Pembroke Hill '26

Add me to the email chain: hboyle26@pembrokehill.org

he/him

Second year of Policy Debate

NATO, Fiscal Redistribution

My way of evaluating debates has been largely influenced by Parker Hopkins, Justin Smith, Alicia Stout, and Jimmy O'Connell

I really love debate and love to judge people who feel the same!

General

Tech > Truth

I feel like the impact debate has become a lost art

I love the link debate

Whatever speed is fine

Please put analytics in the Speechdoc

Clarity > Speed, I will call out "Clear" three times per speech before I stop flowing

My usual 2NR is case turn + DA + CP

Make sure you do a lot of judge instruction if you want me to vote for you

My starting speaks are 28.5

I enjoy passionate debates/debaters, and will add speaker points if you are aggressive

No homophobia, racism, sexism, any hate in general

Policy

T's

Don't just throw a T out there to get a T out there

I honestly like reasonability arguments from the AFF, but I think it is fairly easy for the NEG to convince me otherwise

Framer's Intent (only if your evidence is very, very good) > Precision = Ground = Limits > Predictability (explain to me in round which I should prefer)

K's, K AFFs, FW, and Theory

I used to consider myself a policy debater, but have started to shift my debating

If you go for real world arguments, you will have to prove to me that there will be an impact

Im still on the side that the Aff should be allowed to weigh their plan, but can be convinced otherwise

If theres not a clear or good link, its gonna be a lot harder to get my ballot

My usual 1AR was FW, Extinction o/w, Cap Good (if applicable)

Saying fairness is an I/L and not an impact is like saying nuke war is an I/L and not an impact

K Affs are cool, but really try to relate to the resolution

T is the way to go

I think theory in any facet is important to debate

Condo is probably good

DA

If you do good job explaining how the DA o/w + turns case, I WILL BE VERY HAPPY

But the impact debate is usually stale on DA's, so I tend to evaluate the link debate the most

CP

The Aff lets the Neg get away with too much stuff with CP's

I have developed a love for good PICs and Advantage CP's

Don't read a cheaty or basic CP and your speaks will reflect that

Case

I really like Inherency arguments

I am a big fan of rehighlights

A 2NR with lots of case will always make me happy

Please do impact calc in the 2NR/2AR

Anything Else

I am happy to discuss my thoughts further before rounds if you ask

I flow CX

PFD

I competed in PFD for one year during Middle School

Just weigh your impacts and have good links, and whoever does that better will win

Most likely I won't know too much about the topic, so explain it well in round

LD

I have never competed in LD, but I know the basics of the style of debate

Thank you for reading and good luck!!!

I have been a debate coach for 11 years. In policy, I prefer traditional stock issue and policy-maker arguments.

Respect, professionalism, real knowledge and true confidence reflect my style. I will not reveal winners at the end of a round. My judging is fair and unbiased. If you are rude during the round that will be considered unprofessional. Respect for your opponent is a factor in my decision making. Seeking opinions from me after the round will not be given.

Speaking rate should be normal. Focus on quality of arguments and clash. Formulate accurate analyses of evidence: what does it mean for the resolution? Civility and poise under all circumstances is appreciated.

I'm a stock issues judge.

I prefer analytics and not having a million arguments speed read to me, unless the argument files are being shared with me directly.

I LOVE DISADVANTAGES.

I'm not a fan of Counter-plans. I've come to believe that the negative should be defending the status quo, not trying to change it, which is the affirmative's job.

Kritiks are tricky. If they are run well and are understood, they can be effective. Please do not try to run a Kritik for the sake of adding more arguments.

I'm a fan of well thought out arguments and the analytics that support your logic and reasoning.

Quality arguments over quantity.

pembroke hill '24

add me to the chain: joconnell24@pembrokehill.org

fourth year of policy debate

tl;dr

1. you do you -- read what you want and I'll flow it -- "I think have a higher bar for a complete argument that the average judge and some may say I care more about the "truth" side of "tech over truth." This is not necessarily about content, but about argument development/evidence/persuasion." -- Jimin Park

2. impact weighing and judge instruction is important

3. i ran exclusively policy positions on the aff and a mix of policy and k on the neg (CJR, Water, NATO, FR)

4. this topic seems to have an issue with plan vagueness and i don't really want to vote for a team who doesn't know what their plan really does or how it is funded

5. i like debate a lot. i watch a lot of debates, read a lot of paradigms, look at a lot of research outside of debate, etc. i'll do my best to come to a good decision, but always err on the side of over explanation

6. disclosure is good.

policy specific:

t:

1. love a good t debate

2. limits > ground

3. "The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps” – Anirudh Prabhu

4. people don't do enough impact comparison and explanation of how their interp solves the other side's offense

5. i don't think T is automatically offense/defense but obviously can be persuaded otherwise

6. i really like emory gk vs minnesota pr ndt '22

k aff / fw:

1. do not try to resolve things you can't reasonably impact

2. i don't think i have a preference on clash, fairness, etc.

3. go for the impact turn sure, but id still prefer you make responses to das.

4. "The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable, or at the very least are typically poorly explained." -- maddie pieropan

5. "The 2NC and 2NR should spend time applying their impact filters to specific parts of aff offense. This can be made most effective by explaining your switch side argument on the impact turn you believe it resolves the best" -- Arnav Kashyap

6. turns case are good. clash is a prereq to actualizing the aff >>>>>>>>> assume the aff is false because we couldn't test it

7. not experienced in k v k debates; will need a lot of explanation and judge instruction if the neg k is not cap; i have no huge preferences on perm/no perm but the aff will need to do more than just saying "no perms in a method v method debate"

a. i also think alt distinction is important, no matter how big your link is

k v policy:

1. this is where i spend the most time thinking about debate outside of rounds

2. not super comfortable with pomo or stuff like that

3. i care about framework more than most i think, but general default is affirmatives get to weigh the aff but have to defend their epistemologies; recently a lot of judges are strongly against a middle ground-interpretation but i think i'm more amenable to that

4. please debate the case, unless you're way ahead on why you don't have to

5. make smart choices and go for the right stuff; f/w + link, link is a da + try or die for the alt. you get the idea

6. From Kenji Aoki: "I'm most persuaded by framework strategies that do one of three things:

1. attempt to just exclude the aff and win substantial impact turns to their model of plan focus/consequentialism,
2. limit the scope of aff solvency while enhancing the scope of alt solvency, or
3. are ditched in favor of more particular engagements on the link/impact/alt level of the kritik"

7. tricks are cool

da:

1. link specificity and contextualization is key

2. i generally like a good ptx da, but i'm not comfortable adjudicating debates around certain ptx theory

3. i don't really believe in "any risk of the link"

4. i typically thing impact turning is unhelpful here -- i'd prefer you spend your time on the link/uq level, particularly making arguments about which controls the other

5. turns case arguments are very persuasive when applied to the i/l's of the aff

cp:

1. imo affs let the neg get away with way too much on cps

2. that being said, i think functional pics are a great way to gain offense--especially if you have a well-researched and specific solvency advocate

3. the cp doesn't need to solve all of the aff and i often find solvency threshold debates trivial

4. adv cps often seem illogical -- but i like them and think they are super fun

5. the textual/functional model seems generally good to me

6. condo is mostly good, multi-actor fiat is mostly bad

7. consult and delay cps are probably bad

8. i will always default to judge kick unless convinced otherwise -- exception is i won't judge kick in order to vote on presumption

case:

1. underutilized

2. read the rehighlights

3. i feel pretty amenable to some new 1ar arguments

4. i love impact turn debates thanks to truman connor

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

pfd:

1. not experienced

2. i know plans aren't allowed, but depending on the topic, being pro can sound like advocating for one -- doesn't mean con can go for a cp

3. teams should always be reading some sort of framework for how i should evaluate the round

4. i will probably evaluate like a policy debate

ld:

1. not experienced here either

2. i think plans and cps are allowed?

3. I'll probably evaluate v/vc, ks, cps, etc. very similar to a policy round

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

things that boosts speaks:

1. being funny -- debate is supposed to be fun

2. well-organized docs

3. smart analytic arguments

4. clever rehighlightings

5. taking strategic risks

things that lower speaks:

1. being rude

2. being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. (probably an auto-L)

3. actively removing analytics

4. stealing prep

5. i keep seeing teams orally feed each other words in rebuttal speeches and it's getting excessive imo. it's hard to listen to two people talk at once. i'd rather the partner just tell me than say it and have their partner repeat it. write a block if you have to, but like... i think the 2xr should be able to expand on what the 1xr is trying to tell them on their own without having to be fed every single word

I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important --- eg, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded.

I'm a debate coach, and have been for nearly two decades. I've coached kids to state and nationals in a variety of events. I don't need all the technicalities explained to me, and I don't like debates about technicalities, jargon, etc. I want a good CONTENT debate, one that is centered on voting issues and sufficient and credible evidence to support claims. I have a bachelors in communication and a masters in educational psychology. I know a lot about research and research methods. Research is key.

What will win debates with me as a judge, 9 times out of 10, is HOW THE CONTENT IS COMMUNICATED. I want a debate that I can flow easily (which means you link all your arguments to your opponents'), and that I can see the development of arguments. I don't want repeat rebuttals where nothing is developed. I want the last speaker in the round to hone in on the 2-3 voting, essential items that should cause me to cast my ballot in their favor. I don't care about how many arguments you present; I want a solid, credible, an courteous debate.

Have some fun! Smile, we're all here together.

be nice to each other and try your best!