if i can't come to a decision based purely on my flow and memory of the round, i read the ev for each arg and decide whether the cards support the args that are being made as well as which team has better ev for each specific arg. if i still can't come to a decision based on reading cards, i'll reconstruct the debate and necessarily fill in gaps for both sides based on my understanding of the best version of each team's args. YOU DO NOT WANT THIS. there is a non-zero probability that your cards are not as good as you think and potentially a very large probability that filling in the gaps works out better for the other team. to avoid this, DO GOOD COMPARISON. compare ev quality, risk of impact scenarios, EVERYTHING. i understand how frustrating it is when you catch an L after a super close debate because it feels like the judge did slightly more work for the other side. i do not want this for you. you do not want this for you. work with me and you'll probably be much happier with the result. in the absence of judge instruction, i will intervene as necessary to resolve the round.

Planless Affs v. T

- planless affs typically beat T in front of me with nuanced impact turns or a C/I based on counter-definitions of words in the resolution with a DA. i am not a good judge for C/Is that aren’t based in definitions of words in the rez as i am typically persuaded by the 2NR argument that it’s arbitrary and self-serving (which is irrelevant/actually good if you go for the impact turn to T). i'm most persuaded by fairness and clash as impacts to T. TVAs are defense, i won't vote on that alone so make sure you have offense against the aff's model (even if it's just that the TVA is good and the aff's model precludes reading it). i believe that procedural fairness is a terminal impact although i can be persuaded that it’s only an i/l if you make the arg

- i will vote on presumption if the neg proves that the aff just results in the squo

- i went double 2s most of my debate career. my favorite neg rounds in college were 2NC T/1NR Case but i read planless affs my senior year and prepped against T so i think i'm pretty 50/50 in these debates when equally debated

Policy Aff v. CP/DA

- affs typically beat the CP/DA strategy in front of me by either winning a solvency deficit to the CP that outweighs the DA or proving that the CP is not competitive. I will vote on zero risk of the DA but only if there's offense against the CP.

- probably a better judge for theory than most against CPs. i default to believing that CPs must be textually and functionally competitive but can be convinced otherwise absent aff warranted argumentation

- note for soft-left/K affs with a plan - although i am convinced by framing that says we should prioritize structural violence or reject util/extinction logic, you're not going to win on that alone if the neg has a CP that resolves the aff's impacts especially if the neg is winning that i should view CP solvency through sufficiency framing

Policy Aff v. T

- i am a grammar nerd, args that are based on grammatically incorrect definitions are unlikely to win in front of me i.e. i can't vote for "United States" is an adjective because that's wrong

- models are important

- i tend to do the most intervention in these debates. absent a 2NR/2AR that completely writes my ballot, i find myself resolving the round by going through my flow and the docs and reconstructing the debate with the best version of both sides' arguments.

Policy Aff v. K

- 2AR should be either fwk + case outweighs/offense OR fwk + perm + no link/alt fails. if the negative wins framework but the affirmative wins that the aff is a good idea it likely means that the aff's knowledge production is good which often solves the link.

- specificity is the most important thing is these debates. well-warranted analytics contextualized to your argument as well as the other team's will get you further than shotgunning cards with no explanation.

- if your 1AR/2AR framework explanation is entirely "you link, you lose bad" but they're going for links that have uniqueness you are probably going to lose.

- the vast majority of my college debate rounds involved cap sustainability debates so i am very familiar with the args made and ev read by both sides. although i personally believe that the cap bad cards are better, i've always cut the cap good file and will vote happily for McAfee (despite my personal belief that the card is garbage) if the other side doesn't explain their offense adequately.

- i tend to be persuaded by smart turn args regarding trivialization or cruel optimism when links seem especially contrived i.e. it's bad to say a team reading a soft left aff on a reform vs. rev topic is literally enacting physical violence against marginalized peoples "outside of the debate space" (this isn't to say i'm not persuaded by those same link args as i have and will continue to vote for "you link you lose" logic when it's debated well despite 2As whining)

K v. K

- these are the rounds i judge the least (although i find them to be interesting and wish i got to judge more) so i don't have many predisposed biases aside from defaulting to allowing the aff to read perms until the neg convinces me they shouldn't get them.

- i (believe i) am familiar with most lit bases, although this might work against you. for example, i do not want to vote for you if you read ev by José Esteban Muñoz and then claim that he makes a blanket "utopia bad" arg because that's the literal opposite of everything the author has written.

- if the neg wins the alt solves the aff, i vote neg.

- 2N - do not forget that the squo is a logical option. i.e. if you're winning that the aff doesn't solve and that there's risk of a link (for example, that the aff would cause backlash against [x] people), the squo is probably better than the aff regardless of whether or not you're winning alt solvency.

Theory

- condo is a yes/no question (i am unlikely to vote for "the negative gets [x] number of conditional advocacies", you should instead say "the negative gets NO conditional advocacies or dispositional advocacies etc"). i default to weighing the aff against the alt/squo but can be convinced to disregard the theoretical implementation of either of those options. probably not going to convince me that the neg should not get to read a K wholesale but that's more logical than some of the fw interps i've seen so ????...

- you probably should not read conflicting interps in the 1NC. 2AC to "T-read a plan" and "fiat bad" is really easy which negates any of the time skew benefits

- fiat - both sides get it until someone tells me they don't or wtv idk no neg fiat never really made sense to me but i'd vote on it if it's mishandled

authors whose work i found enjoyable or informative in no particular order: sylvia wynter, nietzsche, toni morrison, enriqué dussel, dahlma llanos-figueroa, judith butler, karl marx, gilles deleuze, felix guattari, jafari s. allen, josé esteban muñoz, reinaldo arenas, nina maria lozano, vine deloria jr., guy hocquenghem, desiree c. bailey, langston hughes, manuel zapata olivella, nicholas guillén, josé martí, colin dayan, kit heyam, ishmael reed, maggie nelson, viola f. cordova

helpful notes on a few of these authors: http://www.protevi.com/

I debated for 4 years at Woodward Academy and graduated back in 2018. I studied climate and energy policy and international relations at Georgetown University.

I’ve learned a lot from debate, therefore I value the activity and the many benefits it can provide. I recognize the hard work that competitors put into research and preparation; so I will take every debate I judge seriously, and I hope that the debaters in the round will do the same.

My promise: I will diligently evaluate the arguments presented in the round and provide constructive criticism with the goal of helping the debaters in the round learn and improve.

I want to be on the email chain: aqpearson@gmail.com.

The Basics:

Be respectful. There’s a line between being assertive and being mean.

Clarity over speed.

No clipping or cross reading — this is cheating. If you’re clear, you shouldn’t have to worry about this.

Stop trolling — proper disclosure and complete speech documents are a form of respect for your opponents. If you aren’t respectful, you won’t like your points.

I prefer well-developed arguments — Plans and counterplans should be linked to solvency advocates. Evidence should be appropriately highlighted. The 1NC should have less, more-developed off-case as opposed to more, less-developed offcase.

I'll stop prep when you say you're done — if sending/flashing the doc starts to take longer than appropriate, I'll start it again.

For a good speaker points

· Demonstrate topic knowledge.

· Conduct strategic cross-examination

· Show me your (good) flow after the round.

Framework/T-USFG:

I agree with Maggie Berthiaume that: “Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides are prepared for the debate. Affirmatives do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy.” [1]

Other Arguments:

Disadvantages: Be able to explain your internal links and remember to do impact calculus and turns case analysis.

Fiat — It's structural, attitudinal, and durable.

Critiques — Contextualize them to the affirmative with examples, hypotheticals, and specific links grounded in aff evidence, framing, or explanation. The negative has the burden to prove that the aff makes the world worse.

Topicality — I prefer debates over the substance of policy but am not against voting for topicality. Both teams should explain what debate would look like under their interpretation and why that model is better.

CPs — they should have an aff specific solvency advocate. If they don't, I find theory persuasive.

My views about debate have been heavily influenced by my coaches Maggie Berthiaume and Bill Batterman; so if you have additional questions, you should take a look at their linked paradigms below:

[1] https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=berthiaume

[2] https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=batterman

Last edited on 5/27/23 to rewrite the sections on experience, Statement on Racism, and K Affirmatives.

Pronouns: she/they

Experience: I have spent my entire life in the debate community one way or another. That said, I spent five years debating middle school/high school, took a break from debating in undergrad, then came back to judge and coach for a variety of schools.

Statement on Racism (& other Prejudices) in Debate

Debate should encourage students to see themselves as agents capable of acting to create a better world. We will not achieve this vision for our activity so long as we pretend it is in a realm separate from reality. Judges have an ethical obligation to oppose prejudice in round including but by no means limited to: racism, queerphobia, antisemitism, sexism, Islamophobia, ableism, and classism, among others. Debate, as an activity, has its fair share of structural inequities. We, as coaches and judges, need to address these and be congnizant of them in our decisions.

General Philosophy

I see the role of the judge as that of an educator concerned primarily with what teams learn from the experience. Therefore, the most important aspect of being a judge, to me, is to provide good constructive criticism to teams about their arguments and performance, and to promote the educational qualities of debate. When teams are using prep time, I am usually writing speech by speech feedback for my ballots––which I very much hope teams and their judges will read. As a judge, I want you to come out of the round, win or lose, feeling like you learned something worthwhile.

As an educator concerned with what can be learned from the round, I think the quality of arguments are much more important than their quantity, and whenever possible prefer to reward well researched and articulated arguments more than arguments will few warrants that might be read in the hopes of their being dropped. I prefer to decide rounds based upon the meaning of the arguments presented and their clash rather than by concession.

I flow the round based on what I hear, preferring not to use speech documents. For this reason, clarity is more important than speed. For an argument to exist in the round, it needs to be spoken intelligibly. Rounds that are slower typically offer better quality arguments and fewer mistakes.

Argument Specific preferences:

Plan-less critical affirmatives: I am happy to judge and vote on them. K affs are a useful tool for contesting the norms of debate, including those which are the most problematic in the activity. Over time, I have changed my threshold on their topicality. These days, my position is that so long as they are clearly related to the topic, I am happy to consider them topical. When aff teams argue critical affirmatives, I strongly prefer there be a specific solvency mechanism for their interpretation of the role of the ballot. For negative teams arguing against K affs, I have a strong preference for specific case answers. Given that K affs are a fixture of debate and are generally available to find on open evidence and the caselist wiki, prepping to specifically answer them should be possible. While I am unlikely to vote in favor of arguments that would outright eliminate K affs in debate, counter kritiks are a strategy I am amenable to.

Kritiks: At its most fundamental level, a kritik is a critical argument that examines the consequences of the assumptions made in another argument. I love well run kritiks, but for me to decide in favor of a kritik it needs a specific link to the assumptions in the 1AC and a clearly articulated alternative that involves a specific action (as opposed to a vague alt). Experience informs me that K's with generic links and vague alternatives make for bad debate.

Framework: Lately this term seems to have become a synonym for a kind of impact calculus that instead of focusing on magnitude, risk, and time-frame attempts to convince me to discard all impacts but those of the team running this argument. Framework, as I understand it, is a synonym to theory and is about what the rules of debate should be. Why should it be a rule of debate that we should only consider one type of impact? It seems all impacts in debate have already boiled themselves down to extinction.

Topicality: Please slow down so that I can hear all your arguments and flow all their warrants. The quality of your T arguments is much more important to me––especially if you argue about the precedent the round sets––than how many stock voters you can read. I may prefer teams that offer a clear argument on topicality to those that rely on spreading, however tactically advantages the quickly read arguments may be.

Counter plans: The burden of demonstrating solvency is on the negative, especially with PICs. PICs are probably bad for debate. Most of the time they are just a proposal to do the plan but in a more ridiculous way that would likely never happen. So if you are going to run a PIC, make sure to argue that changing whatever aspect of the plan your PIC hinges on is realistically feasible and reasonably advantageous. Otherwise, I will do everything I can to avoid deciding the round on them.

Conditionality: I have no problem with the negative making a couple conditional arguments. That said, I think relying on a large number of conditional arguments to skew the aff typically backfires with the neg being unable to devote enough time to create a strong argument. So, I typically decide conditionality debates with a large number of conditional arguments in favor of the aff, not because they make debate too hard for the aff, but because they make debating well hard for everyone in the round.

For rookie/novice debaters:

If you're reading this, then you're already a step ahead and thinking about the skills you will need to be building for JV and varsity debate. What I want to see most in rookie/novice debates is that teams are flowing and clearly responding to each other.

Gonzaga University
Judging Experience: 19 years
Email: jregnier@gmail.com (yes, include me on the email thread)

Big Picture: There is no one right way to debate. We all have our biases and preconceptions, but I try to approach each round as a critic of argumentation and persuasion. Some people will define themselves as being more influenced by either “truth” or “tech.” For me, this is a false binary. Tech matters, but it doesn’t mean that I will focus on the ink on the flow to the detriment of argument interconnections or ignore the big picture of the debate. Truth matters, but pretty much every debate I will decide that both teams win arguments that I don’t necessarily believe to be true. In my view, “argument” falls into a third category that overlaps with tech and truth but is distinct from them. Make your argument more effectively than your opponent and you’ll be in good shape. For me, that means making clear claims, developing warrants for those claims, and explicitly identifying what’s important in the debate, how it’s important, and why. Use logos, ethos, and pathos. Look like you’re winning. Your adaptation to the stylistic/technical comments below is far more important than your adaptation to any particular type of argument.

Comment about debate ethics: By debate ethics, I mean both what has been conventionally called “ethics violations” – like clipping cards, evidence fabrication, etc – as well as the interpersonal dynamics of how we treat one another in debate. I group them together here because they are both areas where somebody has crossed a line and upset the conditions necessary for debate to occur. For me, neither of these things is “debatable” in the sense I used above (“making clear claims, developing warrants…,” looking like you’re winning, etc). If a team is suspected of clipping cards, the debate stops and we do our best to resolve the issue before either ending the debate or moving forward. Similarly, if there is a concern that a team made racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted – or even just excessively mean-spirited or rude remarks – the debate should not continue as normal. I have zero interest in watching a competitive debate in this context about what was said, whether an apology was sincere, the terminal impact of discourse, whether the ballot is an appropriate punishment, etc. In this, I aggressively fall into the “truth over tech” crowd.

What this means for me is that I will try to be attentive to these things happening. I do not believe that a debater has to say something for me to vote on an ethics violation. At the same time, there is a lot of gray area in interpersonal relationships and we all draw our own boundaries.

What this means for you is if you believe one of your ethical lines has been crossed, I need you to point it out *outside of speech time* and not treat it like you would other debate arguments. As we all know, there are different ways of arguing that the other team has said offensive things. An argument that the Aff’s Economy advantage is based in colonial & white supremacist logic seems to fall squarely “within the game” as a debatable position. On the other hand, if a debater refers to another debater with an offensive racial epithet, this seems to pretty clearly transcend the game. There’s a million miles of microaggressions and not-so-micro aggressions in between. My working presumption is generally that if you are debating about it, then you consider it debatable and that I should evaluate it within the context of argumentation, persuasion, and competition. But if you feel that the other team has crossed a line and that I should not continue evaluating the round as I would a regular competitive debate, say something – again, *outside of speech time* – and we will work together to reach an understanding and figure out the best resolution to the situation.

Stylistic/Technical Issues: I am a medium flow. My ear for extremely fast speech is not particularly great, and my handwriting is not particularly fast. Extremely fast debates oriented around the techne of the flow are not my forte. There is a fairly clear inverse relationship between the speed at which you speak and the amount that I get written down on my flow. This greatly rewards debaters who give fewer – but more fully developed and explained – arguments. I will probably not read very many cards at the end of the debate, so don’t rely on your evidence to make your arguments for you. At the same time, I do generally try to attend to the quality of cards and bad cards can definitely undermine your arguments. I categorically do not want to be forced to reconstruct the debate by rereading all of the cards. This means that explanation and prioritization in the final rebuttals weighs more heavily for me than it might for other judges. Attend to the big picture, make direct comparisons showing why your arguments are better than your opponents’, and most important, find the hook that allows you to frame the debate in your favor.

Theory Debates: This is the area where my thinking has evolved the most as I’ve aged. There are many theory issues that I can be persuaded by. However, I will say that many theory debates that I have seen are vacuous. The key question for me is what kind of world is created by each side’s interpretation – is it good for debate or bad for debate. The impacts that I find most persuasive are the ones that are less about whether the other team made debate hard for you and more about what their interpretation does to argumentation and whether that’s an educational and constructive vision of what debate should be. Generally, impacts like “time skew” or “moots the 1AC” are pretty empty to me. But an argument that uniform 50 state fiat is an artificial debate construct that’s not rooted anywhere in the solvency literature and distorts the “fed key” debate so wildly as to make it meaningless is maybe something that I can get behind. A short list of a few of my current theory pet peeves: the States CP, object fiat, vaguely written – and downright misleading – plan texts, and nonsense permutations. While I wouldn’t necessarily call it a pet peeve, I may be growing increasingly persuaded that excessive conditionality is not good for debate.

Critical Stuff / Framework: I regularly vote both ways in framework debates. I evaluate these debates much like I would a debate over the "substance" of the case. Both sides need to play offense to amplify their own impacts while also playing defense against their opponent's impacts. In most cases where I have voted against critical affirmatives, it is because they have done a poor job answering the negative's debatability/fairness impact claims. In most cases where I have voted against traditional policy frameworks, it has been because they have done a poor job defending against the substantive critiques of their approach. My general set of biases on these issues would be as follows: critical (and even no-plan) affirmatives are legitimate, the aff needs to either have a defensible interpretation of how they affirm the topic or they need to full bore impact turn everything, a team must defend the assumptions of their arguments, critiques don't need (and are often better served without) alternatives (but they still need to be clear about what I am actually voting for), debate rounds do not make sense as a forum for social movements and “spill up” claims are vacuous, and most of the evidence used to defend a policy framework does not really apply to policy debate. However, to state the obvious, each of these biases can be overcome by making smart arguments.

Speaker Points: Since Tabroom stopped making speaker points accessible, I honestly don’t really even know what they mean anymore. I try to give them careful consideration, but I admit that often it becomes a gestalt thing. I intend somewhere around 28.7 or 28.8 to be my median. I will occasionally dip into the high 27s for debaters that need significant improvement. Good performances will be in the low 29s. Excellent performances will get into the mid 29s. This was generally close to how things broke down the last time I was actually able to run the numbers on speaker point data.

Here are the things I value in a good speaker. I love debaters that use ethos, logos AND pathos. Technique should be a means of enhancing your arguments, not obfuscating or protecting them. Look like you're winning. Show that you are in control of yourself and your environment. Develop a persona that you can be comfortable with and that shows confidence. Know what you're talking about. Answer your own cross-ex questions. Use an organizational system that works for you, but communicate it and live up to it (if you do the line-by-line, then *do* the line-by-line). Avoid long overviews with content that belongs on the line-by-line. Overviews should have a clear and concise purpose that adds something important to the debate. Be clear, which includes not just articulation & enunciation. It also includes the ability to understand the content of your evidence. If I can't follow what your evidence is saying, it will have as much weight in my decision as the tagline for that evidence would have had as an analytic. Debaters who make well thought out arguments with strong support will out-point debaters who just read a lot of cards every time.

email: avy.renee.hine@gmail.com

i went to centennial and did ld throughout high school- got bids to the toc. now i'm in my fifth year doing policy debate @ gonzaga.

tldr: read what you want. i read policy arguments, but i have a history of being more flex. i like to evaluate policy debates. with that being said, i have a lot of respect for the time put into researching and preparing for each tournament and will evaluate whatever you read with as little bias as i can. i'm pro-technical debating and anti- "big picture" styles of debating unless you are really excellent. i also don't like listening to sloppy spreading- i am a good flow so be as quick as you like, but be clear, emphasize tags, and make sure you make it obvious when you're moving between cards *esp online*. if you cant do that, go slower. dont ask me to give 30s, there wont be a punishment, but i just wont. otherwise, be strategic and have fun!

some argument things!

k-affs & fw teams:

BOTH TEAMS: please don't just read blocks. debate things line by line and actually engage in a discussion of the distinction between the models both teams are defending in the interp debate. if youre able to draw differentials with thoroughly impacted out standards, you'll probs be sitting pretty at the end of the debate. dont forget to do impact comparison.

k- aff teams-- extend, explain, and weigh your offense against the defensive arguments made by the negative. if fw isnt the 2nr, i am not a good judge for the argument that they should lose for reading fw in the 1nc/block unless the neg made some serious blunders on the page/kick out. i appreciate k teams who play defense to negative fw arguments, not just offense throughout the debate-- especially if you're going for the impact turn. i am not super enthusiastic about "dont evaluate competing models just evaluate this round" but im willing to listen if that is the crux of your strategy.

fw teams-- i will vote on procedural fairness, but i think most teams do a better job utilizing it as an internal link. i am sympathetic towards switch side debate arguments. i think something that differentiates me from most fw judges is i dont think that a tva is the most important thing to win bc sometimes there are affs that dont have topical versions. but i do expect a defense of policy education that is specific to why the topic is good. if you aren't winning either a tva or a general defense of policy education, it will be much harder to win your education offense.

ks:

i don't like watching k debates that are predominately embedded clash. keep things organized. if there is going to be a long overview, let me know because i will flow it on a separate piece of paper before getting to the line-by-line stuff.

i usually lean towards letting the affirmative weigh the aff, but taking into account their epistemology/research practice/ontology for links. tell me why the links outweigh/turn the aff or spend ample time on framework explaining why they shouldn't get to weigh it. this requires clash with their interp and direct response to their offense.

debating the alternative v case is fun ! make sure it exists !

da/cps etc.

pretty straightforward for me. check the boxes, use good spin, etc. i am more persuaded by evidence quality than evidence quantity. there are rarely situations where there is 0 risk of a link-- if you have a cp that solves all the aff and a DA with just defense on it, its really hard for the aff to win. but there is always risk that a cp doesnt solve. 2nc da/cps are fair game-- its a constructive! be gamey, but not sloppy. the closer the debate, the more evidence i will read.

2ar/2nrs should tell the story of why they win and not just what they are winning (impact comparison!) take into consideration the other side's story and tell me why that isn't good enough to beat what you're going for. make strategic decisions and write my ballot for me. judge instruction is never looked down on.

t v policy affs:

i enjoy these debates. go slower on the standards.

theory stuff:

i generally think condo is good, but i will obvi vote on it. if you're going to go for it, invest the time and ink. i don't LIKE to judge kick but i will if told to by a 2nr who is winning condo; if its not instructed, i won't do it on my own volition.

default to reject the arg, not the team for everything except condo.

misc:

i love case debate, it is probably my favorite part of a debate to watch and do. do it. regardless of types of arguments you are running. i will vote on presumption but don't just go for presumption because you're losing your off-case arguments. if you are going to go for presumption, it should be a thoroughly developed strategy.

otherwise, be good people & have fun! if you have any questions feel free to email me or ask me before the round (: cheers!

pasdebate@gmail.com

Subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG

Debated at Maine East (2016-2020, TOC Circuit) and the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023, NDT Qual)

I will boost speaker points if you follow @careerparth on tiktok, bring (vegetarian) food/snacks, and end the debate as fast as possible.

I took most of this paradigm from Reed Van Schenck:

Career wise, my arguments of preference were more critical (Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and the likes). I enjoy judging clash debates, policy vs critical. Traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me very low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring to the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day, I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals. I will boost speaker points if rebuttals are given successfully with prep time remaining and/or off the flow!

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

Paradigm

University of Miami '25

I am Bria (she, her, hers) and add me to the email chain please — bsslater02@gmail.com

General stuff:

1. I love judging debates and debates should be enjoyable. With that being said, please be nice to your opponents AND your partner. It is more than okay to be strong while you speak during things like CX, but still be respectful to each other.
2. Debate how you want to debate, but please note that I am not the best judge for heavy theory arguments.
3. Of course, don’t run anything offensive/inappropriate.
4. All I ask speaking wise is for clarity and I will tell you if I need you to speak clearer. Don’t get so caught up in trying go fast if you are no longer clear. I don’t want to have to continuously ask you to be clear.
5. I am fine with tag teaming during CX but only under certain circumstances. If it doesn’t fall under these circumstances then, please do not speak if it isn’t your turn.
1. If your partner is completely stumped with a question and is saying nothing, then you may speak.
2. If your partner is about to say something that may lose the round for you.
6. Don’t just rely on cards. With that being said, evidence is great! But your entire block shouldn’t just be reading through cards. I will read through the cards, especially if you keep emphasizing one, but reading off nothing but cards won’t get you the debate no matter how good they are. You should explain why your evidence is better. That comes with really knowing and understanding what your evidence is saying.
7. I don’t really like “sneaky” debaters. Here is a scenario to explain what I mean by this. Pretend I am a debater in the round and I have just made my speech doc and I save that one for me. I then make a copy of that speech doc and remove all the analytics, perm texts, counter interns, and stuff like that so the other team will not see my speech doc. Remember, if you are trying to hide stuff from the other team by removing stuff from your speech doc, you are also hiding it from me. :)
8. Don’t clip. You never know when I get suspicious of you clipping and when I do, I will watch closely and you don’t want to get caught clipping!!
9. My motto is even if you do not know what you're doing, just pretend you do :) you'll do better - guaranteed!
10. Might be an unpopular opinion, but I am more likely than not truth>tech

With everything else, I want you to debate how you want to debate. At the end of the round, I will look at what both teams have presented me and I will make what I believe is the best non-biased decision. Also, I will not debate for you. Do not assume that I will defer to your side for any reason.

Good Luck!

I would really appreciate clear, loud speeches.

A few times now there have been T debates where the aff does not explicitly answer the argument "no truth testing means assume all their claims are false = presumption indpt. of if we lose the interp" and I didn't vote for it, and am not sure if I should have. Now, many things that the aff says implicitly respond to this, I think, and there are plenty of "nuh uh" style answers that are easy to think of and make. (Assuming it's competing interps and not "you are racist for reading T, in-round violence, VI.") But in other areas I am quick to vote on stupid blips and in general I don't like making cross-applications that don't occur to me involuntarily/without straining. So from now on I am voting neg if that happens! You must answer the argument directly, even if it just means explicitly making a cross-application. Be warned! It's right at the top! It's above the email! Just answer it and there will be no issue!

sposito@umich.edu

Above all, tech over truth--to this, there are no realistic exceptions. Fairness in evaluation is most relevant for arguments which are disreputable, and it is my intent to be fair. I will evaluate every argument I have on my flow, and refuse none. It's an argument if I understand it*, which includes most blips but excludes some K things. My opinions about content that follow are the equilibrium provided teams make the best available arguments, so far as I understand them, which means that when the best arguments aren't made, I'm liable to vote exactly opposite of what I've said here.

Although it hurts to say, I am not the best flow, and will likely miss some arguments. I can't be trusted to make the right decision in situations when such a decision hinges on a single, unemphasized argument. To be clear, I will try to do that--and vote remorselessly on, say, dropped one line intrinsicness if I got it--but I may not succeed. I will try my best to be fair, and care about making the right decision, even when it may be inconvenient or for something I find distasteful. I have made the wrong decisions in the past--I am not a relativist, and decisions are right or wrong. Students have a duty to be intelligible, but they do not have a duty to be persuasive beyond the line-by-line. Instead, it is judges who have a responsibility to have to render correct decisions (who is paying versus being paid? Among other asymmetries). Corny as it, numbering 1NC case/2AC offcase arguments, and then adhering to those numbers, helps me a lot and will increase the likelihood I render the most correct decision. Generally I start flowing at the 1NC on case, so I will probably miss ASPEC too....

I am not an educator! In my ideal world, I tap tap tap on my little laptop everything you say so as to correctly record the winner of the competition for which you volunteered... Educator implies a level of partiality and moralism of which I disapprove (ironic I know) and think has run rampant, to everyone's great loss. Similarly, I am not evaluating "who did the better debating"; that's what points are for. Exactly what question I am evaluating in a debate varies across and throughout debates....

I am very sensitive to judge instruction: About when an argument is new, about what evidence I should read or under what circumstances, about how strictly or literally I should take what was said, so on. My default is that I shouldn't read any evidence unless it's a subject of contention and that tags start at 100% risk. (I wish this weren't the standard....)

I enjoy villainy, and things generally hated: scandalous impact turns, process counterplans/neg terrorism, competitive personalities, egregiousness and trickery. My preference is for inserting cards over reading them, until it's like a ton of 1AC cards.

(*= requiring claims to have warrants strictly is impossible, because all warrants are claims which would then require warrants and result in an infinite regress. What is the answer to this argument?)

K affs and framework:

The aff should go for impact turns. I think that K arguments are almost uniformly awful, but will still vote for them. Go for "debate bad means it's good that we destroy it" or "no models--only in-round 'violence'" or whatever else. Moderate-seeming or 'compromise' approaches often do not make sense; K teams are better off when they take aggressive stances. I have an essentially unlimited tolerance for stupid claims, but none for incoherent claims. Cynical and tricky K teams should easily reach competitive parity with top policy teams because of the tactics they have at their disposal, but they must then use those tactics in a strategic way... The ability to do so is usually follows from understanding that the K shouldn't ever win, because it emphasizes exactly why it still does, the fruitful exploits.

There is behavior sufficiently objectionable to sideline competitive concerns. That is easy to establish. The rub is whether or not the object of the dispute (often, reading T) constitutes that behavior. Truthfully, it does not, but policy teams can lose this argument, and do.

DAs do not generally link to K affs, unless the aff catastrophically fails in cross-ex. If they do, then even a negligible risk of the DA clearly outweighs and turns the case. The neg should probably go for T, or maybe a PIK (will the aff successfully execute competition?). High theory Ks can also be good against typical K affs, and mostly now lose, I suspect, for ideological reasons which I will not replicate. I am worse for identity politics than other Ks. I prefer bad faith debating about identity to its moralizing, sincere alternative, and technical debating above all.

On T, the neg should go for fairness. I have a low opinion of the education that debate provides or even could provide, really, even in policy v. policy debates. Clash is not the point of debate--it is strategic to minimize it. I think most of what students pick up in K debates actually harms them (it certainly harms me), and I think that the exclusion of most K arguments would be desirable in and of itself, and wish more teams would argue for that. So, K "research" isn't worth learning about; even if it were, debate wouldn't teach it; to the extent that it does that, gamesplaying still outweighs.... Of course, you need to competently make this argument. But this is where my sympathy sits.

I have never thought skills was any good. I did think clash was good, but don't now. Even good policy teams going for T are liable to lose on "T is a microaggression, racism causes heart attacks, that outweighs the full magnitude of clash." The skills argument that "debaters solve existential risks, small coefficient * a massive value is still massive, outweighs racism," is fine, but as easily defanged as the idea that T is racist at all.

Ks on the neg:

The best Ks are framework arguments that moot the plan. Second best is a concrete (if utopian) alt with framework-type reasons why "do both" is illegitimate. Without some way of overcoming the uniqueness problem, Ks don't make sense and wouldn't outweigh the case if they did. Alternately, the K should be a vehicle for tricks: "If we're right about the incurable racism of the academy, assume that all social science is false and vote neg on presumption" is the kind of thing I would speedily vote on when dropped by the 1AR, perhaps because it was overstretched having to answer several other tricks. Those are the three main 2NRs I am looking to vote for. "Link, impact, alt" is incoherent and factually defeated by the perm double bind. The problem is not me--the emperor has no clothes. To be clear, that excludes "links to the plan," which are bad, non-unique DAs. Even when they are unique, they likely will not outweigh the case without considerable attention paid to framing. Of course, the aff still must minimally extend the perm and non-unique and so on in situations that call for it.

One implication of this is that you really probably don't need more than one link, and it doesn't matter at all if it's specific. Whether or not an argument rejoins the plan does not depend on its novelty to high school debaters.... Similarly, the 2AC really probably does not need much more than "2AC 1 is framework"....

To reiterate, I think the fiat K that moots the case and has the neg go for framework impact turns is very winnable, something on which the aff could reasonably get out-teched. Similar the other 2NRs. I believe debate is a technical game and don't want my feelings in truth about the K to be mistook for my belief that it's not at least sometimes viable. On the other hand, incoherent arguments are extremely unstrategic, because they can be easily beaten.

Obviously, I will only assess the aff's FW interpretation versus the negs. Middle-ground interpretations are fine, but you don't need them to win, and I will won't opt for one unilaterally. A neg interp that allows the aff to weigh the case but reserves uniqueness for links does solve some fairness offense and could be strategic if the K impacts get to extinction (say, security or cap), but I think the aff should probably go for no Ks.

There are some teams and persons who inspired me in the K world--Izak Dunn, James Mollison, Ani Prabhu--who made me believe that more creativity and alternate models were possible and worthwhile. At the moment, it's hard to reconstruct exactly what they were. But I mention them here to curb my cynicism and to break from my narrow prescriptions up until this point. I was a K debater in high school (high theory, Buddhism, anthro).

For policy debaters: If an extinction impact is dropped, it needs no further elaboration.

Topicality:

Reasonability is about the threshold of necessary offense before the the penalty for substance crowdout is outweighed. It is wholly irrelevant of whether or not the aff is popular or easy to debate or if the neg read multiple positions in the 1NC.

It is far easier to win a giant limits DA and 'debatability matters most,' than that precision in the abstract outweighs, and I will vote on that. But my true belief is that there really is a 'best' way to read the resolution in context, and I care about this 'precise' reading immensely. I don't know how pertinent that will be in really-existing debates. I highly, highly recommend Scalia's Reading Law for thinking about topicality.

Plan text in a vacuum is obviously true, and better than all competing standards by a great deal, with the exception of specification in 1AC CX. (It is only better than that by a lot.) Serious question: What would topicality be about, if not the plan? "Planicality" loses swiftly to an analytical PIC and a topic DA. PTIV is not the argument that the text of the plan can be considered in isolation (what could that possibly mean?). It is the argument that the "function" of the plan is determined wholly by its text (as it would mostly be under other standards, if they were ever clearly articulated, without other vague and capacious additions).

Related: Normal means is a factual question. If the aff declares the plan happens in an unrealistic way, the neg should read contravening evidence.

Counterplans & theory:

Update: It is not 1954. Women have entered the workforce, we survived Y2K and this thing called the Internet has swept the world!. Consequently, it does not matter if the 2NC counterplans out of a straight turn. The "C" stands for constructive, even though it is preceded by a "2." Why can't debate be fun?

I like counterplan competition and find it interesting, especially its outer recesses. I agree exactly with Rafael: "I don’t share the sanctimonious distaste that many do for plan inclusive or process counterplans. I won’t think a net benefit is bad just because it’s ‘artificial’ and I don’t think a DA/Case 2NR is necessarily better than a counterplan that steals the aff." You should go for the argument that maximizes your chance of victory, regardless of whether or not it represents research as some people in the community may like. Clearer: It may be difficult to convey how unconcerned I am with a practice in debate being 'educational' or not. Debate is a game played to win, which has the incidental sometimes-benefit of teaching kids some economics and current world affairs, and maybe some philosophy. What I care about is whether or not the counterplan makes the game better or worse, more fun or too unmanageable. Of course, education matters, and I will behave like a normal judge insomuch as I won't go rogue and ignore that part of the debate, and I know it's a pain to adjust the blocks for some ideologue... But I will be quite receptive to teams making the commonsense fact-and-values claims that give me license to mostly ignore pedagogy and focus on the part of the game that matters....

Textual alone is a bad standard, but I think textual and functional or just functional are both OK. Process counterplans I think are key neg generics, certainly on bad topics. In CP debates, may we all drop the politeness that a K being a generic or a functional limit is a desirable state of affairs? I care most about process counterplans being fun, or, on the other side, word games before fun, or at least an idiomatic skill.

I am a little higher on theory than I used to be, because I realized that competition alone cannot elegantly exclude game-breaking counterplans, like those which fiat both the federal government and the states, or private actors. But I am still mostly in the "get good" school, and am fine for the neg on most questions. Then again, theory is a technical matter like any other, and in fact more susceptible to fatal drops, and so it's still probably worth the time.

Conditionality: Seven is clearly worse than two, but even seven isn't so bad. That said, the fashionable new answers to dispo are Russian misinformation meant to undermine Hilary Clinton: "Plank spam" is answered by selectively permuting, and the definition is not vague: An advocacy is dispositional if it may only be kicked once the aff reads a perm or theory against it.

RVIs: Stupid, but don't warrant suspension of the law of tech over truth.

Judgekick: Truthfully good, but no different than everything else in vulnerability to technical debating.

Text vagueness: Concern is overheated. The neg should write texts as vague as they can get away with, but counterplans should probably be policies. Normal means determines what the counterplan does; sufficiently vague ones may factually do something unrelated to neg solvency claims.

DAs:

Again Rafael: "I don’t understand the moral panic about politics, ‘generic’ DAs, or links to fiat. A disadvantage is just some negative consequence the plan brings about. The nature of that consequence is entirely irrelevant except to the extent it affects the substantive magnitude of the impact." And again, you should go for the argument that maximizes your chance of victory.

Zero risk will probably only be achieved through judge instruction, or expired uniqueness, or some sort of plan flaw. But even then, how can I be sure that I'm not only hallucinating it's not 2016? Or that the author of the card didn't accidentally cite the wrong bill? Truthfully, I think this logic is suspect, but the reasons why that are commonly discussed in round are unimpressive.

Case:

See the note on PTIV as well.

What fiat means is open to debate, but starts at durable, good faith passage. Circumvention is a theoretical, normative matter whose viability varies by the topic.

Presumption is the procedure for adjudicating a tie, not deference to the status quo through "least change." Of course, it may behoove the neg to advocate the "least change" standard.

Analytics can defeat many advantages (but probably won't get them to zero).

Soft left affs will likely struggle. The more the "framing" arguments are defense (even if not in the traditional sense), the more successful they will be. Strategies that grant that the plan causes extinction but plead that other issues matter more hardly even need to be answered... judges are licensed to do obvious impact calculus in almost every policy debate...

Impact turns/misc. arguments:

Debate is a voluntary, competitive game centered on disagreement, which means that, of all scholastic activities, it must be the most permissive in speech. I must be a responsible supervisor of high school students, but I also have a responsibility to ensure fairness between competitors, as measured by technical, openminded, and impartial judging to the best of my ability. Relatedly, skill in the art of debate requires the cultivation of mental toughness and the ability to countenance ideas that may be upsetting at first; it requires a philosophical tact and cognitive flexibility to take seriously a superficially ludicrous claim, or four. Debate should not be a place where scoffing is good enough, or where students are taught to run to an adult the moment they encounter something challenging--that is literally everywhere else. It should certainly not be a place where judges abandon logic and allow bad responses to defeat arguments they dislike. Not only would I undermine the fairness of the game were I to intervene against some arguments, I would also compromise the development of habits of mind that are sorely needed nowadays, and which, you'd hope, debate would provide....

If it's not clear: Yes, that includes the death good argument that all human life is worse than nonexistence on balance, so maximizing the number killed is good. It also includes spark and war good and liberal shibboleth bad and aliens and souls and libertarianism and yadda yadda. My views are no longer the in majority within our community which, although discouraging, has the silver lining that I am perfectly comfortable saying that if you would like judges to intervene on your behalf on those issues, you should strike me. You will still have the majority of other judges to choose from; I'd like to judge debates where teams have 'opted in' to the joy of nihilism.

(Also, it is not just that if you cannot beat bad arguments, you deserve to lose. Yes that, but not only. First, some 'bad' arguments are clearly reasonable, e.g. animal wipeout (conditional on utilitarianism). Second, and more important, bad arguments are what debate is for; the truth is self-promoting, and rhetoric, at bottom, can only beautify falsehoods. The point of debate is sophistry; it certainly isn't research, judging on what we churn out (or fail to) annually. Read Gorgias. Anyway, there is great beauty and richness and joy in the philosophical attitude, and the ability to try on different ways of seeing. The prevailing Stalinism makes me feel resentment and despair, or can you tell? It's OK, even good, that kids would end up with some bad ideas. I know that because, right now, they end up with more!)

Nonetheless, there is something gorgeous about teams defeating impact turns, defending the truth. Successfully parrying a 1NC full of garbage would make very pleased to vote aff, if they did, and has historically afforded my best points.

D-rules are not answered by "case outweighs," nor uniqueness, and instead require a defense of some kind of consequentialism or criticisms of deontology/rights. My guess is that on this topic, coercion is often answered very badly, and in that sense underrated....

Other issues:

Whether or not an argument is "generic" or has legitimately no bearing on how much the other team has to respond to it. Similarly, the threshold for answering a bad argument is only low in the sense that there exists a short 2AC that wins---it does not mean that arguments other than those 'true' responses are somehow better. So, even a long 2AC against something "stupid" or "generic" may still be unrecoverably poor... in fact, I have seen such 2ACs... Anything else is unfair (to competitors) and illogical.

I do not think it is advisable to send analytics....

On the flipside, if you only need one or a few arguments to win, why say more? No need to waste speech time, if you're right.

The 2NC is a constructive, and so wholly new case arguments and positions (including counterplans) may be read in it. The 1NR and 1AR do not get unjustified new arguments, although justifications are easy to come by, and include the other team making any new arguments. Similarly for cards. When extending, say, dropped theory, the extensions should also be blippy, to avoid making new arguments to which the aff can respond, or at least careful to avoid them, demarcating which kinds of new arguments may be allowed. When an argument is truthfully new or illegitimate, you do not need to respond to it, other than to point that out.

Dropped arguments that make the other team's thing zero risk cannot be recovered from, assuming the team that made them doesn't own goal themselves. Sometimes there was nothing the rebuttals could've done! Focusing on improving your speeches is often a cope--the 2AC/block is generally more tractable and outcome-determinative....

Don't do the annoying echo thing--if you need your partner to say something, the ideal is that you type it in a Google Doc to which they alt tab when you tell them to. If it's not written down, then I will flow the speaking partner until it becomes excessive, after which I won't flow it at all. The only reason you should repeat them is if it wasn't audible. Obviously, this is bad for your ethos and you should try to avoid it.

he/him/his

Pronounced phonetically as DEB-nil. Not pronounced "judge", "Mister Sur", or "deb-NEIL".

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains. If you have my personal email, don't put it on the email chain. Sensible subject please.

Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. I don't think I'd ever be in a setting where I'm the sole lay judge. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread.

Resolving Debates: Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor.

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the speech doc when online. I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

I take an above-average time to decide debates. My decision time has little relationship with the debate's closeness, and more with the time of day and my sleep deprivation. I usually start 5-10 minutes after the 2AR, so I can stretch my legs and let the debate marinate in my head. Debaters work hard, and I reciprocate that effort in making decisions. My decisions themselves are quite short. Most debates come down to 2-4 arguments, and I will identify those and explain my resolution. You're welcome to post-round. It can't change my decision, but I want to learn and improve as a judge and thinker too.

General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018. I am involved in strategy and research and have coached both policy and K debaters to the TOC. I am, quite literally, a "framer", as a member of the national topic wording committee. Before that, I read policy arguments as a 2N at Bellarmine and did youth debate outreach (e.g., SVUDL) as a student at Stanford.

I've judged many excellent debates. Ideologically, I would say I'm 60/40 policy-leaning. I think my voting records don't reflect this, because K debaters tend to see the bigger picture in clash rounds.

Topic Background: I judge and coach regularly and am fully aware of national circuit trends. I'm less in the weeds as many other coaches. I don't cut as many cards as I did in the pandemic years, and I don't work at debate camp.

If you're reading the web3 UBI affirmative, I implemented one of the first CBDC pilots back in 2018/19. If you know what you're talking about, I'm the best possible judge. But if you don't, I'll be much more easily persuaded by the negative, especially on the case debate.

Voting Splits: As of the end of the water topic, I have judged 304 rounds of VCX at invitationals over 9 years. 75 of these were during college; 74 during immigration and arms sales at West Coast invitationals; and 155 on CJR and water, predominantly at octafinals bid tournaments.

Below are my voting splits across the (synthetic) policy-K divide, where the left team represents the affirmative, as best as I could classify debates. Paradigm text can be inaccurate self-psychoanalysis, so I hope the data helps.

I became an aff hack on water. Far too often, the 2AR was the first speech doing comparative analysis instead of reading blocks. I hope this changes as we return to in-person debate.

Water

Policy v. Policy - 18-13: 58% aff over 31 rounds

Policy v. K - 20-18: 56% aff over 38 rounds

K v. Policy - 13-8: 62% aff over 21 rounds

K v. K - 1-1, 50% aff over 2 rounds

Lifetime

Policy v. Policy - 67-56: 55% for the aff over 123 rounds

Policy v. K - 47-52: 47% for the aff over 99 rounds

K v. Policy - 36-34: 51% for the aff over 70 rounds

K v. K - 4-4: 50% for the aff over 8 rounds

Online Debate:

1. I'd prefer your camera on, but won't make a fuss.

2. Please check verbally and/or visually with all judges and debaters before starting your speech.

3. If my camera's off, I'm away, unless I told you otherwise.

Speaker Points: I flow on my computer, but I do not use the speech doc. I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

2. I will vote for the team whose impact comparison most clearly answers the debate's central question. This typically comes down to the affirmative making negative engagement more difficult versus the neg forcing problematic affirmative positions. You are best served developing 1-2 pieces of offense well, playing defense to the other team's, and telling a condensed story in the final rebuttals.

3. Anything can be an impact---do what you do best. My teams typically read a limits/fairness impact and a procedural clash impact. From Dhruv Sudesh: "I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments."

4. Each team should discuss what a year of debate looks like under their models in concrete terms. Arguments like "TVA", "switch-side debate", and "some neg ground exists" are just subsets of this discussion. It is easy to be hyperbolic and discuss the plethora of random affirmatives, but realistic examples are especially persuasive and important. What would your favorite policy demon (MBA, GBN, etc.) do without an agential constraint? How does critiquing specific policy reforms in a debate improve critical education? Why does negative policy ground not center the affirmative's substantive conversation?

5. As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote affirmative. This especially happens when impact turning topicality---negatives do not seem to catch on yet.

6. I quite enjoy leveraging normative positions from 1AC cards for substantive disadvantages or impact turns. This requires careful link explanation by the negative but can be incredibly strategic. Critical affirmatives claim to access broad impacts based on shaky normative claims and the broad endorsement of a worldview, rather than a causal method; they should incur the strategic cost.

7. I am a better judge for presumption and case defense than most. It is often unclear to me how affirmatives solve their impacts or access their impact turns on topicality. The negative should leverage this more.

8. I occasionally judge K v K debates. I do not have especially developed opinions on these debates. Debate math often relies on causality, opportunity cost, and similar concepts rooted in policymaking analysis. These do not translate well to K v K debates, and the team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus typically wins. While the notion of "opportunity cost" to a method is still mostly nonsensical to me, I can be convinced either way on permutations' legitimacy.

Kritiks:

1. I do not often coach K teams but have familiarity with basically all critical arguments.

2. Framework almost always decides this debate. While I have voted for many middle-ground frameworks, they make very little strategic sense to me. The affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge actually compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? As a result, I am much better for "hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik.

3. I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.

4. If the kritik is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.

5. I will not evaluate non-falsifiable statements about events outside the current debate. Such an evaluation of minors grossly misuses the ballot. Strike me if this is a core part of your strategy.

Topicality:

1. This is about the plan text, not other parts of the 1AC. If you think the plan text is contrived to be topical, beat them on the PIC out of the topic and your topic DA of choice.

2. This is a question of which team's vision of the topic maximizes its benefits for debaters. I compare each team's interpretation of the topic through an offense/defense lens.

3. Reasonability is about the affirmative interpretation, not the affirmative case itself. In its most persuasive form, this means that the substance crowdout caused by topicality debates plus the affirmative's offense on topicality outweighs the offense claimed by the negative. This is an especially useful frame in debates that discuss topic education, precision, and similar arguments.

4. Any standards are fine. I used to be a precision stickler. This changed after attending topic meetings and realizing how arbitrarily wording is chosen.

5. From Anirudh Prabhu: "T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet." Topicality 101---the violation is a negative burden. If there's some uncertainty, I almost certainly vote aff with a decent "we meet" explanation.

Theory:

1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.

2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.

3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.

4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.

Counterplans:

1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.

2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.

3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on. That said, if everyone is just spreading blocks, I usually end up negative on the ink. Block to 2NR is easier to trace than 1AR to 2AR.

4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!

5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Absent this instruction, if there is an advocacy in the 2NR and I do not judge kick it when deciding, I'm probably not voting on presumption.

6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo. (To be honest, this has never mattered in a debate I've judged, and it amuses me that judge kick is such a common paradigm section.)

Disadvantages:

1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.

2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.

4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.

Ethics:

1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.

2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.

3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.

4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.

5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.

IMPORTANT: I will only vote on an ethics violation about previously-read evidence (missing an author, missing a year, paragraph missing but no distortion, etc) if the team alleging the violation has evidence that they contacted the other team and told them about the issue. Clearly, you had the time to look up the article. As a community, we should assume good faith in citation, and let the other team know. And people should not be punished for cards they did not cut. But if they still are reading faulty evidence, even after being told, that's certainly academic malpractice.

Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.

6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.

2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.

3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.

4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.

5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.

6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.

Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.

Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!

Competitive Experience: Thomas Jefferson High School (2010 - 2014), 2014 ToC (4-3, top quintile speaker).

Coaching Experience: Lowell High School (2023 - Present).

Email Chain: Yes, richard.wang.debate [at] gmail.com; please cc lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com

Online Debate

I prefer camera on but don't really care, I spend my entire working life on Zoom calls. Please check verbally or visually with all participants prior to starting your speech. Assume I'm away if my camera is off unless I tell you otherwise.

Outlook on Debate

Just do what you're good at. Nobody is a blank canvas but if you're making complete arguments I do not care what those arguments are or how they are created. I was a lazy debater and am a lazy judge, which should frame your reading of this paradigm. However, substance generally means higher speaks.

In HS, Shree was my coach and I was double 2s - my philosophy has been shaped by that experience. If you want to have a technical K v K debate, I would love to judge it.

I will only evaluate arguments pertaining to the round. Out of round ad homs are a loser and will result in a loss of speaker points.

This is impacted out further down, but I really prefer judging a debate where (1) both teams follow the LBL on each flow after overviews (if relevant) and (2) hard number substantially all arguments. This (1) makes it easier for everyone to follow and evaluate the debate and (2) saves me time as I flow on paper and want to spend my mental energy on the substance of your arguments and evidence vs. piecing together the flow during and after the round.

Tech > Truth. Every argument is functionally the same, assume I will vote based directly off where the flow is headed unless you make arguments such as "you shouldn't flow" and impact them out. Virtually nothing you can possibly say argumentatively will offend me personally, if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose. However, be a good human, this is still an educational space and people should feel personally safe.

Spin > Evidence. Properly deploying evidence in round is better than having me read it. If you tell me to read evidence post-round, It's your onus to get me to read your evidence and 2R evidence should be assembled in a card doc. But, spin only gets you so far and I will close read evidence. More below.

Claim + Warrant + Impact. If you don't present a complete and properly impacted argument, I wont vote for it. The flip-side of this is that if there is uncontested offense on the flow, I will pull the trigger regardless of quality. I will happily pull the trigger on a conceded 15 second theory argument that is properly impacted by the 2R.

I will evaluate procedurals and in-round offense first unless you convince me otherwise.

Presumption and/or Terminal Defense are real. I believe there can be 0% risk of solvency, 0% risk of an impact, 0% risk of uniqueness etc.

I prefer a Technical Knockout (TKO) whenever possible. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, including the 2NR) and explain why it is 100% unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T/SPEC argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out. Be mindful of context: calling this against materially less experience debaters in presets looks worse than against an experienced team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back to rest and prep, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

Specific Arguments

The best debates are when there is (1) substantive contestation of the arguments and (2) all participants leave the debate learning something new. Impact turns are also fun and easy to judge.

Debate Theory: just because something is in the meta right now doesn't mean it's the default. I generally evaluate theory arguments in a single round vacuum. If you properly impact out the 2R, substantially all theory arguments are winners. If you don't do so and expect me to vote on implied impacting through the meta, I'll move on to substance.

Procedurals: both T and kritikal ones are great if they are properly impacted out in the 2Rs (even if it's "You Aren't Taoist").

Case: I love deep case debates and more Ks should be case args.

CPs/CAs: having 10 reasons why 1 perm is good is better than 1 reason why 10 perms are good. Substance > spam. More Ks should be CPs/CAs.

DAs: more Ks should be DAs.

Ks: I get that the meta is generally a framework argument. However, I would much rather have a substantive debate on "prior questions" supported by the literature (vs. debate theory), methods, and/or impact turns - this is why more Ks should be CPs/CAs and DAs. Quoting Kilpatrick: "I'm less likely to think "extinction outweighs, 1% risk" is as good as you think it is, most of the time the team reading the K gives up on this because they for some reason think this argument is unbeatable, so it ends up mattering in more rfds than it should". Critical ecology is not a loser with me, and I think its exit from the debate meta does not match "actual" academic spaces.

Speaks

They are subjective and everything you do matters. I like to be entertained, whether it be through humor or an artfully executed strategic vision.

I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

I will substantially award going 1:1 down the LBL vs. just reading blocks all over the flow - especially because I flow on paper like a dinosaur.

Although tech > truth, I will reward deeply understood arguments backed by thoughtful evidence.

Speaker point inflation has been very real, and it makes me sad. However, I will not to be a demon.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

Personal History Informing Debate

As a debater: generally procedural and kritikal in nature.

As a student:

BA in Economics and Political Philosophy from Cornell University (2017). I have taken graduate level courses in relevant kritikal topics like legal economics, continental philosophy, historical materialism, fem IR, and critical theory (Frankfurt, race, ethnicity, gender, ecology, penal).

I won't punish you if you fundamentally misunderstand theory, but I will grant speaker points for those that really do get it and use it to their advantage in a round. I will tell you after the round if you misunderstood. Hint: Marxist literature kritiks socialism, communism is not socialism.

Please talk to me about Cornell or a degree in Economics and/or Political Philosophy if you're interested!

As a homo economicus:

I currently am an executive at a financial technology company and previously was a hedge fund investor specializing in long/short equity and special situations. I have a deep "practicioner's" understanding of relevant policy topics such as rates, inflation, "financialization good", and tech generally. I have heterodox thoughts on the implementation of MMT.

I won't punish you if you fundamentally misunderstand economics, but I will grant speaker points for those that really do get it and use it to their advantage in a round. I will tell you after the round if you misunderstood. Hint: the internal link between monetary policy and economic activity is the cost of capital of market participants.

Please talk to me about Finance & Tech if you're interested!

Olathe Northwest '22 and current debater at Gonzaga University.

If you have questions about anything, email me at kaelyn.a.w@gmail.com.

General:

I will NEVER vote for ableism/sexism/racism/homophobia good or anything similar, and will vote you down the second I hear it. Do what you're most comfortable with, I would much rather see you perform at your best than try to adapt to me.

Disadvantages:

I think DAs are one of your best take outs on the aff's case. I'm fine with general DAs but if they aren't specific to the case you should have good evidence that clearly outlines the link. I will vote on pretty much any DA impact as long as you compare it to the affs and explain why yours is better and have the evidence to back it up.

Counterplans:

Counterplans should be competitive with the aff. Have a clear understanding of the perms and be able to defend how they are not viable options. If I believe that the CP can be permed I will not vote on it. (if you are aff pointing out logical flaws in the cp is a good way for me to flow it to you). If you are running DAs and a CP together, PLEASE pick a CP that doesn't link to the DAs. As long as you can convince me that the CP is better than the aff I may vote on it.

Topicality:

I fucking love T. IMO the interpretation is an internal link to accessing the impacts of the standards so I most usually default to competing interpretations. I'm sympathetic to fun ways of arguing t such as it being an RVI, so if you understand those args and can defend them I say go for it.

Kritiks:

God I love Kritiks. I frequently run them myself and am familiar with most of the literature behind common ones (Cap, Biopolitics, Critical Disability Studies, etc). I know the general concepts for others like Baudrillard but am not well versed so as a general rule make sure you have clear explanations. Your K should have a clear link to the aff, and I probably won't vote for it if there isn't one. I prefer functional alts, but have no problem with voting for the K as an independent DA if you choose to kick the alt. I find K debates super fun and interesting, so it may be a good choice if you're on the neg.

Framing:

FRAMING. FRAMING. FRAMING. Explain to me why your impact matters!!! This is key for both sides of the debate. If I believe the entirety of the aff and neg arguments because no real clash has taken place then it comes down to whoever has done the better job of showing why their impact is the most important.

Theory:

Don't run it if it's not warranted. I'm not a huge fan of voting on theory, but if the round comes down to it I will vote on it.

Olathe Northwest '22 and current debater at Gonzaga University.

If you have questions about anything, email me at kaelyn.a.w@gmail.com.

General:

I will NEVER vote for ableism/sexism/racism/homophobia good or anything similar, and will vote you down the second I hear it. Do what you're most comfortable with, I would much rather see you perform at your best than try to adapt to me.

Disadvantages:

I think DAs are one of your best take outs on the aff's case. I'm fine with general DAs but if they aren't specific to the case you should have good evidence that clearly outlines the link. I will vote on pretty much any DA impact as long as you compare it to the affs and explain why yours is better and have the evidence to back it up.

Counterplans:

Counterplans should be competitive with the aff. Have a clear understanding of the perms and be able to defend how they are not viable options. If I believe that the CP can be permed I will not vote on it. (if you are aff pointing out logical flaws in the cp is a good way for me to flow it to you). If you are running DAs and a CP together, PLEASE pick a CP that doesn't link to the DAs. As long as you can convince me that the CP is better than the aff I may vote on it.

Topicality:

I fucking love T. IMO the interpretation is an internal link to accessing the impacts of the standards so I most usually default to competing interpretations. I'm sympathetic to fun ways of arguing t such as it being an RVI, so if you understand those args and can defend them I say go for it.

Kritiks:

God I love Kritiks. I frequently run them myself and am familiar with most of the literature behind common ones (Cap, Biopolitics, Critical Disability Studies, etc). I know the general concepts for others like Baudrillard but am not well versed so as a general rule make sure you have clear explanations. Your K should have a clear link to the aff, and I probably won't vote for it if there isn't one. I prefer functional alts, but have no problem with voting for the K as an independent DA if you choose to kick the alt. I find K debates super fun and interesting, so it may be a good choice if you're on the neg.

Framing:

FRAMING. FRAMING. FRAMING. Explain to me why your impact matters!!! This is key for both sides of the debate. If I believe the entirety of the aff and neg arguments because no real clash has taken place then it comes down to whoever has done the better job of showing why their impact is the most important.

Theory:

Don't run it if it's not warranted. I'm not a huge fan of voting on theory, but if the round comes down to it I will vote on it.

Garfield 21 University of Washington 24

Add me on the email chain notchriswen@gmail.com

Debated 4 years for Garfield High School, one year as a 2N, 3 as a 2A. Primarily read policy arguments on the aff and kritikal arguments on the neg. Currently studying accounting and finance, if you are interested in pursuing those fields at UW feel free to ask me about that.

I would love to say that I am a tabula rasa judge, but my experiences through life and debate have shaped my views which I hope to outline. 99% of these thoughts can be easily flipped with good debating and judge instruction. Just don't read arguments like racism good.

Tech > truth

I wish I could say that I have a perfect flow, but I don't. I'm still a bit rusty, and my ears have gotten worse. Give me just a bit to adjust to your voice and speed. And if you can, either speak a bit louder than normal or speak closer to me.

Please don't make every little thing a voter, and then give me no reasons why it should be a voter.

General:

Read what arguments you can articulate the best. I will do my best to judge the round in a method that requires the least amount of intervention.

I love to see new creative arguments, especially on the negative side. Specific negative research against the case will be rewarded.

Please tell me the implications of you winning arguments, how does winning this argument on a flow impact the other arguments, how should I prioritize weighing?

Theory

I love a good theory debate. Most theory violations I default on reject the argument besides condo. Of course if you provide me a good reason with why rejecting the team should be done instead, I am happy to listen to it. I want to hear about the world of debate under your interpretation and why rejection of a team/argument would be better for your model of debate. Please don't make random small things voters. If you are going for a theory argument I need standards. Reject the team should be 5 minutes, if that is how you think you are going to win the round, I want to see committal.

Topicality

If you have done the research and have strong carded evidence with intent to define, I will be a good T judge. The more specific the evidence, the better. Use case lists and explain what your model of debate looks like. I strongly prefer topicality be debated when comparing about models of debate rather than in round abuses. This means I prefer education related standards over fairness. In situations where proof of abuse can be provided, go hard for fairness. I default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise. My default belief of reasonability for me is about how much of the negative's offense is resolved by the aff's counter interpretation, but again can be changed. Topicality is like theory where I think you should commit 5 minutes to it. If T is dropped, please still impact it out.

CPs

The more specific the CP, the better it will be. Fan of creative counterplans, but not as much of a fan of multiplank CPs. Condo can go anyway for me.

DAs

Love good disads. I want to hear a story, tell me the internal link scenarios that lead to your impact, and why each of those internal links makes your scenario likely in the world of the aff. Turns case analysis and comparing warrants will make it very easy to vote neg on a DA. I want to know why your DA scenario leads to a more likely war, a faster war, just tell me how your evidence's warrants are a unique scenario that the aff's defense won't apply to. I believe in terminal defense and zero risk can exist, an extremely low risk to me is most likely noise that will always exist. However, give me a reason to change that opinion and I will be happy to adjudicate differently based on guidance.

K

I am fine for Ks. I am slightly familiar with most common Ks, but please explain your arguments well. I especially want to hear about how the alternative solves the links, and what the alternative looks like. The more structured the alternative is, the more likely I am to vote on the alt. Be organized, do the analysis on the line by line, I would prefer to not have a long overview. If you do go for framework, go hard, do the weighing and explain to me how exactly you want me to weigh the aff vs the K or even weigh the aff at all. Otherwise, I'll default to some middle ground.

K Affs/FW

Honestly, not the best for K affs. I think that the topic of the K aff should be at the very least be related to the topic in some way. Secondly, I think presumption and SSD are both strong pushes against K affs. To win my ballot as a K aff, you have to win both those arguments, and not lose some impact on FW. As the neg, have a clear strategy for FW in terms of what terminal impact you go for, have a good TVA, etc.

sophiewilczynski at gmail dot com for email chains & specific questions.

I debated for UT austin from 2014-17 & have remained tangentially affiliated with the program since. my degree is in rhetoric, and as a debater I read a lot of big structural critiques and weird impact turns.

***

tldr: I have been doing this for a while. I don't really care what you say as long as you engage it well. do what you do best, make meaningful distinctions, & don't be rude while you're at it!

clarity matters, esp in the age of virtual debate. as long as I can understand what you are saying I shouldn’t have trouble getting it down - that being said, debaters have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate their own clarity, so just something to keep in mind. slowing down on procedurals, cp/alt texts, & author names is very much appreciated.

topicality - fun if you're willing to do the work to develop them properly. I think evidence comparison is a super under-utilized resource in T debates, and a lot of good teams lose to crappy interps for this reason. as with anything else, you need to establish & justify the evaluatory framework by which you would like me to assess your impacts. have a debate, don't just blast through ur blocks

disads/CPs - fine & cool. i find that huge generic gnw/extinction scenarios often don't hold up to the scrutiny and rigor of more isolated regional scenarios. will vote on terminal defense if I have a good reason to do so. pics are usually good

K debates - make a decision about the level at which your impacts operate and stick to it. and talk about the aff. this applies to both sides. the neg should be critiquing the affirmative, not merely identifying a structure and breaking down the implications without thorough contextualization. the mechanics of the alternative & the context in which it operates have to be clearly articulated and comparatively contextualized to the mechanics of 1AC solvency. i think a lot of murky & convoluted perm debates could be avoided with greater consideration for this - impact heuristics matter a lot when establishing competition (or levels of competition). likewise, blasting through thousands of variants of "perm do x" with no warrants or comparative explanation does not mean you have made a permutation. will vote on links as case turns, but will be unhappy about it if it's done lazily.

framework - i think it's good when the aff engages the resolution, but i don't have any particularly strong feelings about how that should happen

theory - if you must

misc

case matters, use it effectively rather than reading your blocks in response to nothing

i find myself judging a lot of clash debates, which is usually cool

prep ends when doc is saved

be nice & have fun

LINCOLN_DOUGLAS UPDATE 1/7/2023

I am clearly a policy judge even though i have judged some LD before and have seen many topics and am familiar with the basics like value, criteria, resolutional analysis, etc. What i have been finding is I need a story in the final rebuttals to win the ballot. Please don't just start the top of your last speech digging into the line-by-line. Please tell me why the line-by-line matters. You will have to concede arguments, more than likely, to win a competitive round so keep in mind that no debater wins every single argument in every single round. I need a comparative explanation of why you should win the round despite the fact that you are losing other arguments on the flow.

JAN/FEB TOPIC: I am finding that you will need more than terrorism, trafficking, or narcotics to win my ballot on the negative. Not to generalize, (that's kind of what we do in our paradigms) the argument has not been very persuasive to me, especially when the data indicates that citizens here commit violent crime at rates far exceeding the immigrant/refugee community. I don't wanna say that it would be impossible to win with this case on the negative, but just know that it might be a difficult and uphill venture. It sounds and feels kinda nativist, to say the least.

UPDATED 1/31/2021

I have been in policy debate since the early nineties. I debated at Gonzaga University in the late nineties. There's not a lot that i haven't seen in this activity. I cant even calculate how many rounds I have actually judged. Speed is obviously fine, if you need to be clearer I will tell you to do so as you are speaking. I really don't do this very often but it is a small issue now with online debate.

I need to be on the email chain and I super prefer flashing your theory arguments (if you really, really wanna win the round on them).

I will vote on framework arguments (AFF or NEG) i have no biases here. I really don't have any biases against arguments like K affirmatives, multiple CPs, condtionality....you name it, its debatable. I will vote on topicality and definitely will vote on stasis based arguments against K affirmatives that are clearly outside the resolution. (this isnt to say dont run non-topical critical Affs, i vote for them frequently.) I really like policy based CP and net benefits VS plan debates. I love a good (or bad) politics disad with super fresh/recent evidence and updates. I will vote on case turns (if they are unique, of course) this is a viable strategy for my ballot. I also like in depth/heavy case debates.

The most fundamental part of my paradigm is this: The debate round exists for the participants, not the judge. The affirmative or negative strategy should be based on what YOU like to run, what YOU feel is important, substantial, or an issue of prima facie concern. I can be persuaded to vote on any type of argument (topicality, critiques, framework, counterplan and net benefits VS the plan, even justification arguments) as long as clear voting issues and/or impact analysis is provided.

One of the best ways to win my ballot is to use “because-even if-because” argumentation. Here’s what I like to see in the last rebuttals:

“The affirmative/negative wins the round because (fill in the blank.) Even if the other team wins their arguments, we still win because (fill in the blank.) This is an old school paradigm that I picked up in the 90s from the late great Becky Galentine.

Furthermore, I need to see issue selection in the final rebuttals. Very rarely will you be winning every argument. Winning one vital argument soundly is better than winning small risks of numerous different impacts or disadvantages. The ability to concede arguments and “collapse down” into the key issues is often the difference when making my decision.

When clear impact analysis or voting issues are not delivered, I often find myself “reading into” your evidence to base my decision. This may help or hinder your case depending on the quality of your evidence. In other words, if your evidence does not say what you claim it does then I may have difficulty voting on the issue. When I cannot come to a clear decision in my mind and “on the flow”, I often look into your evidence for further assistance. At this point I often base my decisions on verbatim text from evidence read, not just taglines. I typically read a lot of evidence at the conclusion of the round. I often find myself voting based on "a preponderance of the evidence." Please make sure you are clear with the authors for each piece of key evidence so I know what to reference in my decision. If you call out an author in the last rebuttal I will almost certainly read that evidence.

Please be aware that i take a long time to decide almost every round. I am typically the last (or next to last) judge to turn in a ballot just about every time. I like to go over all arguments thoroughly.

Finally, I like to see creativity in the debate round. I will vote as a policy maker when put into that paradigm. I have no qualms doing so. Again, the round is yours, not mine. However, I can also be persuaded to vote on “outside the box” types of arguments and usually enjoy those debates immensely.

**Reach out to me via email after the round anytime for further answers regarding my reason for decision. I always save my flows.***

jhyake@hotmail.com

LINCOLN_DOUGLAS UPDATE 1/7/2023

I am clearly a policy judge even though i have judged some LD before and have seen many topics and am familiar with the basics like value, criteria, resolutional analysis, etc. What i have been finding is I need a story in the final rebuttals to win the ballot. Please don't just start the top of your last speech digging into the line-by-line. Please tell me why the line-by-line matters. You will have to concede arguments, more than likely, to win a competitive round so keep in mind that no debater wins every single argument in every single round. I need a comparative explanation of why you should win the round despite the fact that you are losing other arguments on the flow.

JAN/FEB TOPIC: I am finding that you will need more than terrorism, trafficking, or narcotics to win my ballot on the negative. Not to generalize, (that's kind of what we do in our paradigms) the argument has not been very persuasive to me, especially when the data indicates that citizens here commit violent crime at rates far exceeding the immigrant/refugee community. I don't wanna say that it would be impossible to win with this case on the negative, but just know that it might be a difficult and uphill venture. It sounds and feels kinda nativist, to say the least.

UPDATED 1/31/2021

I have been in policy debate since the early nineties. I debated at Gonzaga University in the late nineties. There's not a lot that i haven't seen in this activity. I cant even calculate how many rounds I have actually judged. Speed is obviously fine, if you need to be clearer I will tell you to do so as you are speaking. I really don't do this very often but it is a small issue now with online debate.

I need to be on the email chain and I super prefer flashing your theory arguments (if you really, really wanna win the round on them).

I will vote on framework arguments (AFF or NEG) i have no biases here. I really don't have any biases against arguments like K affirmatives, multiple CPs, condtionality....you name it, its debatable. I will vote on topicality and definitely will vote on stasis based arguments against K affirmatives that are clearly outside the resolution. (this isnt to say dont run non-topical critical Affs, i vote for them frequently.) I really like policy based CP and net benefits VS plan debates. I love a good (or bad) politics disad with super fresh/recent evidence and updates. I will vote on case turns (if they are unique, of course) this is a viable strategy for my ballot. I also like in depth/heavy case debates.

The most fundamental part of my paradigm is this: The debate round exists for the participants, not the judge. The affirmative or negative strategy should be based on what YOU like to run, what YOU feel is important, substantial, or an issue of prima facie concern. I can be persuaded to vote on any type of argument (topicality, critiques, framework, counterplan and net benefits VS the plan, even justification arguments) as long as clear voting issues and/or impact analysis is provided.

One of the best ways to win my ballot is to use “because-even if-because” argumentation. Here’s what I like to see in the last rebuttals:

“The affirmative/negative wins the round because (fill in the blank.) Even if the other team wins their arguments, we still win because (fill in the blank.) This is an old school paradigm that I picked up in the 90s from the late great Becky Galentine.

Furthermore, I need to see issue selection in the final rebuttals. Very rarely will you be winning every argument. Winning one vital argument soundly is better than winning small risks of numerous different impacts or disadvantages. The ability to concede arguments and “collapse down” into the key issues is often the difference when making my decision.

When clear impact analysis or voting issues are not delivered, I often find myself “reading into” your evidence to base my decision. This may help or hinder your case depending on the quality of your evidence. In other words, if your evidence does not say what you claim it does then I may have difficulty voting on the issue. When I cannot come to a clear decision in my mind and “on the flow”, I often look into your evidence for further assistance. At this point I often base my decisions on verbatim text from evidence read, not just taglines. I typically read a lot of evidence at the conclusion of the round. I often find myself voting based on "a preponderance of the evidence." Please make sure you are clear with the authors for each piece of key evidence so I know what to reference in my decision. If you call out an author in the last rebuttal I will almost certainly read that evidence.

Please be aware that i take a long time to decide almost every round. I am typically the last (or next to last) judge to turn in a ballot just about every time. I like to go over all arguments thoroughly.

Finally, I like to see creativity in the debate round. I will vote as a policy maker when put into that paradigm. I have no qualms doing so. Again, the round is yours, not mine. However, I can also be persuaded to vote on “outside the box” types of arguments and usually enjoy those debates immensely.

**Reach out to me via email after the round anytime for further answers regarding my reason for decision. I always save my flows.***

jhyake@hotmail.com

Email Chain: benjaminye[dot]email[at]gmail[dot]com

School Affiliations: Eastlake High School ('22), Northwestern University ('26 +- 1)

Topic Knowledge: 6/10---worked with Northwestern's camp this past summer, but haven't really followed the topic since. Err towards overexplanation.

Top:
Debate how you debate best. Preferences are outweighed by clear and effective argumentation.
I'm still trying to sort out my takes on debate broadly. The rest of this paradigm is a list of my thoughts so far:

Non-negotiables:
- I will try to flow to the best of my ability. Numbering, distinct tags, and pen time are great; full speed analytics, long paragraphs, and lawn mower spreading are not
- Please don't literally break debate (speech times, double wins, etc.)
- Rehighlightings should be read for me to evaluate them
- Arguments need to pass the "I can explain it back in the RFD" test

Argument biases:
- Yes judge kick. Consider this the strongest bias on this paradigm
- Conditionality is probably good
- Probably more receptive to counterplan shenanigans than most (cardless CPs, 2NC CPs, CPing out of straight turns, etc.)
- Rejecting the argument is probably sufficient for theory (barring T and conditionality)
- Fairness is probably an impact
- Teams should probably defend some model of debate

Misc:
- I'm relatively visual with facial expressions
- I think I care more than average about clarity, especially on card text
- Will call clear twice before just not flowing, it's on you to figure that out beyond that point
- No -isms, please---I'll err on the side of playing things out but will vote you down if it threatens the safety of anyone in the round
- If you're marking a billion cards, please do so as you're reading them---doing so before cx burns an abhorrent amt of time
- I am uninterested in adjudicating arguments about things that happened outside the round
- My scale for speaks still needs calibration, will try to aim for 28.6-ish for 3-3 bracket but please don't read into them too much
- (Online) Camera off = not here and not ready

Debater for Georgetown (2024-)

Assistant Coach and Researcher for Banneker/Washington Urban Debate League (2023-)

American University '27 (Public Health)

Woodward Academy '23

Email Chain: jayyoon35@gmail.com

Jay, not judge.

Individuals who have influenced parts of my paradigm:

Maggie Berthiaume

Bill Batterman

Sam Wombough

Zaria Jarman

Jack Hightower

David Trigaux

Liv Birnstad

Top Level

Good luck!

Be nice, have fun, don't clip, and learn something from the round.

Extinction first/extinction good is unethical and never prioritized.

Send analytics.

If I cannot flow an argument, it does not count as one.

If an argument does not have a warrant, it is not an argument.

Clash > Tricks

Truth = Tech

Accessibility

Have a way to share ev if one team is using paper.

Don't read args with graphic descriptions unless everyone in the round is fine with it.

Don't spread if speed is not accessible to your opponents.

Biases

As debate is a persuasive activity, confidence and intelligent arguments are important. While every judge has their own biases, which are subject to change over time, here are some of mine:

Death/suffering is bad

War is bad

Climate change is real and exacerbated daily

Discrimination and violence in any form is bad.

1NC

Hiding ASPEC is bad; therefore the aff is permitted to briefly address it and move on. not auto-neg even if dropped.

Case

I will consider voting on complete defense if there is minimal/no risk of aff solvency.

Case turns are good.

Don't forget about impact framing.

Disadvantages

If the DA is incomplete, it is not an argument. The 1AR gets new answers when the missing part/s are added.

The link is the most important part of the DA. I will not disregard the importance of the UQ and impact despite that.

Politics DAs are structurally flawed and rely upon a flawed model of politics. The aff can easily mitigate the risk by pointing out and emphasizing these flaws. Intrinsic DAs are better for neg ground and clash throughout the round so I might not be the best judge if your 2NRs are mostly politics.

Turns case is useful but it needs to be developed further in the overview/line-by-line.

Impact/Case Turns

I enjoy them, assuming they aren't offensive/morally objectionable. Winning an impact turn will require some defense to mitigate the risk of the case.

Counterplans

States: Don't leave D.C. out of texts or advocacy statements. Uniformity is unrealistic

Have a relevant solvency advocate in the 1NC; if the neg reads a specific solvency advocate in the block (as opposed to the 1NC), the aff gets new answers.

CPs should fiat a specific policy, not an outcome.

Process and Agent CPs: Arguments on the competition flow are likely more persuasive than theory but theory args can complement competition args if warranted out properly.

Critiques

Ks are particularly significant for this year's topic. The Ks I'm most familiar with include degrowth/growth bad (both as a K and DA/impact turn), settler colonialism, capitalism/neoliberalism, and security. Moving toward higher theory literature such as Psychoanalysis or Baudrillard is where I might start to get lost.

I will default to weighing the aff/perm against the alt. Neg teams can read links stemming from the aff's actions , defense of impacts, as well as the mechanism/ representations (without becoming a PIK). I think that PIKs out of the aff’s reps are only competitive if the neg proves that the aff’s reps are bad. If the aff wins their reps are good, I’m much more like to vote aff on a perm.

Explain the links and alt level and distinguish them from a vague and potentially utopian outcome.

K Affs

I have only been negative against critical affs.

Defend the entirety of your 1AC, including your authors and concepts forwarded.

There is a higher threshold for perms when the neg has specific links/the aff has a vaguer advocacy.

Fairness can be an impact depending on how it's argued. Even if not, it is a large internal link to other impacts.

Topicality

Not the best judge for T vs policy affs.

Plan text in a vacuum is a bad argument.

T is not a reverse voting issue.

Procedurals

Likely not a voting issue unless dropped and warranted.

Disclosure is good.

Plans should not be vague to the point where it is undebatable.

Hiding APSEC/theory is a good way to lose speaker points.

Theory

Condo: I'm comfortable voting aff if there are at least two conditional advocacies. It's also the only reason to reject the team unless warranted out in explicit detail. Condo also becomes more persuasive when combined with args like perf con. Make sure to distinguish between conditional (judge kick is not permitted) and the status quo is a logical option (judge kick is permitted) when stating the interp.

Good theory debating requires good line-by-line.

If you still have questions, feel free to ask before the round starts.

I am currently a Policy Debater at Gonzaga University and am coaching at Niles West High School

TLDR

Yes email chain - tzdebatestuff@gmail.com

Time yourself and time your opponents

I have experience with most types of arguments but don't assume I have read your author/lit already. Explain your theory/complex legal args in language that is understandable

Impact calc wins rounds

speed is fine but outside of policy it's cringe

Tech over truth within reason (ie a dropped arg with no warrant or impact doesnt matter)

I don't care at all what you say and will vote on anything that is not immediately and obviously violent

Not a fan of the super-aggressive debate style - unless executed perfectly it comes off as cringe 99.9% of the time

Judge instruction please

T

Some of the most interesting debates I have judged have been T debates against policy teams. In a perfect world the negative should explain what the in round implications of the untypical aff were as well and probably more importantly what it would mean for debate if their interpretation was the new norm.

Going for T doesnt mean you cant extend a case turn youre winning

I probably agree that a ton of small affs would be bad

FW

I have read both policy and K affs but recently have been reading majorly critical arguments

Debating about debate is cool but if it is distracting from x scholarship it is less cool

Bad K affs are not cool but good K affs are cool

K affs that don't address the resolution/stem from topic research are not good

I find myself pretty split in FW v K Aff debates. If the aff sufficiently answers/turns FW I have no problem voting aff to forward a new model of debate. I find this specifically true when the 1AC has built-in or at least inferential answers to fw that they can deploy offensively.

At the same time if the negative does good FW debating and justifies the limits their model imposes I feel good voting on FW. I am not convinced that reading FW in and of itself is violent though I recognize the impact these arguments may have on x scholarship which means that when this gets explained I am down to evaluate the impacts of reading these types of arguments but I don't think its a morally bankrupt argument to go for or anything like that.

Debate bad as an argument is not convincing to me, we are all here by free will and we all love debate or at the very least think it is a good academic activity. This does not mean you cannot convince me that there are problems within the community .

Switch side debate probably solves your impact turn to framework - affs that undercover SSD put themselves in a really tough spot. I often find myself rewarding strategic 2NR decisions that collapse on SSD or the TVA (or another argument you may be winning).

Theory

Theory is good.

If you read like 6 reasons to reject the team I think some warrants are necessary. ex:"Reject the team, utopian fiat bad" is not an argument

If you are going to go for a theory arg in a final rebuttal ensure your partner extended it substantially enough for you to have adequate arguments to go for or give a nuanced speech on the specific args extended by your partner - generalized rebuttals on theory are bad. At the same time I am cool with hailmary rebuttals on theory because you are getting destroyed in every other part of the debate

I tend to lean neg on condo stuff but not by much

Will vote on perf con

Dont read your theory blocks at 2 million wpm

Bonus points for contextualizing your theory args to the round they are being deployed in

If you want to go for theory spend more than 7 seconds on it when you are first deploying the argument

K

Cool with a 1 off and case strat

Kritiks are cool

Vague alts are annoying and if I cant understand how the alt solves case and you don't have good case stuff I am gonna have a tough time voting neg unless the link debate implicates that (and is articulated)

Explain links in clear terms and be specific to the aff you are hitting. Specific links are better than generic like state bad links but if you have a generic link please explain to me how the aff uniquely makes the situation WORSE not just that it doesnt make it better - these are different things

I am totally cool with performance and love me some affect but if you are reading cards about how performance is key to X and your whole "performance" is playing like 10 seconds of a song before your 1AC and you don't reference it again then I am cool voting neg on "even if performance is good yall's was trash" (assuming this arg is made lol)

Winning FW is huge but you still need to leverage it as a reason for me to vote on X. Just because you are "winning" FW doesn't mean I know how you want me to evaluate args under this paradigm. So, when you think you are winning FW explain how that implicates my role as the judge.

CP

CPs are great but 10 plank conditional counterplans are kinda silly.

2nc CPs (or CP amendments) are lit

Advantage CP defender

DA

DAs are awesome and CP DA strat is a classic

UQ is extremely important to me. A lot of links are ignorant to UQ so explain the link in the context of the UQ you are reading

Explain your impact scenario clearly - bad internal links to terminal impacts r crazzzzzy

PF

I did PF in HS but it was trad so I am likely going to evaluate the round through a policy lens.

Will vote on theory

Cool with K stuff

LD

Pretty much same as PF - never did LD but I have judged it a ton so I will likely judge how you instruct me to but default to a policy lens.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Debate is hard and stressful but relax and be confident and have fun!

Feel free to email me with any questions tzdebatestuff@gmail.com

she/her

interlake '23, umich '27

background: I did policy debate for all of high school & am not debating in college, 2A/1N.

add me to the chain: anniemz111@gmail.com & interlakescouting@googlegroups.com

top level:

gonzaga: don't have any topic knowledge so please over-explain topic concepts or community consensus arguments and break down acronyms

speed is fine, just be clear.

tech > truth (if you drop something, it's true), but you need to fully extend the argument & explain why whatever they dropped matters.

judge instruction in the rebuttals will be rewarded -- you should frame my ballot and make clear a win condition for the aff/neg. I really enjoy "even if" statements.

read whatever you are best at, just don't be offensive but I highly prefer smart, well-researched arguments over spamming silly off (looking @ con con & nga).

read rehighlightings if it's a new argument, you can insert if it's an evidence indict/for a k link

love when people number args!!

pet peeves:

- not responding to opponent's arguments/warrants

- word salad highlighting

- talking over other people excessively in cx

- non-word docs (pdf, gdocs, etc.) & speech drop

- "3..2..1.."

- calling me judge

- not timing yourselves

theory:

very neg leaning on condo, am not the best judge for condo debates but i could still evaluate it. however, i won't vote for any other theory unless it's dropped (still need to extend fully though). slow down when reading theory blocks.

aspec = -1 speaks

t:

i dislike plan text in a vacuum but still answer it.

give case lists to your interpretations

do impact calculus

affs:

dislike generic framing pages, enjoy cohesive internal link chains

cp:

loveeee

affs send out perm texts!

cp's need solvency advocates in the 1NC, dislike stupid adv cp planks

highly enjoy well-executed and strategic competition debates, i think it is much more effective than theory

impact out solvency deficits

will not default judge kick

LOVE cps specific to AFF

da:

good, 0 risk is a thing

love good evidence here

k:

do not read death good. not good for k v k debates or high-theory/pomo debates.

ins:

extinction outweighs (can be convinced otherwise with good debating):

alts

links highly contextualized to the AFF.

impact comparison

neg impacts on fwk about research/epistemology (not good for in-round psychic violence impacts)

outs:

"you link you lose"

copy pasting blocks especially 2NR

random backfiles

k affs:

not the best for this

love innovative/k aff-specific neg strategies, SSD, & TVA

prefer education impacts on t